Benefit of Section 57IPC Not Available Merely On Ground Of Being In Jail For 18 Yrs: Allahabad HC Dismisses Murder Convicts' Appeal

Upholding the life imprisonment sentence of 5 convicts in connection with a 2003 murder case, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the benefit provided under section 57 IPC cannot be extended to the appellants merely on the ground that they are languishing in jail for about 18 years.

Having analyzed the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Om Prakash VII disagreed with the argument of the counsel for the appellants that they could be released by taking recourse to the Section 57 IPC as they have already suffered 18 years of imprisonment.

The Court held that the benefit provided under section 57 IPC cannot be extended to them merely on the ground that they are languishing in jail in this matter for about 18 years.

It may be noted that as per Section 57 of IPC, in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, the sentence of 'imprisonment for life' is treated to be equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years.

The facts in brief 

As per the FIR in the matter, one Abrar was murdered by Ahsan, Naushey, Ahmad Hasan, Abdul Hasan, and Sher Ali (all the appellants herein) and after being tried, they were convicted under sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC and sentenced for offence under section 302/149 IPC to imprisonment for life.

Essentially, all the appellants, armed with firearms, appeared in front of Abrar, dragged him from his motorcycle, and with common intention, all of them fired upon him with their respective firearms with intention to kill, which resulted into the death of Abrar on the spot.

High Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that the prosecution was able to prove the date, time, and place of the incident beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further noted that the fact regarding indiscriminate fire upon the deceased was supported by the prosecution witnesses during the trial, and that the postmortem report also showed that the number of firearm injuries were found on the body of the deceased.

Regarding the medical evidence, the Court observed that the doctor concerned, who conducted the postmortem, had also opined that injuries found on the body of the deceased have come in the manner and style as stated by the prosecution witnesses and death of the deceased could take place at the time mentioned in the written report.

Regarding the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident, the Court found that the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the place of occurrence can not be doubted.

Once the court came to the conclusion that PW1 and PW2 were in fact present at the place of the incident, the Court took into account their statements that the incident was committed due to old enmity and litigation pending between the parties, and further noted that the same had been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, concluded that the murder was committed by the appellants due to enmity disclosed in the first information report and as stated by the prosecution witnesses.

Further, the Court also opined that the finding arrived at by the trial court regarding recovery of country-made pistols on pointing out of the appellants Abdul Hassan and Sher Ali cannot be doubted, because, the Court found, this fact had been proved by the prosecution from their evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is also supported to some extent with the FSL Report.

Consequently, considering entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, under which the offence had been committed, the Court came to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court was well thought and well discussed and the trial court had rightly held that prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Thus, the Appeal filed by the appellants, finding no merit, was dismissed, and impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing accused-appellants was confirmed.

Case Title - Ahsan And Others v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 82

Click here To Read/Download Judgment