A woman, in her 70s, who was convicted for the death of a relative, recently got judicial relief after the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered her to serve the sentence already undergone while observing that she had suffered incarceration and the ordeal of prolonged criminal proceedings spanning 46 years.
Justice Sanjay Parihar was hearing the appeal filed by Shameema Begum, a resident of Uri, who was convicted in 1979 for assaulting her mother-in-law and grandmother-in-law during a heated altercation. The grandmother-in-law sustained a head injury and succumbed to her injuries four days later.
Justice Sanjay Parihar said that the courts cannot remain oblivious to the harsh reality of the prolonged pendency of criminal cases. (Image is enhanced using AI)
“Considering that the offence was committed in a heat of passion without premeditation, that the appellant has suffered incarceration and the ordeal of prolonged proceedings for over 46 years, and that she is now about seventy years old with age-related infirmities, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the substantive sentence,” the court said.
The high court held that the “ends of justice” would be met by treating the sentence as “already undergone”, while imposing a fine of Rs 5,000, failing which Begum would have to undergo a three-month jail sentence.
Observing that the sentencing must strike a balance between “deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation”, the court noted that the absence of one defeats the purpose of the others.
Taking serious note of the fact that there was a delay of nearly sixteen years in finally hearing and deciding the appeal, Justice Parihar remarked that although delay cannot ordinarily benefit a convict, courts cannot remain oblivious to the harsh reality of the prolonged pendency of criminal cases, where accused persons remain entangled in the criminal justice system for decades.
“Sentencing, in the present context, must focus on reform and rehabilitation, enabling the offender to realise the wrong committed,” the order read.
In the present case, the Begum allegedly struck her mother-in-law with an axe, and when the grandmother-in-law intervened, she suffered a head injury and later died.
Begum was convicted under Section 304-II RPC (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs 2,000. She was also convicted under Section 324 RPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, with an additional six months in default.
The trial court noted, while passing the order in 2009, that the occurrence was not “premeditated” but arose in the heat of the moment when Begum was repeatedly asked to irrigate the maize fields.
Appearing for Begum, senior advocate S T Hussain argued that his client’s right to a speedy trial deserves sympathetic consideration, given the inordinate delay in the trial and disposal of the appeal.
Hussain further argued that his client is now in her seventies and suffers from serious vision issues, making it difficult for her to pursue the appeal in person. He also highlighted that she resides in a far-flung area of Uri in the Kashmir Valley and belongs to a modest “socio-economic” background.
Curated by Dr. Elena Rodriguez
