SHAFIQ @ GHAYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SHAFIQ @ GHAYAL
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA,J. -
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted before the Court that he does not want to argue the appeal on merits but he has only prayed mercy of this Court on the quantum of sentence, so awarded by the trial court. In the instance case, the trial court has found the appellant/accused Shaqil guilty for the offence of Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of the same, to undergo six months' additional R.I. The appellant/ accused was further convicted u/s 4/25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which, he was directed to undergo three months' additional R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant has apprised the Court that the convict Shafiq was arrested on 23.12.1997 and during trial, he remained in caption, all along, till the pronouncement of the judgment on 8.1.1999 and even thereafter, till the bail was granted by the Allahabad High Court on 24.9.1999. It is not available on record that when the appellant got submitted his bail bonds and was released from the gaol. Even if the date Rs.24.9.1999' is taken into consideration, this way the accused remained in captivity for one year, nine months and three days. Now, during pendency of this appeal before the Court, the appellant was got arrested on 17.10.2011 in compliance of the non-bailable warrants directed to be issued by this Court against him, and as such, he is in caption till date. Thus, he is in jail for eight months and eighteen days. This way, the total period of incarceration of the appellant comes out to two years, five months and twenty-one days till date. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries inflicted by the accused upon the body of victim, the Court feels that the reduction of sentence from seven years to three years will serve the ends of justice. So, the sentence of seven years, awarded by the trial court for the offence of Section 307 IPC is reduced to three years' R.I., but the fine is left intact. The punishment awarded by the trial for the offence of Sectio /25 of the Arms Act is also left as such. Both the sentences would be reckoned concurrently. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant apprised that even after passing out of the bail order by the Court on 24.9.1999, this appellant was released much later from the gaol but since the bail bonds are not available on the record, this period cannot be counted for by the Court. If that be so, the jail authorities will take care to reckon the period, if the details are so available on the record. However, it is made clear that the period already spent by the appellant/accused, under incarceration, shall also be adjusted after verifying the records.
The appeal is thus, dismissed on merits but partly allowed on the question of sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for compliance.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.