Bhagat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
- CitationAIRONLINE 2009 SC 308
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In sentencing an offender for attempt to commit murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, where the offender is of advanced age (approximately 80 years) and has already undergone substantial imprisonment, the ends of justice may be satisfied by reducing the sentence to the period already served, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Bhagat Singh .. Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 30th April,
2009 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital, rendered in Criminal
Appeal No. 590 of 2001. By the impugned order, the conviction of the appellant for
offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the award
of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years has been affirmed.
When the matter came up for motion hearing on 8th September, 2008, while
issuing notice only qua quantum of sentence, it was recorded that according to the
appellant he is a freedom fighter and at present aged about 90 years, sick and feeble.
In the affidavit, dated 22nd March, 2009 filed on behalf of the State, it is
stated that as per the extract of :2:
the family register as well as ration card, the age of the appellant is about 80 years.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and bearing in mind, the age of
the appellant, as verified by the State, we are of the view that in the instant case the
award of sentence for the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant
would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the
aforementioned offence, his sentence is modified to the period already undergone.
The appellant shall be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
...................J. [ D.K. JAIN ]
...................J. [ R.M. LODHA ]
NEW DELHI, MAY 08, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free