Sanjay Babu Lal vs The State Of Haryana
- Neutral2023 INSC 994
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution may condone substantial and inordinate delay in filing a review petition where the petitioner is incarcerated and has been confined to jail throughout the delayed period. In a review petition challenging a conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the court may decline to interfere with the conviction itself where the evidence, including photographic exhibits and medical evidence on record, supports the conviction, even if the court would not independently have arrived at the same conclusion. Where a conviction is affirmed but the sentence appears excessive in light of the circumstances of the case—including the age of the incident, the personal circumstances of the convict (such as having a differently-abled dependent), and the length of incarceration already undergone—the court may exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already served, rather than maintaining the original sentence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
SANJAY BABU LAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
As the petitioner – Sanjay Babu Lal is confined to jail, delay of 1606 days in filing the review petition is condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 31.08.2018 is recalled and SLP(Crl.) no. 7528/2018 stands restored to its original number and file.
Leave granted in SLP(Crl.) no. 7528/2018.
We have perused the trial Court records with reference to the statement of Lt. Col. (Dr.) T.S. Bhatti (PW-11), the statement made by the appellant – Sanjay Babu Lal under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as also, Exhibits PQ (Medical Case Sheet), PR (Proceedings of Medico-legal case) and PV (Site Plan).
We have also perused the photographs, which are marked as Exhibits PC to PE.
Having regard to the aforesaid photographs, we do not think that the appellant – Sanjay Babu Lal has made out a case for acquittal. We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of RP(Crl.) Diary No. 8152/2023 in SLP(Crl.) No. 7528/2018 1 the appellant – Sanjay Babu Lal for the offences punishable under Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 18601.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, including the factum that the appellant – Sanjay Babu Lal has a differently-abled son and the incident is of the year 2002, we are inclined to reduce the punishment awarded to the appellant –
Sanjay Babu Lal from that of life imprisonment, to imprisonment for the period already undergone, which is ten years and nine months approximately as on 03.10.2023. However, the appellant – Sanjay Babu Lal will pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), and in default whereof, he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. On payment of fine/default sentence, the appellant – Sanjay Babu Lal will be released immediately, if not required to be detained in jail in any other case.
The sentence awarded under Section 498A of the IPC is maintained. Sentences will run concurrently.
The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..................J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
..................J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 08, 2023.
1 In short, ‘IPC’.
RP(Crl.) Diary No. 8152/2023 in SLP(Crl.) No. 7528/2018 2
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