Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is the further argument of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the incident happened in the year 1983 and long 40 years has already been elapsed; the appellant has suffered immense mental agony during the pendency of the Criminal Trial as well as the instant appeal. Thus at this juncture in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayek right to speedy trial of the present appellant and long pendency of the present appeals need be considered. He further argued that the appellant has already suffered conviction during the course of investigation inquiry and trial so at this juncture he may be released from all the charges.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state submitted that total 8 persons were arrayed as an accused in this case. Charge was framed u/s 148 and 307/149 IPC. All the accused persons were acquitted from this case except the present appellant. Conviction of the present appellant was recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, u/s 307 IPC. The conviction is specifically supported by the evidence of prosecution, the statement of eye witnesses as well as the statement of injured and the statement of doctor corroborates each other. The intention to kill the injured was very much there as it reveal from the statement of the doctor. It would be revealed from the statement of I.O. that the Pashni (sharp cutting weapon) was seized during the course of investigation of this case. He further pointed out that the appellant is all along on bail so he cannot plea for his mental agony during the long pendency of the instant appeal. So, he prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

During the course of argument Learned Advocate for the petitioner cited several judgments wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has converted the sentences of grievous offences to the punishment of minimum offences wherein the mitigating factors was the age of the appellant and long pendency of the appeal.

(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 309 [K. RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA] Penal Code, 1860- S. 304 Pt. II- Sentence under - Case coming up before Supreme Court a long period of over 13 years after the occurrence- Accused was on bail under Supreme Court's order and had already undergone sentence for about four years- In such circumstances, sentence limited to the period already undergone- Criminal Trial- Sentence- Mitigating factors - Delay in final disposal of appeal.