‘He is over 60’: Allahabad High Court lowers former constable’s jail term in 1985 case

The July 27 ruling further noted that the accused was serving as a police constable in Bareilly and had allegedly left his headquarters for his hometown, where he committed the offence. He was stated to be clad in his police uniform, without permission, when he allegedly injured a person.

Justice Santosh Rai was of the view that the gravity of the offence, nature and extent of the injuries were ‘weighty’ considerations in determining the sentence.

According to the FIR, registered on August 21, 1984, at around 6.45 am, the victim, stated to be a spiritual ascetic or a peer baba, was going to offer prayers along with his disciples when he was “caught by the accused”. The former policeman was allegedly carrying a knife when he landed blows on the victim. The FIR was filed the same day, and the trial court later convicted the accused on the charge of attempt to murder under the relevant legal provisions and sentenced him to six years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Questions were raised by the defence on the place where the crime took place.

‘Pending for 41 years’

The judgment, however, said that the crime had occurred on a busy public road and it was neither “unnatural” nor “sufficient” to discredit the rest of the evidence and statements of witnesses. Dealing with the contention that the accused was of unsound mind, the court said that the submission couldn’t be accepted for want of evidence. The conviction of the man was therefore upheld.

The high court further observed that the convict’s age was over 60 years, and the case had been pending in the high court for 41 years to no fault of the convict. Balancing the time spent in litigation with the “gravity” of the offence, the court was of the view that the sentence given by the trial court required to be modified in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the sentence of the convict was reduced to four years of rigorous imprisonment from six years and a fine of Rs 40,000. The court directed Rs 35,000 towards compensation for the victim while ordering the convict to surrender within two weeks for serving the rest of the sentence.

‘No doubt’

Advocate Syed Wajid Ali and Sudhir Agarwal, appearing for the convict, argued that the eyewitnesses were disciples and close associates of the injured man and were biased and interested. The counsel also submitted that the defense of unsoundness of mind must have been considered for the benefit of the accused. It was further urged that the sentence given was excessive having regard to the convict’s age and the number of years for which the case had been pending.

Advocate VC Tewari, appearing for the prosecution, supported the judgment of the trial court and said that the statement of the injured man was consistent with that of the two independent eyewitnesses. It was also submitted that the recovery of the weapon and uniform from the convict, and the medical evidence left no doubt that the convict was guilty.