Bombay High Court orders release of man who was sentenced to 83 years in jail after he couldn't afford lawyer

A man sentenced to 83 years in jail was directed to be released by the Bombay High Court after it noted that he was convicted after pleading guilty in 41 theft cases before trial courts since he could not afford a lawyer [Aslam Salim Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr.].A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse noted that the petitioner was 21 years old when he was booked in 38 cases and he was a juvenile when he was booked in 3 cases. Besides, he had already spent 9 years in prison. "All except 3 offences pertain to the period 2014 to 2015. As noted above, it appears that the petitioner could not afford to engage a lawyer having regard to his financial condition and hence pleaded guilty in all the 41 cases," the judgment said.It further observed that a jail sentence should have not only a deterrent aim but also a reformative aim so that the offender is not demoralised and he is afforded an opportunity to improve himself.The Court thus stressed that any sentence imposed by courts must maintain a proper balance between the deterrent and reformative objects of sentencing policy. "The sentence of imprisonment should also have a reformative aim, inasmuch as, it should not demoralize the offender and in fact, the offender should be given an opportunity depending on the nature of offence to improve himself. Thus, any sentence imposed by any Courts must maintain a proper balance between the deterrent and reformative objects of a sentencing policy and must ensure that the said object is sufficiently met," the Court said..The Court was hearing a writ petition by one Aslam Salim Shaikh seeking a direction that his sentences in all 41 cases run concurrently. He also sought setting aside of the fine of ₹1,26,400 imposed by the various courts in the cases.According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in the cases after being arrested in one case in 2014. Being illiterate and unfamiliar with the complexities of the law and due to financial constraints, he couldn't afford a lawyer.As a result, he pleaded guilty to all charges believing that he would be released from prison for the time he had already served as an undertrial prisoner..The Court noted that although some of the cases were pending before the same court, there was no direction for the sentences to run concurrently. As such, it found that the courts before whom there was more than one case pending, had failed to exercise their discretion.Further, the Court noted that the petitioner was neither defended by any advocate nor offered legal aid by any court..The petitioner had asked trial courts to show leniency on the ground that he belonged to a poor family that was dependent on him but these factors were not considered by the trial courts, the High Court observed. Further, it noted that 3 of the 41 cases were from when the petitioner was a minor and found that these dates were also not looked into by the courts..The Court underlined that the sentencing policy in criminal jurisprudence mandates courts to pass sentences to meet its primary twin objects of deterrence and reformation. It noted that if the petitioner is forced undergo imprisonment given his inability to pay the fine amount, he would spend 93 years and 5 months in prison, more than a life convict undergoes for murder."If permitted, this would certainly lead to travesty of justice. Being alive to this reality, we cannot permit this miscarriage of justice," the Court said..The Court noted that the petitioner had undergone more than 9 years of imprisonment and had turned 30 years old from 21 during that time.On examining the first information reports (FIRs), the Court found that they were lodged against unknown persons and that trial probably would have led to the petitioner's acquittal for want of evidence. It also recorded that the trial courts failed to consider that the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with law in three cases.Considering these aspects, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner in all 41 cases.Advocate Gazala R Shaikh appeared for the petitioner.Assistant Public Prosecutor PP Shinde appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]