Delay in deciding appeal cannot be ground to grant lesser punishment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a High Court cannot grant disproportionate and inadequate punishment to accused merely because of the long delay in deciding the appeal [State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal and ors.].A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna further said that delay alone cannot be ground to not consider an appeal on merits."Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate," the Court said.Pertinently, the apex court said that High Courts must not dispose of criminal appeals in a cursory manner by adopting 'truncated methods' and the practice of adopting "shortcut" methods by High Courts to dispose of criminal appeals has to be deprecated."We have come across a number of judgments of different High Courts and it is found that in many cases the criminal appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods.....We deprecate such practice of disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts," the Court observed..The judgment came in an appeal against a 2015 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which while maintaining the conviction of respondent for the offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) had reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days)..In this case, the respondents were convicted for several offences under the Indian Penal Code and the respondent no. 1, Banwari Lal was convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307. The respondent was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment while the other accused though convicted, was given the benefit of probation. Banwari Lal filed a criminal appeal before the Rajasthan High Court seeking a reduction in sentence. The ground taken was that the crime happened 26 years ago when the convicts were young and now they are old persons. The High Court without giving any reasoning or considering the gravity of offence (attempt to murder) committed by the respondent, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him (44 days). The State then moved the top court by way of the present appeal..The delay of 1,880 days in filing the present appeal was condoned by the Supreme Court."Merely on the technical ground of delay and merely on the ground that after the impugned judgment and order, which is unsustainable, the accused have resettled in their lives and their conduct has since been satisfactory and they have not indulged in any criminal activity, is no ground not to condone the delay and not to consider the appeal on merits," the Court said..The apex court held that approach of the High Court in reducing the sentence of the convict from three years to mere 44 days was "most cavalier" and that judgment should be set aside."The judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence is nothing but an instance of travesty of justice and against all the principles of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions on imposing appropriate punishment/suitable punishment," the Supreme Court said..The Court noted that victim had severe injuries and the doctor had opined that the injuries suffered by him were sufficient to cause death. Therefore, in ordinary course, he should have been sentenced to 10 years of jail time, but the trail court took a lenient view while imposing the sentence, the Bench observed. "Therefore, as such, the trial court had already taken a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of only three years’ rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same," the apex court ruled..Merely because the trial went on for 26 years cannot be the sole ground for reducing the sentence of convict in such a grievous offence like attempt to murder, the apex court held. "Discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed proportionately and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed and by considering the principles for imposing sentence," the Bench emphasised. .The apex court, therefore, allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the sentence passed by the trial court.The respondent was ordered to surrender before the authorities and undergo the remaining imprisonment..[Read Judgment]