Why Allahabad HC sent an 82-year-old man back to jail after 40 years

The Allahabad High Court recently directed an 82-year-old murder convict to return to jail after ruling that a life sentence cannot be reduced to the period already undergone merely because of the convict’s advanced age [Babu Lal v. State].

A Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Jai Krishna Upadhyay upheld Babu Lal’s conviction for murdering his brother in 1984 and cancelled the bail granted to him during the pendency of his appeal.

“The fact that the appellant would have to go back to jail after 40 years, no doubt, disturbs this Court but this Court, not being vested with powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot do otherwise but send the appellant now back to jail to complete the remaining part of his life sentence,” the Court said.

Lal had urged the High Court to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone since he was now 82. His counsel submitted that Lal had spent approximately 5 years in prison before being released on bail.

The Court, however, said that such a reduction was impossible unless there were grounds to alter his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.

It found no evidence of grave and sudden provocation, a sudden fight or any other mitigating circumstance that would justify such an alteration.

“That, unfortunately, is an impossibility for this Court,” the Bench said while rejecting the request to reduce the sentence.

The case arose from the murder of Lal’s brother, Ganga, on March 25, 1984. According to the prosecution, Lal concealed a sabri - an iron agricultural tool used for digging - approached Ganga from behind and repeatedly struck him on the head. Ganga died on the spot. Lal also attacked Ganga’s wife when she tried to intervene.

A sessions court convicted Lal under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC in October 1984. It sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and one year’s rigorous imprisonment for causing hurt.

Before the High Court, Lal argued that the prosecution had failed to establish an intention to kill since the object used in the assault was an agricultural implement and not a conventional weapon. He also questioned the prosecution’s failure to examine the deceased’s sister, who had allegedly disarmed him after the attack.

The High Court rejected both arguments. It held that the prosecution was not required to examine every witness named in the chargesheet when the evidence presented before the trial court was sufficient to prove guilt.

The Bench found that the testimonies of Ganga’s wife and daughter were consistent and were supported by the post-mortem report. It also ruled that an intention to commit murder could not be ruled out merely because the object used was not ordinarily considered a weapon. The manner and ferocity of the assault established an intention to cause death, it concluded.

The Court dismissed the appeal and directed Lal to surrender forthwith. It ordered the concerned court to issue non-bailable warrants if he failed to surrender.

Senior Advocate DP Singh, assisted by Advocate VS Chauhan, represented Lal.

Additional Government Advocate Divya Ojha appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]