ISMILE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE next submission of the Counsel for the appellant, was to the effect, that the appellant had already undergone four years one month and 14 days sentence, during the period of trial, and after conviction and his sentence be reduced to the period, he had already undergone. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant does not merit acceptance. The accused committed a very heinous offence, by abducting a minor child of Lakhmi Kant Sahu, for ransom. In this view of the matter, the trial Court, in my opinion, was right in awarding him sentence for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC for a period of 5 years and for the offence punishable under Section 386 IPC, for a period of four years. The sentence awarded to the accused by the trial Court was commensurate with the offence committed by him. No ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, by the appellant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

(2.) IT may be stated here, that vide order dated 31.3.1997 the Court treated the revision petition, on its own motion, and ordered the issuance of notice to the appellant, as to why the sentence awarded, by the trial Court, be not enhanced to the maximum prescribed for the offence. As stated above, this order was passed on 31.3.1997. Now it is 2008. A period of about 11 years has already elapsed, since the Court passed the order. The appellant has suffered the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings, for the last 14 years, as he was arrested on 27.2.1994. Much water has flown under the bridges, since 31.3.1997, the date when the order for issuance of show cause notice, for enhancement of sentence to the appellant, was passed. In my opinion, after the lapse of 14 years from the date of arrest of the appellant-accused, and about 11 years since 31.3.1997, it would operate very harsh to him, if the sentence awarded, is enhanced to the maximum at this stage. No ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the enhancement of sentence. The revision petition, treated by the Court, on its own motion, for enhancement of sentence, therefore, does not merit acceptance, and deserves to be dismissed.