MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sample was taken on 16.11.1983 whereas the case was put up for trial in January 1984 before the Magistrate. He remained in trial before the learned Magistrate for more than 13 years when unfortunately he was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 20.1.1997. The petitioner went in appeal to the court of Session. He remained in appeal before the court of Session for two years, and thereafter his appeal was dismissed on 3.3.1999. Petitioner has thus faced the ordeal of trial for 15 years. It has been submitted that right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his right or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The scope of this article has been considered which covers the case of the right to have a speedy trial. A speedy trial is said to be the essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under the Constitution. The accused faced threat of conviction for more than 13 years in the Court of learned Magistrate. He was convicted. Thereafter, he filed appeal. He had to wait for more than two years till the appeal was dismissed on 3.3.1999. Thereafter, he filed this revision. He has thus been facing the ordeal of litigation for the last 15 years. He was under the agony and pressure of conviction and sentence for all these 15 years. In support of this submission that this Court should deal with the person leniently in the matter of sentence in view of the fact that the ordeal of litigation has been hanging on his head like a democlean sword for the last 15 years, he drew my attention to Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 125 where it has held that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon conviction is prescribed by statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Similar view was taken in Sat Pal v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR 75.

(2.) IT is true that this fact can be taken into account in awarding lesser sentence than the minimum prescribed that the ordeal of this case has been hanging on his head like a democlean sword for the last 15 years. In this case, therefore, I feel that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner should be reduced. Conviction is maintained but the sentence is reduced to R.I. for three months. Sentence of fine together with default clause shall remain. Subject to reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.