Srinagar May 15: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has upheld the trial court’s punishment of seven years and fine of Rs one lakh awarded to a man from south Kashmir’s Pulwama for “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” in 2015.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed an appeal against the verdict of Principal Sessions Judge Pulwam passed on May 9, 2015, by which on Nazir Ahmad Ganie, was convicted of offence under section 304 Part-II of RPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) while other two accused, Ghulam Ganaie and Maqbool Ganaie, were convicted of offence under Section 323 of RPC (voluntarily causing hurt) in connection with the death of a student, Danish Farooq alias Umar Farooq on 16 August 2011, due to attack with clubs. Charge for offence under Section 302 RPC (murder) was not established against the accused.
After hearing the counsel for Nazir Ahmad Ganie and government advocate, the court responded in negative to the only question to be determined in the appeal if there was any scope for interference in the quantum of sentence awarded by trial court against the appellant( Ganie).
“Coming to the facts of the instant case, the appellant has been convicted of causing death of a young student who must have been the only hope of his parents. A bright future was waiting in wings for the deceased but his life was cut short due to the act committed by the appellant, thereby leaving the parents of the young boy weeping and wailing for the rest of their lives,” the court said.
“Appellant is a mature person, therefore, even if there would have been strong reasons for him to attack the deceased, still then, having regard to the young age of the deceased, he should have desisted from giving a fatal blow to the deceased.”
The circumstances in which the crime has been committed by the appellant, the court said, do not warrant much leniency in the matter of imposing sentence upon him.
The Court noted that the trial court has been considerate enough in not awarding maximum punishment to the appellant and instead imprisonment of only seven years has been awarded against him.
The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the occurrence has taken place more than 11 years back and the appellant has faced trial for about four years and the present appeal was pending for the last more than six years. The appellants counsel had argued that these factors constitute good enough ground to reduce the sentence imposed upon the appellant.
“From the analysis of law, it is clear that mere protraction in trial or delay in decision of the appeal cannot be a ground for reducing the sentence, particularly when during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has been admitted to interim bail in terms of order dated 08.11.2016 and he continues to be on bail as on today,” the court said and directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court within a period of fifteen days for serving the balance sentence.