The present case clearly depicts how much a victim has to fight as well as suffer to get justice. It took 3 decades to put accused behind the bars so that justice can prevail. The case is the criminal appeal filed against the appellant (Ashi Devi & Ors) by the respondent, state (NCT of Delhi). The case was heard by the double bench including Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice C. Nagappan. The appellants were represented by the senior counsel, Shri Ashok Kumar Panda while the respondent, the state is represented by the senior counsel, Shri K. Radhakrishnan. The judgment was given by the apex Court on 9 June 2014.
Facts
The facts as well as the case revolve around the Riots of 1984. Two months prior to the riots, Smt. Prakash Kaur (PW11) and Mr. Jagjit Singh had a crockery shop but after the riots, the accused looted and occupied the shop on 20.11.1984. When Prakash Kaur visited the shop, she found that the accused is in the possession of the shop. She also complained to the police about the same but the police did not register the case. It is only after the Jain Aggarwal Committee took steps for this incident and filed affidavits regarding the occurrence an FIR was registered in 1993 and a chargesheet was filed. Riot Commission also conducted the inquiry and issued directions for registering the case; thereafter, cognizance was taken.
Law Point
This case consists of various sections of the Indian Penal Code, of 1860
- Section 147- the section prescribes punishment for rioting.
- Section 395 – this section prescribes punishment for dacoity.
- Section 448- this section prescribes punishment for house- trespass
- Section 149 – this section says that every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in the prosecution of common object is guilty of that offence.
- Section 379 – this section prescribes punishment for theft.
- Section 34 –talks about acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Issues
- Whether delay in lodging F.I.R will be held reason for dismissal of case?
Arguments by appellants
The learned senior counsel, Shri Ashok Kumar Panda, contended that there was a delay of 9 years in lodging the F.I.R. and there was no testimony to the occurrence of the incident.
Arguments by Respondents
Shri K. Radhakrishna, senior counsel argued that the incident took place after the unfortunate assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her own Sikh bodyguards. That is why the Sikh community became the target of assault throughout the country especially in the capital.
Judgment
When the matter went to the trial court, the trial court found all the 7 accused guilty under
- section 379 read with 34 – for the offense under these sections the court gave 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2500
and
- section 448 read with 34 – for the offense under these sections the court gave 1-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000
both the above sentences will run concurrently. The trial court also found that the accused trespassed the shop by breaking open the locks and looting the goods. All 7 convicts challenged their convictions and sentences given to them to the High Court by filing appeals. But the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and the HC passed an order dated 8.12.2004 and also directed S.H.O. to remove the accused from the premises.
As a last resort, the accused filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Court held that the delay has been reasonably & satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and delay itself cannot be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the prosecution case. Also, the apex court reduced the punishment of Ashi Devi due to the age factor as when she was admitted to Tihar Jail her age was 93 years. But the punishment for other appellants shall remain unaltered.
written by- Geasu Sharma, Amity University, Noida, IVth semester intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments