IQBAL Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001280-001280 / 2018
Diary number: 20227 / 2018
Advocates: DANISH ZUBAIR KHAN Vs
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1280 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8855 OF 2018]
[DIARY NO. 20227 OF 2018]
IQBAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
4. The appellant has been convicted under Sections
399 and 402 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in
ST No. 153 of 1984 and ST No. 154 of 1984. He was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of
four years.
5. The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the
District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. The
2
appellant filed a Revision before the High Court. As
per the impugned order dated 20.11.2014, the Revision
has been dismissed. It is seen from the Judgment
that none appeared on behalf of the appellant in the
High Court. The appellant has given in detail the
circumstances which led to the absence of his counsel
before the High Court.
6. Be that as it may, the incident is of the year
1980. The appellant was a young boy at that time.
Taking note of that aspect, we directed the State to
ascertain the antecedents of the appellant and his
conduct in jail. The Superintendent of District
Jail, Shahjahanpur, has reported that his conduct has
been satisfactory. In the affidavit filed on behalf
of the State, it is stated that to the best of their
inquiry, the appellant is not involved in any other
criminal case.
7. Having regard to the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly taking note
of the fact that the incident is of 1980, when the
appellant was a young boy and that there is no other
criminal case against him, we are of the view that
the sentence should be limited to the period already
undergone. Ordered accordingly.
8. The appeal is allowed as above. The appellant
3
shall be released forthwith in case he is not
otherwise required to be detained in any other case.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ S. ABDUL NAZEER ]
New Delhi; October 11, 2018.