The Bombay High Court ordered to release of a man who was sentenced to 83 years in jail when it noted that he was convicted after pleading guilty in 41 theft cases before trial courts since he was not able to afford a lawyer.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse noted that the petitioner was 21 years old when booked in 38 cases and he was a juvenile when he was booked in 3 cases. Besides, he had already spent 9 years in prison.
The judgment stated, “All except 3 offences pertain to the period 2014 to 2015. As noted above, it appears that the petitioner could not afford to engage a lawyer having regard to his financial condition and hence pleaded guilty in all the 41 cases.”
The Court was hearing a writ petition by one Aslam Salim Shaikh seeking a direction that his sentences in all 41 cases should run concurrently. He also requested to put away the fine of Rs 1,26,400 imposed on him in the cases by various courts.
According to the petitioner, after getting arrested in a case in 2014, he was falsely implicated in other cases. And he couldn’t afford a lawyer for him since he had some financial limitations and was illiterate and unfamiliar with the court proceedings and complexities of the law.
As a result, he pleaded guilty to all charges made against him believing that he would be released from prison for the time he had already served as an undertrial prisoner.
The Court noted that although some cases were pending before the same court, no direction was given to run the sentences concurrently.
As such, it found that the court before whom there was a pendency of more than one case, hadn’t lived up to their exercise of discretion and failed drastically.
Moreover, the Court also took into note that the petitioner was neither defended by any advocate nor got any legal aid from any court.
Even the petitioner had asked trial courts to show some leniency in his cases on the ground that he came from a poor family and he was the sole bread-earner of his family but all these factors were subsided by the trial courts, the High Court observed.
Furthermore, the Court also noted that out of those 41 cases, 3 of them were from the time when the petitioner was a minor and also found that the courts also hadn’t looked into these dates.
The Court underlined that the sentencing policy in criminal jurisprudence mandates courts to pass sentences without subsiding its primary twin objects of deterrence and reformation.
The Court also noted that if the petitioner is forced undergo imprisonment due to his inability to pay the fine amount, he would spend 93 years and 5 months in prison, which is more than a life convict undergoes for murder.
The Court stated, “If permitted, this would certainly lead to the travesty of justice. Being alive to this reality, we cannot permit this miscarriage of justice.”
It noted that the petitioner had already undergone over 9 years of imprisonment and had turned 30 from 21 during the time.
On thoroughly examining the FIRs, the Court found that they were filed against unknown persons and that if the trial had run it probably would have resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner due to the absence of sufficient evidence. It also recorded that the trial courts failed to consider that the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law in three actual cases against him.
Taking such aspects into consideration, the Court allowed the petition. Along with that it also ordered to release of the petitioner in all 41 cases.
Advocate Gazala R Shaikh represented the petitioner. While Assistant Public Prosecutor PP Shinde appeared for the State.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-orders-release-man-sentenced-83-years-in-jail-afford-lawyer