Ahsan & Ors Vs State Of UP: Benefits Under Section 57 Of The Ipc Can’t Be Regarded Only Based On 18 Years Of Imprisonment

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
25/02/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL AND JUSTICE MR. OM PRAKASH – VII

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: AHSAN AND OTHERS
RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P

SUBJECT

The Allahabad High Court held that the benefit afforded under Section 57 of Indian Penal Code cannot be awarded to the petitioners solely because they had been in prison for almost 18 years.

OVERVIEW

1. According to the FIR, Ahsan, Naushey, Ahmad Hasan, Abdul Hasan, and Sher Ali, who were the petitioners, assassinated a man named Abrar, and after being investigated, they were condemned under sections 147, 148, and 302/149 IPC and were given a life sentence for the crime.
2. According to the facts of the case, all the petitioners, equipped with guns, stood in front of Abrar, pulled him from his motorbike, and aimed at him and shot him with their various weapons with the purpose to kill, which ended in Abrar's death at that very moment.
3. The prosecution was able to confirm the day, date, time, and location of the occurrence without having a shadow of a doubt.
4. The Court further noted that the key witnesses during the hearing corroborated the fact of gratuitous shooting on the dead, and that the autopsy report revealed the amount of gun - related deaths located on the deceased's body.
5. Pertaining to medical findings, the Court noted that the head doctor of the autopsy report had also asserted that the damages discovered on the victim's torso had occurred in the way and fashion described by the eyewitnesses, and that dying of the dead person could have occurred at the time specified in the written report.
6. Indicating the existence of eyewitnesses at the scene of the incident, the Court determined that the attendance of the accused at the scene of the incident cannot be questioned.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 57 OF THE IPC – FRACTIONS OF TERMS OF PUNISHMENT

ISSUES

Whether the prisoner can avail the benefit of Section 57 of IPC merely because he has been in the prison for 18 years?

JUDGEMENT

1. The Court observed that both the appellants were indeed at the scene of the crime. Thereafter, the court considered their remarks that the crime took place due to old animosity and pending litigation between the sides, and also the notion that the prosecution had proven the very same beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, thus, arrived at the conclusion that the crime was committed by the petitioners due to animosity revealed in the First Information Report.
2. The Court also stated that the trial court's decision concerning the restoration of country-made revolvers to point to the petitioners Abdul Hassan and Sher Ali could not be questioned as the discovery of the revolver was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence was also backed, to some degree, by the FSL Report.
3. Resultantly, after contemplating all details of the subject and the situations in which the crime occurred, the Court ruled that the trial court's infringed judgement and command were well considered and debated and that the trial court had correctly retained that the prosecution had proven the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The Court ruled that the petitioners cannot claim benefit under section 57 of IPC simply because they had been incarcerated for nearly 18 years in this case.
5. It Court noted that under Section 57 of the IPC, a conviction of life imprisonment is supposed to be regarded as comparable to a term of prison sentence for twenty years for computing fractions of terms of severity of punishment.
6. As a result, the petitioners' claim was dismissed for lack of merit, and the challenged judgement and decision condemning and punishing the alleged was upheld.

CONCLUSION

After considering the facts and details of the case, Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Om Prakash VII disregarded the claims made by the petitioners' lawyer that they may be discharged under Section 57 IPC because they had previously served 18 years in prison. The Court ruled that they were ineligible for the benefit under section 57 IPC simply because they had been incarcerated for nearly 18 years in the case.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement