SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Wahid Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(Crl) 906 of 2022, Crl. M.A. No. 7644 of 2022 & 7645 of 2022
Decided On : 16-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. Sachin Mittal, ASC with SI Akhil Chaudhary., for the State`; Mr. Abhijit Shankar, Advocate. Law Officer Central Jail., for the Respondents No. 3 Tihar; Mr. Shrey Sharawat, Advocate., for the Respondents No. 3 UOI

Headnote:

The petitioner, Wahid Ahmed S/o Sh. Ismail Khan, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to FIR No.615/2005, PS Seelampur. The petitioner sought premature release, contending that he is a first-time offender, has a glorious academic background, is not a habitual offender, and does not pose a threat to society. The petitioner also highlighted his deteriorating medical condition and the emotional and financial dependency of his family on him. The Sentence Review Board (SRB) had rejected the petitioner's application for premature release, citing the perversity of the crime and the petitioner's exhortation to his sons to kill the deceased. The petitioner challenged the SRB's decision, arguing that the SRB failed to consider relevant factors, including his good conduct in jail, his age, and the recommendations of the Social Welfare Department.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Wahid Ahmed S/o Sh. Ismail Khan, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to FIR No.615/2005, PS Seelampur. The petitioner sought premature release, contending that he is a first-time offender, has a glorious academic background, is not a habitual offender, and does not pose a threat to society. The petitioner also highlighted his deteriorating medical condition and the emotional and financial dependency of his family on him. The Sentence Review Board (SRB) had rejected the petitioner's application for premature release, citing the perversity of the crime and the petitioner's exhortation to his sons to kill the deceased. The petitioner challenged the SRB's decision, arguing that the SRB failed to consider relevant factors, including his good conduct in jail, his age, and the recommendations of the Social Welfare Department.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner had been convicted for the commission of the murder of his daughter-in-law in furtherance of his common intention with his two sons, but the overt act actually committed by the petitioner was his exhortation to his sons to kill the deceased. The Court also noted that the petitioner was 77 years old, had a satisfactory conduct in jail, and had no previous adverse antecedents. The Court further observed that in similar circumstances, other inmates had been released before a period of 14 years of incarceration. Considering these factors, the Court allowed the petitioner's petition for premature release, subject to the payment of the fine imposed.

Issues: 1. Whether the Sentence Review Board (SRB) erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for premature release without considering relevant factors, including his good conduct in jail, his age, and the recommendations of the Social Welfare Department. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release considering his age, satisfactory conduct in jail, lack of propensity towards crime, and the fact that other inmates in similar circumstances have been granted premature release.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The SRB is required to consider all relevant factors, including the convict's conduct in jail, age, and the recommendations of the Social Welfare Department, while considering an application for premature release. 2. In appropriate cases, premature release may be granted to convicts who have demonstrated good conduct in jail, are of advanced age, and have no propensity towards crime, especially when other inmates in similar circumstances have been granted premature release.

Final Decision: The petition for premature release was allowed, subject to the payment of the fine imposed.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioner, Wahid Ahmed S/o Sh. Ismail Khan, vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, since convicted vide judgment dated 09.09.2010 in Sessions Case No.38/2009 of the Court of the learned ASJ, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, along with the co-convicts Mazhar-Ul-Islam and Jafar-Ul-Islam his sons, for the proved commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and who, vide the order on sentence dated 21.09.2010 has been sentenced along with two other convicts, his two sons, to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the fine imposed of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of the payment of the fine to undergo two months of Simple Imprisonment,- seeks direction for premature release in relation to FIR No.615/2005, PS Seelampur.

2. The appeals filed by the petitioner herein and his two sons Jafar-Ul-Islam and Mazahar-Ul-Islam, bearing numbers CRL.A.1310/2010, CRL.A.1311/2010 and CRL.A.1245/2010 against the conviction and order on sentence referred to hereinabove, were dismissed vide judgment dated 11.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.

3. The SLP filed by the petitioner herein and one co-convict bearing No. CRL.MP 8092-8093/2012 were dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. The review petitions filed by the petitioner herein and one co-convict seeking review of the order dated 02.04.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 336-337 of 2012.

5. The conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed vide judgment dated 09.09.2010 and order on sentence dated 21.09.2010 against the petitioner to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the fine imposed of Rs.2000/-, and in default of the payment of the fine to undergo two months of Simple Imprisonment, has thus attained finality till the learned Apex Court of this land. The deceased in this case was Smt. Shabana Anjum, wife of Mazhar-Ul-Islam, aged 29 years, and the daughter-in-law of the petitioner herein. The police was called into action on 11.10.2005 on receipt of a PCR call vide DD No. 14-A received at PS Seelampur of burning of a woman in House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi, whereupon SI Har Prasad PW-11 and Constable Surender Kumar PW-8 reached the spot, where they learned that the injured had been taken to the GTB Hospital by the PCR Van. The injured was found at the GTB Hospital and was indicated to have sustained about 60% to 65% burn injuries and was declared fit for statement, and her statement was recorded, wherein she stated to the effect:-

      'Statement of Smt. Shabana Anjum W/o. Mazhar-ul-Islam Aged about 29 years R/o. House No. 1312, Street No. 42, Jaffrabad, Delhi.

      I reside at the aforesaid address. I am a house wife. My marriage was solemnized about eleven years ago. I have two daughters namely Amreen and Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey aged about 9 and 5 years respectively. My husband was harassing me for the last several months and he used to leave the house leaving me alone in the house. On 11.10.2005 at about 3.20 p.m. I was present at my house and my both daughters were playing outside the room in the veranda. My husband and brother-in-law (Jeth) came down from the terrace. Without giving me a chance to take care of myself, my brother-in-law Jafar-ul-Islam poured the kerosene oil on me and my husband lit the match stick and threw the same on me as a result whereof my clothes caught fire. My father-inlaw Waheed Ahmad was exhorting to finish me today itself, actual words being 'Aaj Ise Khatam Kar do, Baad me main sab dekh loonga ye aurat aise manne wali nahin hai'. Both my daughters were als


                                                                                                                                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                                                                                                          1
                                                                                                                                          2
                                                                                                                                          3
                                                                                                                                          4
                                                                                                                                          5
                                                                                                                                          6
                                                                                                                                          7
                                                                                                                                          8
                                                                                                                                          9
                                                                                                                                          10
                                                                                                                                          11
                                                                                                                                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                                                                                                          supreme today icon
                                                                                                                                          logo-black

                                                                                                                                          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                                                                                                                          Please visit our Training & Support
                                                                                                                                          Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                                                                                                                          qr

                                                                                                                                          Scan Me!

                                                                                                                                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                                                                                                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                                                                                                          whatsapp-icon Back to top