Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Supreme Court Shows Leniency, Grants Probation to 62-year-old Woman Convicted for Obstructing Public Servants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India exhibited leniency in its sentencing by granting probation to a 62-year-old woman, Razia Khan, who was convicted for offences under Sections 333, 353, and 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, Criminal Appeal No. 2259 of 2023, had been closely watched by legal experts due to the appellant's age and the passage of over thirty years since the incident occurred.

In the judgment delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, the Court considered the nature of the offence and various factors surrounding the case. The appellant, who claimed to be a social worker and a member of a political party, was found guilty of misbehaving with a public servant (PW-1) and obstructing her and another public servant (PW-6) from discharging their official duties during an incident that took place on 1st December 1992.

The Court took note of the prolonged trial and appeal period, during which the appellant had been out on bail. Justice Oka emphasized, "Considering the nature of the offence, we are of the view that the appellant deserves to be shown leniency when it comes to the substantive sentence."

Accordingly, the Court decided to grant the appellant the benefit of probation, taking into account her age and the absence of any objectionable activity during the extended trial period. The sentences for the three offences were modified as follows:

  1. For the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of ₹30,000 within one month.
  2. For the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC, the appellant was fined ₹20,000 within one month.
  3. For the offence punishable under Section 451 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of ₹25,000 within one month.

The Court ordered that in default of payment of the fines, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

The judgment, delivered on 3rd August 2023, has sparked discussions among legal circles about the appropriate balance between showing leniency and ensuring justice is served in cases involving elderly convicts with no previous criminal record. The Court's decision to grant probation in this case highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances and the passage of time in determining suitable sentencing.

As part of the fine amount, ₹25,000 will be paid to the injured witness, PW-1 Ms. Sajni Batra, by way of compensation, while the remaining fine will go to the State.

The Court granted the appellant one month to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the sentences. This judgment stands as a notable example of the Indian judiciary's commitment to administering justice with compassion and sensitivity towards unique case scenarios.

Date of Decision: August 3, 2023

Razia Khan vs The State of M.P.             

Latest Legal News