The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an 82-year-old man, convicted of murder, must return to jail, emphasizing that a life sentence is not limited by the convict’s age. This decision was made in the case of Babu Lal v. State, where the Division Bench, comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Jai Krishna Upadhyay, upheld Babu Lal’s conviction for the murder of his brother in 1984. The court rescinded the bail granted to him during his pending appeal.
The court acknowledged the unsettling nature of sending an elderly man back to prison after four decades. However, it emphasized its inability to reduce the sentence, as it lacks the special powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. ‘The fact that the appellant would have to go back to jail after 40 years, no doubt, disturbs this Court but this Court, not being vested with powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot do otherwise but send the appellant now back to jail to complete the remaining part of his life sentence,’ the Court stated.
Lal had requested the High Court to consider his advanced age and reduce his sentence to the time already served. His counsel argued that Lal had already spent approximately five years in prison before being granted bail. Despite this, the court concluded that without grounds for altering his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to a lesser charge of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II, sentence reduction was not possible.
The Bench found no evidence of mitigating circumstances such as grave provocation or a sudden fight that could justify a lesser charge. ‘That, unfortunately, is an impossibility for this Court,’ the judges remarked, denying the plea for sentence reduction.
The case stems from the murder of Babu Lal’s brother, Ganga, on March 25, 1984. The prosecution alleged that Lal attacked Ganga with a sabri, an iron agricultural tool, striking him multiple times on the head and causing his immediate death. Lal also attacked Ganga’s wife during the incident. A sessions court convicted Lal in October 1984 under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and an additional year for causing hurt.
More Read
In his appeal, Lal contended that the prosecution failed to prove his intent to kill, given that the weapon used was an agricultural tool rather than a conventional weapon. He also criticized the prosecution’s decision not to call the deceased’s sister, who allegedly disarmed him, as a witness. The High Court dismissed these arguments, reasoning that the prosecution is not obliged to present every witness listed if the existing evidence suffices. The Bench found the testimonies of Ganga’s wife and daughter credible and corroborated by the post-mortem report. The court ruled that the nature and severity of the assault indicated an intention to murder, notwithstanding the type of weapon used.
The court dismissed Lal’s appeal, directing him to surrender immediately. It warned of issuing non-bailable warrants should he fail to comply. Senior Advocate DP Singh, assisted by Advocate VS Chauhan, represented Babu Lal, while Additional Government Advocate Divya Ojha represented the State.
