In a striking example of delayed justice, the Supreme Court of India has presented a 67-year-old man with a difficult choice: serve a life sentence or spend seven years in jail for a crime committed in 1979. The case involves Hari Shankar Rai, who was involved in a violent clash between student factions at LokManya Inter College in Deoria district, Uttar Pradesh. The incident resulted in the death of 19-year-old Krishna Kumar, who succumbed to stab wounds on December 14, 1979.
The legal proceedings have been protracted, spanning over four decades. In 1983, a trial court initially found Rai guilty under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to four years in prison. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the state appealed to the Allahabad High Court, seeking Rai's conviction for murder. It took the High Court 41 years to decide on the appeal. In May of last year, the High Court overturned the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to convict Rai under Section 302 of the IPC, which pertains to murder, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Rai subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the appeal. The Supreme Court acknowledged that even if Rai's conviction were altered from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I, a mere four-year sentence would be insufficient. CJI Gavai emphasized that a life had been lost and the punishment should be adequate.
Rai's counsel pleaded for leniency, citing his client's age (67 years) andailing health, as well as his wife's battle with cancer, which requires constant care. The bench, however, remained firm, denying bail to Rai while his appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. The court also cautioned the convict's counsel against arguing for acquittal, given the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court.
This case highlights the complexities and delays that can plague the Indian judicial system. While some observers might view it as an instance of justice catching up with a culprit late in life, others may criticize the agonizingly slow pace of the legal process. Regardless of perspective, the Supreme Court's decision presents Rai with a grave choice as he faces the consequences of his actions from decades ago.
