An <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/asia/2022/01/19/indian-court-commutes-death-sentences-of-two-serial-killers-over-delayed-execution/" target="_blank">Indian court</a> released a convict who had served nine of an 83-year sentence in jail, over grounds that he was unable to afford a lawyer, branding it a “travesty of justice”. Aslam Sheikh, 30, was convicted in 31 cases of theft and had been serving his sentence at the Yerwada prison in Pune in Maharashtra state since 2014. He was sentenced to 83 years in prison as the trial courts did not order his sentences to run concurrently. His sentence for each case ranged from three to six years. The Bombay High Court heard a petition on Monday filed by Mr Shaikh aiming to have his sentences in all 41 cases run concurrently. He also sought to set aside the fine of 126,400 rupees ($1540) imposed by various courts in the cases. In his petition, Mr Sheikh said that he was falsely implicated in the cases after being arrested in 2014 but pleaded guilty to all charges because he was illiterate, unfamiliar with the legal complexities and couldn't afford a lawyer. He was also not in a position to pay the fine, which increased his sentence by ten years. But a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse from the Bombay High Court ruled that if the man was made to undergo imprisonment for an excessive period, it would be a “travesty of justice”. The bench also noted that at the time of his arrest, Mr Shaikh was only 21 years old and was neither defended by a lawyer in any of his cases nor offered legal aid by the trial courts. “A total of 93 years 5 months, his entire life, with no hope whatsoever, to even come out of jail. A sentence, more than what a life convict would have to undergo for murder. If permitted, this would certainly lead to a travesty of justice”, the court said. “All except three offences pertain to the period 2014 to 2015. It appears that the petitioner could not afford to engage a lawyer having regard to his financial condition and hence pleaded guilty in all the 41 cases,” the judgment said. The justices also observed that none of the trial courts considered the sentencing policy of deterrence and reformation. “The sentence of imprisonment should also have a reformative aim, in as much as it should not demoralise the offender and in fact, the offender should be given an opportunity depending on the nature of the offence to improve himself,” the bench said. They added that there would be a serious miscarriage of justice if it failed to interfere and exercise its discretion. “Courts exist to do justice, and this is one such case that begs our interference,” the bench said. The court further noted that Mr Sheikh had undergone nine years of imprisonment and ordered his release in all the cases considering the time he has spent in jail.
