Ex post Facto Law interpretation

KeepWalking

Ex-post-facto law - As per article 20
An ex-post-facto law is one that imposes penalties retrospectively (retroactively),
that is, upon acts already done or which increases the penalties for such acts.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Man-gets-7-year-jail-for-abetting-wifes-suicide/articleshow/35445702.cms

In the above case accused has been given more penalties than what he deserve.
He has been sentenced to 7 years whereas he already spent two years in the jail.
Instead of seven years in jail it's 9 years which violate the fundamental right as per "No Ex-post-facto law - article 20"

Can anyone explain that.?

PS : My intent of referring the article is just for interpretation of law.

Neanderthal

Article 20 prohibits the State from enacting such legislations. At the time of committing the crime, if the accused knew that he could be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 7 years and still went ahead with it, it does not tantamount to a breach of the constitutional provision. However, if there would not have been a law punishing such a crime at the time of its commission and it was enacted subsequently to punish the person in question retrospectively, then it is a violation of article 20.

This is a clear case of an under-trial languishing in judicial custody due to inordinate delays in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, there is no legal provision to make trials time-bound, nor give respite to suffering under-trials who are in jail for many years even before the pronouncement of verdicts branding them guilty. It has nothing to do with Article 20 of the constitution.

@KeepWalking

KeepWalking

@Neanderthal

So that(Increasing the penalty) refers only to enactment of law not any verdict based on already enacted law.

but it also says ::
No person shall be
subjected to penalty greater than that prescribed by the law in force at that time.

And as per your statement::
"nor give respite to suffering under-trials who are in jail for many years even before the pronouncement of verdicts branding them guilty"

So later holds true in this case?

Thanks
KeepWalking

Neanderthal

Absolutely. Not on the verdict.
But um, the State can increase the penalty by law and apply it prospectively- that's valid.

True, so his 'penalty' after pronouncing the verdict is not beyond the statutory 7 years of RI. His period in judicial custody without the judgement- during his trial- is not considered as a penalty in the eyes of law. It's a legal necessity, if I can put it that way. But of course, the accused may file an appeal for abatement of his penalty on the ground that he has already served a term of two years before the verdict was made and hence his term may be shortened. It's up to the appellate court to decide on the validity of such an argument, taking previous judgements into consideration on similar cases.