Supreme Court Alters Sentence in Decades-Old Dispute
Twenty-nine years after an altercation over a Rs 500 watch led to a death in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court has allowed the last remaining convict, Mathu alias Jagdish, to walk free. A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli on June 25, 2026, altered his sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, effectively closing the criminal proceedings under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Background of the Incident
The case dates back to February 12, 1997, when Padam Singh sold a watch to his neighbour, Manua, for Rs 500. Dissatisfied, Manua attempted to return the watch, sparking an altercation. Manua, along with Ramu and Mathu, assaulted Singh. During the scuffle, Mathu struck Singh on the head with a heavy stone, causing him to fall into a dry canal with a rocky bed. Singh sustained serious injuries and later died at Doon Hospital.
Legal Proceedings Over Three Decades
In 2002, a trial court found the three men guilty of culpable homicide without intention to cause death and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the verdict in 2012, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court the same year. Two of the accused died during the pendency of the appeal, leaving Mathu as the sole appellant.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court noted that Mathu was 33 years old at the time of the incident and is now well over 60. He had already served one and a half years in prison. The Bench observed, "From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant was, at that point of time, 33 years old. Today, we are in 2026, almost three decades have gone by since then. The appellant is now well over 60 years of age." The court also highlighted the genesis of the altercation, noting that all injuries on the deceased occurred due to the fall into the dry canal with a rock-bed.
Final Verdict
Stating that it would meet the ends of justice, the Bench altered the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction. "At this distant point of time, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if we alter the sentence of imprisonment from rigorous imprisonment for five years to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction," the order read. Mathu was thus allowed to walk free after nearly three decades of legal proceedings.
