State of U.P v. Counsel for

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the accused had enmity with the first informant as the first informant has kept the second wife of Bablu Singh in his house and Badri Singh and others were under the apprehension that may be the first informant by influencing his wife would try to claim for the property of Bablu Singh, therefore, on 3rd July, 1979 around 4.00 pm in village Pupwara P.S. Kharela, the accused persons namely Badri Singh with a gun, Chandrapal with Ballam, Kallu Singh with Farsa, Girwar Singh with an axe and Bhagat Singh and Gangadin armed with Lathis arrived at the 2 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 house of Ghasita and caused injuries to Raghuvar Singh, who was sitting at the doorstep. The first informant Ghasita quickly went inside his house and locked the doors, but the accused persons break the door apart with the axe and put his house on fire, and also caused injuries to the first informant. On listening to the commotion, Sundar, Amar Singh, Uddhav, Lala Bhaiya, Durgapal and other people came to rescue and accused persons after this ran away.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including P.W.-1 Ghasita, P.W.-2 Raghuvar Yadav, P.W.-3 Uddhav, P.W.-4 H.C. Ramphal, P.W.-5 H.C. Jagat Narayan Dube and P.W.- 6 Dr. Ashok Upadhyay.

6. P.W. 1- Ghasita has described the entire scene and has supported his side.

7. P.W. 2- Raghuvar has described the entire scene and has supported the prosecution story.

8. P.W. 3- Uddhav has also supported the prosecution's version.

9. P.W. 4- Ramphal (Head Constable) has proved the recovery memo of the blood stained clothes as Ext. Ka-2, Chargesheet as Ext. Ka-3 and particulars of prior conviction of the accused persons Gangadin, Chandrapal and Girwar as Ext. Ka-4 respectively.

10. P.W. 5- H.C Jagat Narayan Dubey proved the Chik F.I.R written by the Head Moharrir Vishwanath Pandey as Ext. Ka-5 and also the Roznamcha of the case (photocopy as Ext. Ka-6)

11. P.W. 6 Dr. Ashok Upadhyay examined injuries of Ghasita and Raghuvar Yadav.

12. As per medical examination, following injuries were found on the body of injured persons. (i) Injured Ghasita: a. Contusion mark on the left cheeks 1.5 cm x 1 cm, 2 cm below the outer corner of the eyes. b. Contusion mark 1 cm x ½ cm ,1/2 cm above the left eyebrows. c. Contusion mark 1.5 cm x ½ cm , 1cm below the right lower eyebrow on the right cheeks. d. Abrasion marks 6 cm x 4 cm in radius. e. Contusion marks on the right upper shoulder, 8 cm below the shoulder bone. 3 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 f. Contusion mark 2 cm x 1 cm on the central part of the back at the level of t-12 Vertebra. g. Contusion mark on the inner part of the right knees. (ii) Injured Raghuvar Yadav a. Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x ½ cm x ¼ cm , 3 cm above the right eyebrow on the centre of the head. b. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x ½ cm ¼ cm , 2cm far from the wrist on the right hand. c. Contusion mark 4 cm x 1.5 cm at the lower portion of the right shoulder. d. Pain on the left knee has been reported but no express injury sustained there as per the examination.X-ray had been suggested.

13. The following documentary evidences have been produced by the prosecution in support of the case:- (i) Written complaint Ext. Ka-1 (ii) Recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 (iii) Charge-sheet Ext. Ka-3 (iv) Particulars of prior conviction of the accused persons Gangadin, Chandrapal and Girwar as Ext. Ka-4 (v) Chick FIR Ext. Ka-5 (vi) Copy of the Rojnamcha Ext. Ka-6 (vii) Injury report of Ghasita Ext. Ka-7 (viii) Injury report of Raghuvar Yadav Ext. Ka-8.

14. After closing of the evidence, statements of accused/appellants were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, after explaining entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellants denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

15. The Learned Magistrate after hearing both the side had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges U/s- 452 and 436 I.P.C against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence they are released under these provisions under the benefit of doubt. But as far as their unlawful assemblance and common intention to cause injuries to the first informant and his uncle is concerned, the prosecution were successful in proving the charges against them U/s-147, 148, 323, 149 I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt.

16. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, appellants have preferred the present appeal.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged incident is of the year 1979 and more than 45 years have elapsed. According to medical 4 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 examination report of doctor, the injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt objects. There is no allegation of misuse of liberty during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, a lenient view be taken and the sentence be converted into fine only. The appellants were old persons.

18. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the appeal, however, he could not dispute the fact that the injuries were simple in nature and the alleged incident is very old.

19. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by Apex Court. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926, explaining rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court:- "Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re- culturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries."

20. In Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just 5 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 punishment is that the society may not suffer again by such crime. The principle of proportionality between the crime committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on the society as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been expressed in Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323, State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463. In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh(2017) 13 SCC 449, it has been observed that reforming criminals who understand their wrongdoing, are able to comprehend their acts, have grown and nurtured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world, have the capacity of humanising the world. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734, Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 and has reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.

21. I have considered the above submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the record. The occurrence of alleged incident is more than four decades. The injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature. The appellants have already undergone prolonged mental agony of criminal litigation and no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants to 6 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 jail at this stage and that accused-appellants alone can not be held responsible for delay in disposal of this appeal as well as it appears that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded by trial court, be reduced to the period already undergone by them and that they be sentenced to some amount of fine.

22. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment of accused appellant No.3 Kalloo Singh and appellant No.4 Girwar Singh, awarded by the trial court, is modified into fine and it is directed that appellant No.3 Kalloo Singh and appellant No.4 Girwar Singh shall pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each. The fine shall be deposited before the trial court within a period of one month from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

23. Since, accused-appellant No.3 Kalloo Singh and appellant No.4 Girwar Singh are on bail, their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

24. Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

25. A copy of this judgment as well as Trial Court Record be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. December 16, 2025 P. Pandey (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the accused had enmity with the first informant as the first informant has kept the second wife of Bablu Singh in his house and Badri Singh and others were under the apprehension that may be the first informant by influencing his wife would try to claim for the property of Bablu Singh, therefore, on 3rd July, 1979 around 4.00 pm in village Pupwara P.S. Kharela, the accused persons namely Badri Singh with a gun, Chandrapal with Ballam, Kallu Singh with Farsa, Girwar Singh with an axe and Bhagat Singh and Gangadin armed with Lathis arrived at the 2 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 house of Ghasita and caused injuries to Raghuvar Singh, who was sitting at the doorstep. The first informant Ghasita quickly went inside his house and locked the doors, but the accused persons break the door apart with the axe and put his house on fire, and also caused injuries to the first informant. On listening to the commotion, Sundar, Amar Singh, Uddhav, Lala Bhaiya, Durgapal and other people came to rescue and accused persons after this ran away.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including P.W.-1 Ghasita, P.W.-2 Raghuvar Yadav, P.W.-3 Uddhav, P.W.-4 H.C. Ramphal, P.W.-5 H.C. Jagat Narayan Dube and P.W.- 6 Dr. Ashok Upadhyay.

6. P.W. 1- Ghasita has described the entire scene and has supported his side.

7. P.W. 2- Raghuvar has described the entire scene and has supported the prosecution story.

8. P.W. 3- Uddhav has also supported the prosecution's version.

9. P.W. 4- Ramphal (Head Constable) has proved the recovery memo of the blood stained clothes as Ext. Ka-2, Chargesheet as Ext. Ka-3 and particulars of prior conviction of the accused persons Gangadin, Chandrapal and Girwar as Ext. Ka-4 respectively.

10. P.W. 5- H.C Jagat Narayan Dubey proved the Chik F.I.R written by the Head Moharrir Vishwanath Pandey as Ext. Ka-5 and also the Roznamcha of the case (photocopy as Ext. Ka-6)

11. P.W. 6 Dr. Ashok Upadhyay examined injuries of Ghasita and Raghuvar Yadav.

12. As per medical examination, following injuries were found on the body of injured persons. (i) Injured Ghasita: a. Contusion mark on the left cheeks 1.5 cm x 1 cm, 2 cm below the outer corner of the eyes. b. Contusion mark 1 cm x ½ cm ,1/2 cm above the left eyebrows. c. Contusion mark 1.5 cm x ½ cm , 1cm below the right lower eyebrow on the right cheeks. d. Abrasion marks 6 cm x 4 cm in radius. e. Contusion marks on the right upper shoulder, 8 cm below the shoulder bone. 3 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 f. Contusion mark 2 cm x 1 cm on the central part of the back at the level of t-12 Vertebra. g. Contusion mark on the inner part of the right knees. (ii) Injured Raghuvar Yadav a. Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x ½ cm x ¼ cm , 3 cm above the right eyebrow on the centre of the head. b. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x ½ cm ¼ cm , 2cm far from the wrist on the right hand. c. Contusion mark 4 cm x 1.5 cm at the lower portion of the right shoulder. d. Pain on the left knee has been reported but no express injury sustained there as per the examination.X-ray had been suggested.

13. The following documentary evidences have been produced by the prosecution in support of the case:- (i) Written complaint Ext. Ka-1 (ii) Recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 (iii) Charge-sheet Ext. Ka-3 (iv) Particulars of prior conviction of the accused persons Gangadin, Chandrapal and Girwar as Ext. Ka-4 (v) Chick FIR Ext. Ka-5 (vi) Copy of the Rojnamcha Ext. Ka-6 (vii) Injury report of Ghasita Ext. Ka-7 (viii) Injury report of Raghuvar Yadav Ext. Ka-8.

14. After closing of the evidence, statements of accused/appellants were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, after explaining entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellants denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

15. The Learned Magistrate after hearing both the side had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges U/s- 452 and 436 I.P.C against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence they are released under these provisions under the benefit of doubt. But as far as their unlawful assemblance and common intention to cause injuries to the first informant and his uncle is concerned, the prosecution were successful in proving the charges against them U/s-147, 148, 323, 149 I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt.

16. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, appellants have preferred the present appeal.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged incident is of the year 1979 and more than 45 years have elapsed. According to medical 4 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 examination report of doctor, the injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt objects. There is no allegation of misuse of liberty during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, a lenient view be taken and the sentence be converted into fine only. The appellants were old persons.

18. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the appeal, however, he could not dispute the fact that the injuries were simple in nature and the alleged incident is very old.

19. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by Apex Court. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926, explaining rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court:- "Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re- culturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries."

20. In Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just 5 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 punishment is that the society may not suffer again by such crime. The principle of proportionality between the crime committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on the society as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been expressed in Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323, State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463. In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh(2017) 13 SCC 449, it has been observed that reforming criminals who understand their wrongdoing, are able to comprehend their acts, have grown and nurtured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world, have the capacity of humanising the world. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734, Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 and has reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.

21. I have considered the above submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the record. The occurrence of alleged incident is more than four decades. The injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature. The appellants have already undergone prolonged mental agony of criminal litigation and no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants to 6 CRLA No. 1579 of 1985 jail at this stage and that accused-appellants alone can not be held responsible for delay in disposal of this appeal as well as it appears that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded by trial court, be reduced to the period already undergone by them and that they be sentenced to some amount of fine.

22. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment of accused appellant No.3 Kalloo Singh and appellant No.4 Girwar Singh, awarded by the trial court, is modified into fine and it is directed that appellant No.3 Kalloo Singh and appellant No.4 Girwar Singh shall pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each. The fine shall be deposited before the trial court within a period of one month from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

23. Since, accused-appellant No.3 Kalloo Singh and appellant No.4 Girwar Singh are on bail, their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

24. Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

25. A copy of this judgment as well as Trial Court Record be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. December 16, 2025 P. Pandey (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)