State of U.P v. Counsel for

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

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.01.1985 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti Dacoity Etawah in Session Trial No. 380 of 1980, Crime No. 19 of 1980, Police Station Chobiya, District Etawah by which the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 395 I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment.

3. Facts in brief are that on 22/23.03.1980 in the night in village Duduwa, Police Station Chobiya, District Etawah, about 9-10 dacoits committed dacoity in the house of Ram Swaroop and looted jewellery, cloths and cash, and at that time light of lantern was present in the house and the dacoits were identified by the people. On hue and cry, people of village reached there and amongst them one person made fire, and at that time Ram Swaroop set fire in the puwal, which was kept near the house. The villagers identified the face of the dacoits. After committing dacoity, they ran away from the village. On 23.03.1980 an FIR was lodged at the police station by informant Ram Swaroop at 4.30 P.M. During the course of investigation, two persons were seen by the police in the night of 17.06.1980, out of which, one person ran away and other person that is the appellant Vanasur was arrested by the police and in search, one country made pistol, two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. He was bearing ladies wrist watch. The wrist watch was taken into possession by the police and fard was 2 CRLA No. 568 of 1985 prepared. On query, accused/appellant disclosed his name to the police and also accepted that he committed dacoity in the house of Ram Swaroop and wrist watch was also looted in the dacoity. The identification parade was held on 10.09.1980 in which he was identified by Ram Swaroop.

4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against him under Section 395/412 I.P.C.

5. The learned court concerned, took cognizance of the offence and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. The learned trial court framed the charge under Section 395/412 I.P.C. against the appellant, which he denied and pleaded not guilty but claimed for trial.

7. Prosecution examined, PW-1 Badri Prasad, PW.-2 Ram Swaroop, PW-3 Shishu Pal, PW-4 Amar Singh and PW-5 Brajesh, all these are eye witness of the incident. Defence examined DW-6 Smt. Manju Chandra, Magistrate, Etawah, DW-7 Sub Inspector Shiv Ram, DW-9 Virendra Investigating Officer. Court examined CW-1 Deputy Collector Manrakhan Lal Sharma and CW-2 Police Ranveer.

8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations and told to be implicated in this case due to old enmity.

9. No evidence in defence was adduced by the appellant.

10. After hearing the arguments made by the prosecution as well defence, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 07.01.1985 by which convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 395 I.P.C.

11. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

12. Learned counsel for appellant without going into merit of the case, argued that in this case the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1980 and the accused/appellant was 25 years old at that time and now he is 3 CRLA No. 568 of 1985 more than 70 years and suffering from old age infirmity. Since 45 years have elapsed from the date of incident and the appellant was detained in jail about 5 months during the trial and after conviction for a period of two months. Now in compliance of order dated 24.07.2025, N.B.W. was issued and appellant was sent to jail by the learned trial court, so he has spent more than 8 months in jail, therefore, request to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellant.

13. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that in this case, the appellant has committed dacoity and the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court is not excessive and for such offence of grievous nature, no relaxation can be granted in favour of the appellant, though he could not dispute the fact that the appellant has become more than 70 years old and is suffering from old age infirmities and long gap from the date of incident till now.

14. Since learned counsel for the appellant did not argue the merit of appeal but pressed only to the extent of reducing the sentence as already undergone, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere the conviction but it is to consider the sentence only.

15.In the present case, incident took place in the year 1980 and the appellant is more than 70 years old and suffering from old age infirmity. 45 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and the appellant has already served more than eight months in jail.

16. In the case of Neelam Bahal & another v. State of Uttrakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant u/s 307 IPC was converted into S.326 IPC simpliciter. Incident took place in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period undergone by him. Likewise, in the case of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat dated 14 August 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1691 of 2023 Hon'ble Apex Court modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by him while maintaining the conviction where the entire incident had occurred in the heat of moment on

07.11.2000. 4 CRLA No. 568 of 1985

17. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the time gap from the date of incident till now & the age of appellant, this Court is of the opinion that it will serve no useful purpose to send the appellant to jail for serving out the remaining period of sentence, but the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by him will suffice the purpose of interest of justice.

18. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant is hereby reduced to the extent already undergone by him.

19. Copy of this judgment along-with original trial court record be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within two months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record. September 25, 2025 T.S. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.01.1985 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti Dacoity Etawah in Session Trial No. 380 of 1980, Crime No. 19 of 1980, Police Station Chobiya, District Etawah by which the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 395 I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment.

3. Facts in brief are that on 22/23.03.1980 in the night in village Duduwa, Police Station Chobiya, District Etawah, about 9-10 dacoits committed dacoity in the house of Ram Swaroop and looted jewellery, cloths and cash, and at that time light of lantern was present in the house and the dacoits were identified by the people. On hue and cry, people of village reached there and amongst them one person made fire, and at that time Ram Swaroop set fire in the puwal, which was kept near the house. The villagers identified the face of the dacoits. After committing dacoity, they ran away from the village. On 23.03.1980 an FIR was lodged at the police station by informant Ram Swaroop at 4.30 P.M. During the course of investigation, two persons were seen by the police in the night of 17.06.1980, out of which, one person ran away and other person that is the appellant Vanasur was arrested by the police and in search, one country made pistol, two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. He was bearing ladies wrist watch. The wrist watch was taken into possession by the police and fard was 2 CRLA No. 568 of 1985 prepared. On query, accused/appellant disclosed his name to the police and also accepted that he committed dacoity in the house of Ram Swaroop and wrist watch was also looted in the dacoity. The identification parade was held on 10.09.1980 in which he was identified by Ram Swaroop.

4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against him under Section 395/412 I.P.C.

5. The learned court concerned, took cognizance of the offence and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. The learned trial court framed the charge under Section 395/412 I.P.C. against the appellant, which he denied and pleaded not guilty but claimed for trial.

7. Prosecution examined, PW-1 Badri Prasad, PW.-2 Ram Swaroop, PW-3 Shishu Pal, PW-4 Amar Singh and PW-5 Brajesh, all these are eye witness of the incident. Defence examined DW-6 Smt. Manju Chandra, Magistrate, Etawah, DW-7 Sub Inspector Shiv Ram, DW-9 Virendra Investigating Officer. Court examined CW-1 Deputy Collector Manrakhan Lal Sharma and CW-2 Police Ranveer.

8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations and told to be implicated in this case due to old enmity.

9. No evidence in defence was adduced by the appellant.

10. After hearing the arguments made by the prosecution as well defence, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 07.01.1985 by which convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 395 I.P.C.

11. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

12. Learned counsel for appellant without going into merit of the case, argued that in this case the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1980 and the accused/appellant was 25 years old at that time and now he is 3 CRLA No. 568 of 1985 more than 70 years and suffering from old age infirmity. Since 45 years have elapsed from the date of incident and the appellant was detained in jail about 5 months during the trial and after conviction for a period of two months. Now in compliance of order dated 24.07.2025, N.B.W. was issued and appellant was sent to jail by the learned trial court, so he has spent more than 8 months in jail, therefore, request to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellant.

13. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that in this case, the appellant has committed dacoity and the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court is not excessive and for such offence of grievous nature, no relaxation can be granted in favour of the appellant, though he could not dispute the fact that the appellant has become more than 70 years old and is suffering from old age infirmities and long gap from the date of incident till now.

14. Since learned counsel for the appellant did not argue the merit of appeal but pressed only to the extent of reducing the sentence as already undergone, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere the conviction but it is to consider the sentence only.

15.In the present case, incident took place in the year 1980 and the appellant is more than 70 years old and suffering from old age infirmity. 45 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and the appellant has already served more than eight months in jail.

16. In the case of Neelam Bahal & another v. State of Uttrakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant u/s 307 IPC was converted into S.326 IPC simpliciter. Incident took place in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period undergone by him. Likewise, in the case of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat dated 14 August 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1691 of 2023 Hon'ble Apex Court modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by him while maintaining the conviction where the entire incident had occurred in the heat of moment on

07.11.2000. 4 CRLA No. 568 of 1985

17. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the time gap from the date of incident till now & the age of appellant, this Court is of the opinion that it will serve no useful purpose to send the appellant to jail for serving out the remaining period of sentence, but the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by him will suffice the purpose of interest of justice.

18. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant is hereby reduced to the extent already undergone by him.

19. Copy of this judgment along-with original trial court record be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within two months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record. September 25, 2025 T.S. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad