I.P.C. In the case of Neelam Bahal another v. State of Uttrakhand

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as well as learned A.G.A on the recall application. The recall application is allowed and N.B.W issued by this Court on 9.7.2025 is hereby recalled. Order on appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. The criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgement and order passed by learned 4th Additional Session Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1980 (State vs.Jagannath and others) arising out of crime No. Nil, under sections147,148, 307/149 and 323/149 I.P.C, Police station Khukhundoo(Bhaluwani) District Deoria by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced under sections 323,324 read with section 34 I.P.C for a period of three month and eight month rigorous imprisonment. Facts in brief are that on 13.7.1979 at 6.30 A.M. the appellants with other co-accused persons assaulted with spade the informant Kalawati and other members of her family. They also abused them. The informant and other member of her family sustained injuries in the incident. The F.I.R was lodged on the same day at 11.00 A.M. under sections 147,148,149,307,324 and 323 I.P.C. The injured Smt. Kalawati, Sri Jai Gopal, Sri Raghubansh Padey were medically examined on the same day at PHC Bhulwani, Deoria. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the appellants with other co- accused persons. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, the learned trial court framed the charges against the appellants under sections 147, 149, 323 and 307/149 I.P.C which was read over to them but they denied and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined P.W-1 Kalawati, P.W-2 Jai Gopal, P.W-3 Raghubansh Pandey, P.W-4 Dr. R.B. Rai and P.W-5 S.I. Umesh Chandra Upadhaya. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused/appellants were recorded under section 313 I.P.C and they told the statements of the witnesses to be false.They did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the prosecution as well as the appellants, the learned trial court passed the judgement and order in question convicting the appellants as aforesaid under sections 323,324/149 I.P.C and acquitting them for the offence under section 307/34 I.P.C. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for appellants submits that now the appellant No.2 Hari Shankar is aged about 83 years and appellant No.3 Ravi Shankar is aged about 70 years and they have become old and suffering from physical aliment. He also submits that the incident took place on 17.7.1979 and now 46 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence till now. The appellants remained in jail during period of trial and thereafter in appeal they were on bail, therefore, request to reduce the sentence against the appellants till undergone and impose some cost as compensation to be paid by them to the injured or their surviver. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the age of the appellants as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants and also the time gape between the incident and the pendency of appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, perusal of record and the judgement passed by the learned trial court and without going into merit of the case, it is evident that the appellant Jagannath has died during pendency of appeal and it stood abated for him. Now appellant No.2 Hari Shankar and appellant No.3 Ravi Shankar are still alive and they are aged about 82 years and 70 years and are suffering from physical ailment. 46 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence till now. Learned trial court sentenced the appellants under sections 323/34 I.P.C for a period of three month rigorous imprisonment and under section 324/34 I.P.C for a period of eight month rigorous imprisonment keeping in view the simple nature of injury and the dispute between the parties. Now, this court has to consider about the sentence to be awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 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. Since the present incident is said to have taken place on 17.07.1979 and the appellants have now become about 70 & 82 years old and are suffering from old age infirmities. The offence is related to digging of pit, therefore, after elapse of 46 years, it will serve no purpose to send the appellants to jail but it is in the interest of justice to sentence the appellants with period already undergone by them. In considered opinion of this Court, in view of time gap from the incident, age of appellants and nature of offence, the injuries and the dispute it is of no use to send the appellants in jail but it is in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and impose Rs. 15,000/- as fine for each appellants, to be paid to the injured or their survivors as compensation that will be deposited by the appellants within a period of 45 days. In case of default of payment of fine, they will serve the sentence. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. Copy of this judgment along-with trial court record be transmitted to the learned 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. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 G.S GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as well as learned A.G.A on the recall application. The recall application is allowed and N.B.W issued by this Court on 9.7.2025 is hereby recalled. Order on appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. The criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgement and order passed by learned 4th Additional Session Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1980 (State vs.Jagannath and others) arising out of crime No. Nil, under sections147,148, 307/149 and 323/149 I.P.C, Police station Khukhundoo(Bhaluwani) District Deoria by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced under sections 323,324 read with section 34 I.P.C for a period of three month and eight month rigorous imprisonment. Facts in brief are that on 13.7.1979 at 6.30 A.M. the appellants with other co-accused persons assaulted with spade the informant Kalawati and other members of her family. They also abused them. The informant and other member of her family sustained injuries in the incident. The F.I.R was lodged on the same day at 11.00 A.M. under sections 147,148,149,307,324 and 323 I.P.C. The injured Smt. Kalawati, Sri Jai Gopal, Sri Raghubansh Padey were medically examined on the same day at PHC Bhulwani, Deoria. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the appellants with other co- accused persons. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, the learned trial court framed the charges against the appellants under sections 147, 149, 323 and 307/149 I.P.C which was read over to them but they denied and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined P.W-1 Kalawati, P.W-2 Jai Gopal, P.W-3 Raghubansh Pandey, P.W-4 Dr. R.B. Rai and P.W-5 S.I. Umesh Chandra Upadhaya. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused/appellants were recorded under section 313 I.P.C and they told the statements of the witnesses to be false.They did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the prosecution as well as the appellants, the learned trial court passed the judgement and order in question convicting the appellants as aforesaid under sections 323,324/149 I.P.C and acquitting them for the offence under section 307/34 I.P.C. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for appellants submits that now the appellant No.2 Hari Shankar is aged about 83 years and appellant No.3 Ravi Shankar is aged about 70 years and they have become old and suffering from physical aliment. He also submits that the incident took place on 17.7.1979 and now 46 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence till now. The appellants remained in jail during period of trial and thereafter in appeal they were on bail, therefore, request to reduce the sentence against the appellants till undergone and impose some cost as compensation to be paid by them to the injured or their surviver. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the age of the appellants as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants and also the time gape between the incident and the pendency of appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, perusal of record and the judgement passed by the learned trial court and without going into merit of the case, it is evident that the appellant Jagannath has died during pendency of appeal and it stood abated for him. Now appellant No.2 Hari Shankar and appellant No.3 Ravi Shankar are still alive and they are aged about 82 years and 70 years and are suffering from physical ailment. 46 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence till now. Learned trial court sentenced the appellants under sections 323/34 I.P.C for a period of three month rigorous imprisonment and under section 324/34 I.P.C for a period of eight month rigorous imprisonment keeping in view the simple nature of injury and the dispute between the parties. Now, this court has to consider about the sentence to be awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 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. Since the present incident is said to have taken place on 17.07.1979 and the appellants have now become about 70 & 82 years old and are suffering from old age infirmities. The offence is related to digging of pit, therefore, after elapse of 46 years, it will serve no purpose to send the appellants to jail but it is in the interest of justice to sentence the appellants with period already undergone by them. In considered opinion of this Court, in view of time gap from the incident, age of appellants and nature of offence, the injuries and the dispute it is of no use to send the appellants in jail but it is in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and impose Rs. 15,000/- as fine for each appellants, to be paid to the injured or their survivors as compensation that will be deposited by the appellants within a period of 45 days. In case of default of payment of fine, they will serve the sentence. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. Copy of this judgment along-with trial court record be transmitted to the learned 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. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 G.S GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad