High Court · 2025

The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.

14. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the III Additional Sessions Judge Piliphit for compliance.

15. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

16. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule."

2. Thus no orders are required to be passed in the Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentences/Bail Application No. 01 of 2025. Order on Appeal

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal to the judgment and order dated 14.05.1984 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Piliphit in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1982 (State Vs. Manohar and others), whereby, appellants herein have been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced for a maximum period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of the fine each the appellants shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

3. The appeal was presented before this Court in the year 1984 and there is an office report dated 03.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 that the first appellant Manohar Lal and the third appellant Lala Ram have expired and accordingly the appeal stood abated against them.

4. There is an office report dated 05.08.2025 that the second appellant Pati Ram has also expired on 14.04.2025 and the appeal is hereby abated against the second appellant Pati Ram also.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief as encompassed in the First Information Report is that on 10.12.1981 at about 07:00 a.m. the Peer Bux the father of the complainant Raza Bax accompanied by said complainant was going to Piliphit from Village Chandpura. Allegations is that as soon as the they reached near the sugar-cane field of Raja Ram situate by the side of the village path-way all the four accused namely Manohar and Pati Ram armed with Kantas and Lala Ram and Shayam lal armed with Lathis came out from the said sugar-cane field and started assaulting Peer Bux with their said respective weapons and with intention to kill them. Further, allegation is that thereafter the complainant ran towards the village raising an alarm and in the mean-time Shamshul Hasan and Karim Bux who were coming from the village side appeared on the spot and challenged the said assailants, the co-accused including the appellant ran away towards west.

6. A written report for lodging of the First Information Report was got written on dictation given to Ashfaq Husain and injured Raja Bux was brought to the police station where he filed the written report at 10:20 a.m. It is further submitted that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 5 miles and thereafter FIR came to be lodged and injured Peer Bux was sent for medical examination at Public Health Centre Bisalpur. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Ram Lal who post conduction of investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant.

7. The appellant herein pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried while taking of the defence he was not present on the spot when the said incident took place.

8. The prosecution in order to bring the charges produced six witnesses. (a) PW-1, complainant Raza Bux, PW-2 injured Peer Bux, PW-3 Karim Bux (eye-witness), PW-4 Dr. C.K. Chaturvedi, Medical Officer, PW-5 Ashfaq Husain scribe of the written FIR Ex.Ka.1 and PW-6 S.I. Ram Lal, Investigating Officer.

9. By virtue of the judgment and order dated 14.05.1984 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Piliphit in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1982 (State Vs. Manohar and others) convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him for a maximum period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.300/.

10. Learned counsel for the fourth appellant Shayam Lal has sought to argue that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and at no point of time committing any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Submission is that though there happens to be proceeding under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. between the co-accused Manohar Lal who was the son of Prem Raj but the appellant had no motive or animosity so as to commit the offence. Submission is that in the intervening night on 10.12.1981 the incident which is alleged to have taken place is not attributable to the appellant as he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated due to partibandi. Submission is that also to the extent that the PW-3 Karim Bux who is stated to be eye-witness regarding the incident and thus he being impartial witness turning hostile shows that false and frivolous allegation had sought in order to inflict the criminality. He further submits that as per the medical report so proved by PW-4 C.K. Chaturvedi, therefore, there were as many as seven injuries but so so far as injury nos. 1 and 2 being incised wound were caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. by Kantas, so far as the injury nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned is lacerated wound and abrasion not in a vital part. Thus even otherwise, no stretch of imagination it can be said that appellant had any intention or purpose, even otherwise to make injured to done to death. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that incident is dated 10.12.1981 and more than 44 years have passed the appellants happen to be possessing no criminal history, thus, the conviction under Section 307/34 I.P.C. be modified to Section 324/34 I.P.C while further modifying the sentence from rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and to fine.

11. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that perusal of the First Information Report and the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. itself leads to irresistible conclusion that the offences have been committed by appellants particularly the injury nos. 4 to 7 themselves demonstrates that lacerated and abrasion wound have been found upon the injured PW-2 Peer Bux. He further submits that the FIR and the statement of the injured also shows that the appellant were armed with lathis and the injuries were extended. He further submits that merely because no proceeding under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. was pending in between the appellants herein and the injured would not to be a ground to thoroughly overrule the commission of the offences particularly when the appellant has committed the offences in the light of injuries. However, accounting to him, since the incident is of the year 1981 and more than 44 years have passed there is nothing to substantiate the appellants have committed any criminal history, thus, the conviction and the sentence needs alteration and modification.

12. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

13. An FIR came to be lodged on 10.12.1981 at about 07:00 a.m. against the appellants and three co-accused wherein allegation is that the appellant herein armed with Lathis and other co-accused armed with Kantas (countrymade pistol) and lathis had inflicted injuries upon the father of the complainant Raza Bux. The doctor (PW-4) C.K. Chaturvedi had found the following injuries:- "1. Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep front of skull 8 cm. above the right eye-brow. The margin are clear well defined edges averted with fresh bleeding.

2. Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep semi circular shape. Across the middle metra phalanges joint moving posteriaorly. The margins are clear and everted. Bleeding fresh.

3. Incised wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep at right rear of skull joint, above the left eye brow. directed posteriorly. Fresh bleeding.

4. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. at front of left leg 17 cm. below the left knee joint. with redish 6 cm. x 4 cm. around wound. The margins inverted. Fresh bleeding.

5. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. at back of Ist. phalange of middle finger of left hand.

6. Abrasion 9 cm. x 2 cm at posterio lateral of left lower 1/3 fore- arm.

7. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. at back of left index finger. Red in colour."

14. As per the opinion of the medical officer the injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon such as Kantas and the remaining injury nos 4, 5 6, lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. at front of left leg 17 cm. below the left knee joint. with redish 6 cm. x 4 cm. around wound, abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. at back of Ist. phalange of middle finger of left hand, Abrasion 9 cm. x 2 cm at posterio lateral of left lower 1/3 fore-arm, Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. at back of left index finger.

15. As a matter of fact, the arguments sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there happens to be no motive or animosity between the appellant against the injured or the complainant particularly when in proceeding under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C., the appellant was not a party and he had been implicated on account of Partybandi is not convincible particularly when it come on record in the testimony of PW-1, the complainant Raja Bux and PW-2 injured i.e. Peer Bux that the appellant herein with the aid of Lathi had inflicted injury and the injury nos. 4 to 7 is also corroborates with the same. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant is innocent. Moreover, the allegations contained in the FIR cannot be said to be well-developed deliberated story particularly when it is not the case of the appellant that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Merely because PW-3 Karim Bux who happens to be a witness of the incident had turned hostile would not dilute the rigours of the statement made by PW-1 and PW-2.

16. However, looking into the facts that incident dated 10.12.1981 and more than 44 years have passed and there is nothing on record, even otherwise to suggest that appellant possess any criminal history and looking into the nature of the injuries in the present case in the interest of justice necessitates modification and alteration of the offences under Section 307/34 I.P.C. to Section 323/34 I.P.C. and alteration of the sentence for rigorous imprisonment of 5 years to fine.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is altered and modified to Section 324/34 I.P.C. The sentence for the offence under Section 324/34 I.P.C. is further altered to fine of Rs. 5000/- instead of rigorous of imprisonment of 5 years.

18. The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.

19. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the III Additional Sessions Judge Piliphit for compliance.

20. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

21. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.

14. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the III Additional Sessions Judge Piliphit for compliance.

15. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

16. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule."

2. Thus no orders are required to be passed in the Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentences/Bail Application No. 01 of 2025. Order on Appeal

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal to the judgment and order dated 14.05.1984 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Piliphit in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1982 (State Vs. Manohar and others), whereby, appellants herein have been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced for a maximum period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of the fine each the appellants shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

3. The appeal was presented before this Court in the year 1984 and there is an office report dated 03.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 that the first appellant Manohar Lal and the third appellant Lala Ram have expired and accordingly the appeal stood abated against them.

4. There is an office report dated 05.08.2025 that the second appellant Pati Ram has also expired on 14.04.2025 and the appeal is hereby abated against the second appellant Pati Ram also.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief as encompassed in the First Information Report is that on 10.12.1981 at about 07:00 a.m. the Peer Bux the father of the complainant Raza Bax accompanied by said complainant was going to Piliphit from Village Chandpura. Allegations is that as soon as the they reached near the sugar-cane field of Raja Ram situate by the side of the village path-way all the four accused namely Manohar and Pati Ram armed with Kantas and Lala Ram and Shayam lal armed with Lathis came out from the said sugar-cane field and started assaulting Peer Bux with their said respective weapons and with intention to kill them. Further, allegation is that thereafter the complainant ran towards the village raising an alarm and in the mean-time Shamshul Hasan and Karim Bux who were coming from the village side appeared on the spot and challenged the said assailants, the co-accused including the appellant ran away towards west.

6. A written report for lodging of the First Information Report was got written on dictation given to Ashfaq Husain and injured Raja Bux was brought to the police station where he filed the written report at 10:20 a.m. It is further submitted that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 5 miles and thereafter FIR came to be lodged and injured Peer Bux was sent for medical examination at Public Health Centre Bisalpur. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Ram Lal who post conduction of investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant.

7. The appellant herein pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried while taking of the defence he was not present on the spot when the said incident took place.

8. The prosecution in order to bring the charges produced six witnesses. (a) PW-1, complainant Raza Bux, PW-2 injured Peer Bux, PW-3 Karim Bux (eye-witness), PW-4 Dr. C.K. Chaturvedi, Medical Officer, PW-5 Ashfaq Husain scribe of the written FIR Ex.Ka.1 and PW-6 S.I. Ram Lal, Investigating Officer.

9. By virtue of the judgment and order dated 14.05.1984 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Piliphit in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1982 (State Vs. Manohar and others) convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him for a maximum period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.300/.

10. Learned counsel for the fourth appellant Shayam Lal has sought to argue that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and at no point of time committing any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Submission is that though there happens to be proceeding under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. between the co-accused Manohar Lal who was the son of Prem Raj but the appellant had no motive or animosity so as to commit the offence. Submission is that in the intervening night on 10.12.1981 the incident which is alleged to have taken place is not attributable to the appellant as he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated due to partibandi. Submission is that also to the extent that the PW-3 Karim Bux who is stated to be eye-witness regarding the incident and thus he being impartial witness turning hostile shows that false and frivolous allegation had sought in order to inflict the criminality. He further submits that as per the medical report so proved by PW-4 C.K. Chaturvedi, therefore, there were as many as seven injuries but so so far as injury nos. 1 and 2 being incised wound were caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. by Kantas, so far as the injury nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned is lacerated wound and abrasion not in a vital part. Thus even otherwise, no stretch of imagination it can be said that appellant had any intention or purpose, even otherwise to make injured to done to death. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that incident is dated 10.12.1981 and more than 44 years have passed the appellants happen to be possessing no criminal history, thus, the conviction under Section 307/34 I.P.C. be modified to Section 324/34 I.P.C while further modifying the sentence from rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and to fine.

11. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that perusal of the First Information Report and the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. itself leads to irresistible conclusion that the offences have been committed by appellants particularly the injury nos. 4 to 7 themselves demonstrates that lacerated and abrasion wound have been found upon the injured PW-2 Peer Bux. He further submits that the FIR and the statement of the injured also shows that the appellant were armed with lathis and the injuries were extended. He further submits that merely because no proceeding under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. was pending in between the appellants herein and the injured would not to be a ground to thoroughly overrule the commission of the offences particularly when the appellant has committed the offences in the light of injuries. However, accounting to him, since the incident is of the year 1981 and more than 44 years have passed there is nothing to substantiate the appellants have committed any criminal history, thus, the conviction and the sentence needs alteration and modification.

12. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

13. An FIR came to be lodged on 10.12.1981 at about 07:00 a.m. against the appellants and three co-accused wherein allegation is that the appellant herein armed with Lathis and other co-accused armed with Kantas (countrymade pistol) and lathis had inflicted injuries upon the father of the complainant Raza Bux. The doctor (PW-4) C.K. Chaturvedi had found the following injuries:- "1. Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep front of skull 8 cm. above the right eye-brow. The margin are clear well defined edges averted with fresh bleeding.

2. Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep semi circular shape. Across the middle metra phalanges joint moving posteriaorly. The margins are clear and everted. Bleeding fresh.

3. Incised wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep at right rear of skull joint, above the left eye brow. directed posteriorly. Fresh bleeding.

4. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. at front of left leg 17 cm. below the left knee joint. with redish 6 cm. x 4 cm. around wound. The margins inverted. Fresh bleeding.

5. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. at back of Ist. phalange of middle finger of left hand.

6. Abrasion 9 cm. x 2 cm at posterio lateral of left lower 1/3 fore- arm.

7. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. at back of left index finger. Red in colour."

14. As per the opinion of the medical officer the injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon such as Kantas and the remaining injury nos 4, 5 6, lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. at front of left leg 17 cm. below the left knee joint. with redish 6 cm. x 4 cm. around wound, abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. at back of Ist. phalange of middle finger of left hand, Abrasion 9 cm. x 2 cm at posterio lateral of left lower 1/3 fore-arm, Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. at back of left index finger.

15. As a matter of fact, the arguments sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there happens to be no motive or animosity between the appellant against the injured or the complainant particularly when in proceeding under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C., the appellant was not a party and he had been implicated on account of Partybandi is not convincible particularly when it come on record in the testimony of PW-1, the complainant Raja Bux and PW-2 injured i.e. Peer Bux that the appellant herein with the aid of Lathi had inflicted injury and the injury nos. 4 to 7 is also corroborates with the same. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant is innocent. Moreover, the allegations contained in the FIR cannot be said to be well-developed deliberated story particularly when it is not the case of the appellant that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Merely because PW-3 Karim Bux who happens to be a witness of the incident had turned hostile would not dilute the rigours of the statement made by PW-1 and PW-2.

16. However, looking into the facts that incident dated 10.12.1981 and more than 44 years have passed and there is nothing on record, even otherwise to suggest that appellant possess any criminal history and looking into the nature of the injuries in the present case in the interest of justice necessitates modification and alteration of the offences under Section 307/34 I.P.C. to Section 323/34 I.P.C. and alteration of the sentence for rigorous imprisonment of 5 years to fine.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is altered and modified to Section 324/34 I.P.C. The sentence for the offence under Section 324/34 I.P.C. is further altered to fine of Rs. 5000/- instead of rigorous of imprisonment of 5 years.

18. The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.

19. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the III Additional Sessions Judge Piliphit for compliance.

20. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

21. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad