State of U.P v. Counsel for

Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, Lalji Sahai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant No.2 Sewaka and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against judgment and order passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun dated 7.1.1984 in Sessions Trial No.137 of 1980 (Rajya vs. Kashi, Sewaka and Maiya Din) under Sections 392, 411 IPC in Crime No. 44 of 1978 and Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act in Crime No. 45 of 1978, Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur, by which appellant Kashi was convicted under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to ten years' Rigorous imprisonment and under Section 25 Arms Act for a period of one year's rigorous imprisonment; and accused Sewaka and Maiya Din were convicted under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and acquitted under Section 411 IPC.

3. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1 Kashi and appellant No.3 Maiya Din died and appeal against them stood abated. Appellant No.2 Sewaka is still alive.

4. Facts in brief are that on 10.5.1978 at about 6 P.M., informant Dharm Das was going back to his house with his 'Bahu' from her 'maika' by bullock cart. In the way, his bullock cart was stopped by the appellant with other co-accused persons and the jewellery of his 'bahu' was snatched away by them. He made hue and cry, on which the people of the village chased the robbers and at about 6 P.M. they were caught by them. They told their names as Kashi, Sewaka and Maiya Din. Appellant No.1 Kashi was armed with single barrel countrymade gun with cartridges. All these accused persons were detained in the night at the 'dera' of Jagannath and in morning they were brought to the police station and by giving 'tehreer' FIR was lodged. 'Fard' relating to recovery of countrymade gun and jewellery 2 CRLA No. 217 of 1984 was prepared by the Constable Moharrir and accused persons were taken into custody.

5. Investigation of the case was handed over to SI Vinod Bhadauria who after completing investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 397 IPC, 411 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act against accused Kashi. Learned Court concerned took cognizance of the offence and committed the case for trial. Learned Trial Court framed the charges against all the accused persons under Section 397 IPC, 411 IPC and further against Kashi under Section 25 Arms Act.

6. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Hariram, P.W.2 Munni, P.W.3 Jagatraj, P.W.4 Jagannath, P.W.5 Sughar Singh, P.W 6 SI Vinod Bhadauria, P.W.7 SI Shiv Shanker Srivastava. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the charges and allegations against them and stated to be implicated falsely due to enmity.

7. In defence, no evidence was adduced by the accused persons.

8. After hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned Trial Court passed judgment and order dated 7.1.1984 convicting the accused persons. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, present appeal was preferred.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant without going into merits of the case, limited his arguments to the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court against accused Sewaka. He argued that at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he was aged about 25 years and till now he is more than 67 years and suffering from old age infirmities. The incident is said to have taken place in the year 1978, till now 47 years have elapsed. No purpose will be served in sending the appellant to jail. During trial and appeal, he remained in jail for more than 41 days, therefore requests to reduce the sentence as already undergone by the appellant.

10. Learned AGA vehemently opposed and contended that the appellant and other co-accused persons committed robbery and offence was grave in nature, therefore no relaxation can be granted in his favour. Though he could not dispute the fact that he has become more than 67 years and is suffering from old age infirmities and a long time gap is there from the date of incident till now.

11. 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 3 CRLA No. 217 of 1984 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.

12. Since learned counsel for the appellant did not go into merits of the case except to the extent of sentence, therefore, this Court constraints itself to the consideration of sentence awarded to the appellant only. From the record, it is evident that the incident took place on 10.5.1978 and the appellant was convicted and sentenced on 7.1.1984. From the date of occurrence till now 47 years have elapsed and now appellant Sewaka is about 67 years old and is suffering from old age infirmities. During trial and appeal, he remained in jail for a period of more than 41 days. It will serve no useful purpose to send the appellant to jail for serving out the remaining period of sentence.

13. Consequently, keeping in view the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid cases, the sentence of appellant no.2 Sewak is reduced from 7 years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone in jail.

14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.

15. 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 24, 2025 P.P. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, Lalji Sahai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant No.2 Sewaka and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against judgment and order passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun dated 7.1.1984 in Sessions Trial No.137 of 1980 (Rajya vs. Kashi, Sewaka and Maiya Din) under Sections 392, 411 IPC in Crime No. 44 of 1978 and Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act in Crime No. 45 of 1978, Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur, by which appellant Kashi was convicted under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to ten years' Rigorous imprisonment and under Section 25 Arms Act for a period of one year's rigorous imprisonment; and accused Sewaka and Maiya Din were convicted under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and acquitted under Section 411 IPC.

3. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1 Kashi and appellant No.3 Maiya Din died and appeal against them stood abated. Appellant No.2 Sewaka is still alive.

4. Facts in brief are that on 10.5.1978 at about 6 P.M., informant Dharm Das was going back to his house with his 'Bahu' from her 'maika' by bullock cart. In the way, his bullock cart was stopped by the appellant with other co-accused persons and the jewellery of his 'bahu' was snatched away by them. He made hue and cry, on which the people of the village chased the robbers and at about 6 P.M. they were caught by them. They told their names as Kashi, Sewaka and Maiya Din. Appellant No.1 Kashi was armed with single barrel countrymade gun with cartridges. All these accused persons were detained in the night at the 'dera' of Jagannath and in morning they were brought to the police station and by giving 'tehreer' FIR was lodged. 'Fard' relating to recovery of countrymade gun and jewellery 2 CRLA No. 217 of 1984 was prepared by the Constable Moharrir and accused persons were taken into custody.

5. Investigation of the case was handed over to SI Vinod Bhadauria who after completing investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 397 IPC, 411 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act against accused Kashi. Learned Court concerned took cognizance of the offence and committed the case for trial. Learned Trial Court framed the charges against all the accused persons under Section 397 IPC, 411 IPC and further against Kashi under Section 25 Arms Act.

6. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Hariram, P.W.2 Munni, P.W.3 Jagatraj, P.W.4 Jagannath, P.W.5 Sughar Singh, P.W 6 SI Vinod Bhadauria, P.W.7 SI Shiv Shanker Srivastava. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the charges and allegations against them and stated to be implicated falsely due to enmity.

7. In defence, no evidence was adduced by the accused persons.

8. After hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned Trial Court passed judgment and order dated 7.1.1984 convicting the accused persons. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, present appeal was preferred.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant without going into merits of the case, limited his arguments to the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court against accused Sewaka. He argued that at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he was aged about 25 years and till now he is more than 67 years and suffering from old age infirmities. The incident is said to have taken place in the year 1978, till now 47 years have elapsed. No purpose will be served in sending the appellant to jail. During trial and appeal, he remained in jail for more than 41 days, therefore requests to reduce the sentence as already undergone by the appellant.

10. Learned AGA vehemently opposed and contended that the appellant and other co-accused persons committed robbery and offence was grave in nature, therefore no relaxation can be granted in his favour. Though he could not dispute the fact that he has become more than 67 years and is suffering from old age infirmities and a long time gap is there from the date of incident till now.

11. 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 3 CRLA No. 217 of 1984 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.

12. Since learned counsel for the appellant did not go into merits of the case except to the extent of sentence, therefore, this Court constraints itself to the consideration of sentence awarded to the appellant only. From the record, it is evident that the incident took place on 10.5.1978 and the appellant was convicted and sentenced on 7.1.1984. From the date of occurrence till now 47 years have elapsed and now appellant Sewaka is about 67 years old and is suffering from old age infirmities. During trial and appeal, he remained in jail for a period of more than 41 days. It will serve no useful purpose to send the appellant to jail for serving out the remaining period of sentence.

13. Consequently, keeping in view the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid cases, the sentence of appellant no.2 Sewak is reduced from 7 years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone in jail.

14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.

15. 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 24, 2025 P.P. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad