Bhagwan Swaroop and another v. State of U.P.) by which, the appellate court concerned has although affirmed the

concerned has although affirmed the conviction of the accused- appellants therein but has modified the sentences awarded to them by modifying the conviction and sentence under Section 323 I.P.C. to three months imprisonment, Section 324 I.P.C. to six months simple imprisonment and section 452 I.P.C. to 9 months simple imprisonment. Further, both the accused have been sentenced under Section 452 I.P.C. to a fine of Rs.250/- each and in default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run currently. It has further been directed that if the accused have been deposited the fine of Rs.500/- each as ordered by the trial court concerned, an amount of Rs.250/- shall be refunded to them.

3. The present revision was admitted only on the question of sentence by another Bench of this Court vide order dated

25.05.2001 and a revisionists were directed to be enlarged on bail.

4. The facts of the case are that an application dated 24.05.1996 was given by Bhagwati Pasad alleging therein that on

23.05.1996 at about 12:00 p.m. Bhagwan Swaroop armed with lathi and Nanak Chandra armed with farsa came in his house and inquired about him from his wife Smt. Anar Devi and stated that today they will settled the account of money with him. His wife stated that she does not know where he has gone on which they threatened her and there was a quarrel between them after which both the accused assaulted her with farsa and lathi. He at that time reached the house and saw the accused persons assaulting his wife. On shouts by him and his wife, Ved Ram of the village and Roshan Singh who were passing from there came and saw the incident and intervened in it. Due to fear, they could not apprehend the accused persons since Nanak Chandra was having a country made pistol also and thus they came out of the house and ran away. While running away, they threatened that if any legal action is taken against them, then it would not be good. He took his wife in a serious condition to the hospital where he was busy taking care of her. Today on getting time, he has come. He possess Rs.7000/- from the accused persons which was demanded by him day before yesterday. The accused persons were thus having enmity with him and do not want to give money. His report be lodged and action be taken. The medical examination report is annexed with the said application. The said application is Ex. Ka-3 to the records.

5. On the basis of the application, first information report was lodged on 24.05.1996 at 14:45 hours as Case Crime No. 69 of 1996, under Sections 452, 324, 323 I.P.C. against the two accused persons.

6. Smt. Anar Devi was medically examined on 23.05.1996 at 5:00 p.m. by the In-charge Medical Officer wherein she was brought by Bhagwati Prasad her husband. The doctor found the following injuries on her person :- "(i) Incised wound size 3 cm x .5 cm bone deep just above the Lt. eyebrow oblique in shape with clotted blood KUO advice X-Ray. (ii) Traumatic swelling 3.5 cm x 3 cm just above the middle of the nose KUO advice X-Ray. (iii) Contusion red in colour 3 cm x 3.5 cm. on the Lt. side cheek. (iv) Incised wound size 3 cm x 0.5 cm scalp deep above the Lt. side front of the head with clotted blood. (v) Traumatic swelling size 4 cm x 2 cm above the back of the head. (vi) Contusion red in colour 5 cm x 2 cm just above the Lt. hand shoulder."

7. The opinion of the doctor was as under :- "Injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object except injuries no. 1, 2, 4 caused by sharp weapon object KUO advice X-Ray. Injury no. 4 simple in nature. Injury nos. 1 and 2 opinion reserved will give after X-Ray. Duration approximate fresh."

8. The said injury report is as Ex. Ka-6 to the records.

9. The site plan of the place of the incident has been made on

28.05.1996 which is Ex. Ka-2 to the records.

10. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet No. 61 of 1996 dated 14.06.1996 was filed against both the accused persons under Sections 452, 324, 323 I.P.C. The same is Ex.Ka- 1 to the records.

11. The Judicial Magistrate - IIIrd, Aligarh vide order dated

21.11.1998 framed charges against the revisionists under Sections 452, 324, 323 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12. In the trial Bhagwati Prasad, first informant was examined as P.W.-1, Smt. Anar Devi was examined as P.W.-2 and Roshan Singh was examined as P.W.-3, who were the alleged witnesses of fact. Amongst the formal witness Mishri Lal was examined as P.W.-4 being the Investigating Officer of the matter and Doctor R.P. Pandey was examined as P.W.-5, who conducted the medical examination of the victim.

13. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version and stated to have been implicated in the matter due to partybandi and on false evidence.

14. During the pendency of the present revision, the revisionist no. 1 Bhagwan Swroop was reported to be dead, his revision thus stood abated vide order dated 18.12.2023 passed by this Court. The revision thus survives only for the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra.

15. The trial court records have been received which have been tagged with the present revision.

16. Heard Sri Vikrant Neeraj, learned counsel for the revisionist- Nanak Chandra, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State of U.P., perused the records and also perused the trial court records.

17. Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present, despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

18. Learned counsel for the revisionist raised a solitary argument in the present matter that looking to the facts that the present incident is alleged to have taken place on 23.05.1996 and as of now 29 years have passed and further the fact that the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court concerned vide judgement and order dated 16.01.2001 was modified and the sentence of imprisonment along with fine was reduced by the appellate court vide its judgement and order dated

16.05.2001, the present revision be considered as a fit case for acquitting the accused on the period already undergone by him.

19. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that even that if this court orders compensation to be paid to the injured / victim, the same shall not be considered as an enhancement of fine.

20. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed before the Court a supplementary affidavit dated 04.11.2024 and submitted that surviving revisionist Nanak Chandra as per the report of the District Jail, Aligarh has been in jail from

06.06.1996 to 13.06.1996 as an under trial prisoner and then from 24.05.2001 to 29.05.2001 as a convicted accused, and then from 12.01.2024 to 16.03.2024 during the pendency of the present revision and thus for a period of 2 months and four days and thus looking to the total period of incarnation he has been in jail for about 2 months and 16 days. It is submitted that after the modification of the sentence as awarded to the accused- revisionist by the trial court which has been done by the appellate court subsequently, the maximum period of imprisonment would be 9 months out of which the accused appellant has undergone 2 months and 16 days. It is further submitted that looking to the merits of the matter, the appellate court had modified the sentence as awarded to the revisionists. It is further submitted that the appellate court has while deciding the appeal returned a finding that the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy and thus the appellate court should have proceeded to allow the said appeal and acquit the appellants therein.

21. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments and revision of the revisionist.

22. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the conviction and sentence as awarded to the revisionists was modified by the appellate court and the same was reduced. The finding of the appellate court is that the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy. The argument of the revisionist is on the question of sentence only. The present incident is of 23.05.1996 which is about 29 years ago. The revisionist has undergone about 2 months and 16 days out of the maximum punishment awarded of 9 months. Although, the conviction has been awarded on other counts but the sentence has been ordered to run currently.

23. Looking to the findings of the appellate court, the nature of injuries, passage of time and also the fact that the argument is not being opposed by the learned counsel for the State, it would be appropriate that the present revision insofar as the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra is concerned is allowed in part.

24. The sentence as awarded to the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone but a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is directed to be paid by the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra out of which Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the injured - Smt. Anar Devi / P.W.- 2 by the C.J.M. concerned as compensation. The amount of compensation is directed to be paid within 45 days from today after which the C.J.M. concerned shall issue notice to the said victim and disburse the amount as ordered above to her after due verification of her identity. The remaining amount of Rs.5000/- shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Committee.

25. If the said direction given hereinabove, are not complied with, the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra shall under go the sentences as awarded by the appellate Court.

26. The revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

27. The trial court records be send back and a copy of this judgement be communicate to the trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

concerned has although affirmed the conviction of the accused- appellants therein but has modified the sentences awarded to them by modifying the conviction and sentence under Section 323 I.P.C. to three months imprisonment, Section 324 I.P.C. to six months simple imprisonment and section 452 I.P.C. to 9 months simple imprisonment. Further, both the accused have been sentenced under Section 452 I.P.C. to a fine of Rs.250/- each and in default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run currently. It has further been directed that if the accused have been deposited the fine of Rs.500/- each as ordered by the trial court concerned, an amount of Rs.250/- shall be refunded to them.

3. The present revision was admitted only on the question of sentence by another Bench of this Court vide order dated

25.05.2001 and a revisionists were directed to be enlarged on bail.

4. The facts of the case are that an application dated 24.05.1996 was given by Bhagwati Pasad alleging therein that on

23.05.1996 at about 12:00 p.m. Bhagwan Swaroop armed with lathi and Nanak Chandra armed with farsa came in his house and inquired about him from his wife Smt. Anar Devi and stated that today they will settled the account of money with him. His wife stated that she does not know where he has gone on which they threatened her and there was a quarrel between them after which both the accused assaulted her with farsa and lathi. He at that time reached the house and saw the accused persons assaulting his wife. On shouts by him and his wife, Ved Ram of the village and Roshan Singh who were passing from there came and saw the incident and intervened in it. Due to fear, they could not apprehend the accused persons since Nanak Chandra was having a country made pistol also and thus they came out of the house and ran away. While running away, they threatened that if any legal action is taken against them, then it would not be good. He took his wife in a serious condition to the hospital where he was busy taking care of her. Today on getting time, he has come. He possess Rs.7000/- from the accused persons which was demanded by him day before yesterday. The accused persons were thus having enmity with him and do not want to give money. His report be lodged and action be taken. The medical examination report is annexed with the said application. The said application is Ex. Ka-3 to the records.

5. On the basis of the application, first information report was lodged on 24.05.1996 at 14:45 hours as Case Crime No. 69 of 1996, under Sections 452, 324, 323 I.P.C. against the two accused persons.

6. Smt. Anar Devi was medically examined on 23.05.1996 at 5:00 p.m. by the In-charge Medical Officer wherein she was brought by Bhagwati Prasad her husband. The doctor found the following injuries on her person :- "(i) Incised wound size 3 cm x .5 cm bone deep just above the Lt. eyebrow oblique in shape with clotted blood KUO advice X-Ray. (ii) Traumatic swelling 3.5 cm x 3 cm just above the middle of the nose KUO advice X-Ray. (iii) Contusion red in colour 3 cm x 3.5 cm. on the Lt. side cheek. (iv) Incised wound size 3 cm x 0.5 cm scalp deep above the Lt. side front of the head with clotted blood. (v) Traumatic swelling size 4 cm x 2 cm above the back of the head. (vi) Contusion red in colour 5 cm x 2 cm just above the Lt. hand shoulder."

7. The opinion of the doctor was as under :- "Injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object except injuries no. 1, 2, 4 caused by sharp weapon object KUO advice X-Ray. Injury no. 4 simple in nature. Injury nos. 1 and 2 opinion reserved will give after X-Ray. Duration approximate fresh."

8. The said injury report is as Ex. Ka-6 to the records.

9. The site plan of the place of the incident has been made on

28.05.1996 which is Ex. Ka-2 to the records.

10. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet No. 61 of 1996 dated 14.06.1996 was filed against both the accused persons under Sections 452, 324, 323 I.P.C. The same is Ex.Ka- 1 to the records.

11. The Judicial Magistrate - IIIrd, Aligarh vide order dated

21.11.1998 framed charges against the revisionists under Sections 452, 324, 323 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12. In the trial Bhagwati Prasad, first informant was examined as P.W.-1, Smt. Anar Devi was examined as P.W.-2 and Roshan Singh was examined as P.W.-3, who were the alleged witnesses of fact. Amongst the formal witness Mishri Lal was examined as P.W.-4 being the Investigating Officer of the matter and Doctor R.P. Pandey was examined as P.W.-5, who conducted the medical examination of the victim.

13. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version and stated to have been implicated in the matter due to partybandi and on false evidence.

14. During the pendency of the present revision, the revisionist no. 1 Bhagwan Swroop was reported to be dead, his revision thus stood abated vide order dated 18.12.2023 passed by this Court. The revision thus survives only for the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra.

15. The trial court records have been received which have been tagged with the present revision.

16. Heard Sri Vikrant Neeraj, learned counsel for the revisionist- Nanak Chandra, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State of U.P., perused the records and also perused the trial court records.

17. Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present, despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

18. Learned counsel for the revisionist raised a solitary argument in the present matter that looking to the facts that the present incident is alleged to have taken place on 23.05.1996 and as of now 29 years have passed and further the fact that the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court concerned vide judgement and order dated 16.01.2001 was modified and the sentence of imprisonment along with fine was reduced by the appellate court vide its judgement and order dated

16.05.2001, the present revision be considered as a fit case for acquitting the accused on the period already undergone by him.

19. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that even that if this court orders compensation to be paid to the injured / victim, the same shall not be considered as an enhancement of fine.

20. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed before the Court a supplementary affidavit dated 04.11.2024 and submitted that surviving revisionist Nanak Chandra as per the report of the District Jail, Aligarh has been in jail from

06.06.1996 to 13.06.1996 as an under trial prisoner and then from 24.05.2001 to 29.05.2001 as a convicted accused, and then from 12.01.2024 to 16.03.2024 during the pendency of the present revision and thus for a period of 2 months and four days and thus looking to the total period of incarnation he has been in jail for about 2 months and 16 days. It is submitted that after the modification of the sentence as awarded to the accused- revisionist by the trial court which has been done by the appellate court subsequently, the maximum period of imprisonment would be 9 months out of which the accused appellant has undergone 2 months and 16 days. It is further submitted that looking to the merits of the matter, the appellate court had modified the sentence as awarded to the revisionists. It is further submitted that the appellate court has while deciding the appeal returned a finding that the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy and thus the appellate court should have proceeded to allow the said appeal and acquit the appellants therein.

21. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments and revision of the revisionist.

22. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the conviction and sentence as awarded to the revisionists was modified by the appellate court and the same was reduced. The finding of the appellate court is that the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy. The argument of the revisionist is on the question of sentence only. The present incident is of 23.05.1996 which is about 29 years ago. The revisionist has undergone about 2 months and 16 days out of the maximum punishment awarded of 9 months. Although, the conviction has been awarded on other counts but the sentence has been ordered to run currently.

23. Looking to the findings of the appellate court, the nature of injuries, passage of time and also the fact that the argument is not being opposed by the learned counsel for the State, it would be appropriate that the present revision insofar as the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra is concerned is allowed in part.

24. The sentence as awarded to the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone but a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is directed to be paid by the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra out of which Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the injured - Smt. Anar Devi / P.W.- 2 by the C.J.M. concerned as compensation. The amount of compensation is directed to be paid within 45 days from today after which the C.J.M. concerned shall issue notice to the said victim and disburse the amount as ordered above to her after due verification of her identity. The remaining amount of Rs.5000/- shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Committee.

25. If the said direction given hereinabove, are not complied with, the revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra shall under go the sentences as awarded by the appellate Court.

26. The revisionist no. 2 Nanak Chandra is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

27. The trial court records be send back and a copy of this judgement be communicate to the trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad