High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Hardoi by which appellant was convicted and sentenced for a period of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine; six months additional imprisonment, involved in Session Trial No. 927 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2001, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi.

3. Facts in brief are that there was dispute relating to wages between the informant and the appellant. On 23.04.2001 at about 8 'o' clock in the night the appellant and other three co- accused persons inflicted the injuries on the person of informant's father with knife who sustained injuries at his stomach. The accused persons also made assault with lathi and abused. F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at the police station as Crime No. 97 of 2001 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

4. After medical examination injury report was prepared by the doctor.

5. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellant under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

6. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellant which was read over and explained to the accused person but he denied and claimed for trial.

7. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Rakesh; P.W. 2, Ramkishan; P.W. 3, Sub-Inspector, Prem Prakash Pandey P.W.4, Dr. J.L. Gautam; P.W. 5, Dr. A.K. Srivastava.

8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence.

9. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on his person those were not fatal to life. The incident took place, as a result of altercation between the parties regarding dispute of money, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention or motive to cause injuries to the injured person but it was all of a sudden. It is also submitted that general role of making assault with lathi & danda was assigned to the four accused persons and on the same evidence three accused persons were acquitted but present appellant was convicted which cannot be said to be lawful.

11. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 2001 and till now 24 years have elapsed and the appellant has become old and suffering from old age ailments. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellant that he had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award compensation to be given to the injured person since no purpose will be served by sending the appellant in jail.

12. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the age of the appellant.

13. In the case of Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 S.C. 664 where a single injury was found in the back of the neck of injured, appellant who was tried alongwith two others under Section 307/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years while two other were acquitted, appeal was partly allowed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. His conviction was altered into Section 324 IPC and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/- which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

14. In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of Gujarat, 1996 AIR 3236, there was an attempt to commit murder with fire arm and injury was by a pellet that struck the head, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that Section 307 IPC cannot be held to have been satisfied and conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC.

15. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 326 IPC simplicitor. 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 already undergone by him.

16. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature. The weapon used in causing those injuries was said to be lathi, danda & knife though the injury was found on the right side of stomach of the injured but it was not so deep that can be said to be fatal to the life. In this way, the case cannot be said to come within the purview of section 307 I.P.C. but under Section 324 I.P.C. only. 24 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now he has become old. By sending the appellant to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

17. To sum up the totality of case, in view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by sending the appellant to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by him and to impose compensation for Rs. 20,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and he is to deposit Rs. 20,000/- before the concerned court within a period of 60 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or his survivors.

19. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Hardoi by which appellant was convicted and sentenced for a period of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine; six months additional imprisonment, involved in Session Trial No. 927 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2001, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi.

3. Facts in brief are that there was dispute relating to wages between the informant and the appellant. On 23.04.2001 at about 8 'o' clock in the night the appellant and other three co- accused persons inflicted the injuries on the person of informant's father with knife who sustained injuries at his stomach. The accused persons also made assault with lathi and abused. F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at the police station as Crime No. 97 of 2001 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

4. After medical examination injury report was prepared by the doctor.

5. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellant under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

6. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellant which was read over and explained to the accused person but he denied and claimed for trial.

7. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Rakesh; P.W. 2, Ramkishan; P.W. 3, Sub-Inspector, Prem Prakash Pandey P.W.4, Dr. J.L. Gautam; P.W. 5, Dr. A.K. Srivastava.

8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence.

9. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on his person those were not fatal to life. The incident took place, as a result of altercation between the parties regarding dispute of money, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention or motive to cause injuries to the injured person but it was all of a sudden. It is also submitted that general role of making assault with lathi & danda was assigned to the four accused persons and on the same evidence three accused persons were acquitted but present appellant was convicted which cannot be said to be lawful.

11. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 2001 and till now 24 years have elapsed and the appellant has become old and suffering from old age ailments. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellant that he had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award compensation to be given to the injured person since no purpose will be served by sending the appellant in jail.

12. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the age of the appellant.

13. In the case of Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 S.C. 664 where a single injury was found in the back of the neck of injured, appellant who was tried alongwith two others under Section 307/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years while two other were acquitted, appeal was partly allowed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. His conviction was altered into Section 324 IPC and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/- which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

14. In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of Gujarat, 1996 AIR 3236, there was an attempt to commit murder with fire arm and injury was by a pellet that struck the head, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that Section 307 IPC cannot be held to have been satisfied and conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC.

15. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 326 IPC simplicitor. 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 already undergone by him.

16. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature. The weapon used in causing those injuries was said to be lathi, danda & knife though the injury was found on the right side of stomach of the injured but it was not so deep that can be said to be fatal to the life. In this way, the case cannot be said to come within the purview of section 307 I.P.C. but under Section 324 I.P.C. only. 24 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now he has become old. By sending the appellant to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

17. To sum up the totality of case, in view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by sending the appellant to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by him and to impose compensation for Rs. 20,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and he is to deposit Rs. 20,000/- before the concerned court within a period of 60 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or his survivors.

19. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench