High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 30.11.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Barabanki by which appellants were convicted and sentenced involved in Session Trial No. 123 of 1996, arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.

3. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no. 3, Piyarey, has died, therefore, appeal stands abated for appellant no. 3, Piyarey.

4. Facts in brief are that on 06.08.1992 at about 11 to 12 'o' clock in the day the wife of informant was going to her house. Gangoo @ Ganga Ram objected her to go that way on which his wife told that that was the old way. On this there was altercation and she went to her house. The appellants with common object equipped with lathi and tabli arrived at her house and started beating. Two daughter-in-laws and one daughter came there in rescue but they were also beaten, abused and threatened by the appellants. Incident was witnessed by the villagers. An F.I.R. was lodged at the police station by Chhedilal, the informant. The injured persons were sent for medical examination by giving Mazrubi report. On the same day injured Kalpa, Prema, Mayawati were medically examined. In X-ray left hand's little finger and right hand's little finger was found fractured with other simple injuries on their person.

5. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. on the basis of police report the court concerned took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed for trial.

6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Chedilal; P.W. 2, Ramdai; P.W. 3, Mayawati as witness of fact. P.W.4, Dr. P.K. Joshi, preparing medical reports; P.W. 5, Investigating Officer; P.W. 6, Dr. P.C. Dubey preparing X-ray report; P.W. 7, Surendra Bahadur, Constable Moharrir; P.W.8, who proved about the weeding of G.D.

7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence.

8. 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 appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on their person those were not fatal to the life. Fractures said to be caused are on metacarpal bone of little finger which can also not be said to be fatal. The incident took place, as a result of altercation between the parties regarding dispute of pathway, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention or motive to cause injuries to the injured persons but it was all of a sudden. It is also submitted that general role of making assault with lathi and tabli was not assigned to the present appellants. There was no any intention or knowledge with the appellants to cause injury to the injured persons.

10. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1992 and till now 32 years have elapsed and appellant no. 3, Piyarey had already died, other appellants have also become old, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending them to jail. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellants that they had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award compensation to be given to the injured persons since no purpose will be served by sending the appellants in jail.

11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature. The weapon used in causing those injuries were said to be lathi and tabli though no any incised wound was found on the person of injured. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 32 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now they have become old. By sending the appellants to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

16. 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 appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and to impose compensation for Rs. 20,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no. 1, Gangoo @ Ganga Ram, appellant no. 2, Ram Sufal, appellant no. 4, Matadeen and appellant no. 5 Nokhai is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they are to deposit Rs. 20,000/- before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.

18. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 30.11.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Barabanki by which appellants were convicted and sentenced involved in Session Trial No. 123 of 1996, arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.

3. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no. 3, Piyarey, has died, therefore, appeal stands abated for appellant no. 3, Piyarey.

4. Facts in brief are that on 06.08.1992 at about 11 to 12 'o' clock in the day the wife of informant was going to her house. Gangoo @ Ganga Ram objected her to go that way on which his wife told that that was the old way. On this there was altercation and she went to her house. The appellants with common object equipped with lathi and tabli arrived at her house and started beating. Two daughter-in-laws and one daughter came there in rescue but they were also beaten, abused and threatened by the appellants. Incident was witnessed by the villagers. An F.I.R. was lodged at the police station by Chhedilal, the informant. The injured persons were sent for medical examination by giving Mazrubi report. On the same day injured Kalpa, Prema, Mayawati were medically examined. In X-ray left hand's little finger and right hand's little finger was found fractured with other simple injuries on their person.

5. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. on the basis of police report the court concerned took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed for trial.

6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Chedilal; P.W. 2, Ramdai; P.W. 3, Mayawati as witness of fact. P.W.4, Dr. P.K. Joshi, preparing medical reports; P.W. 5, Investigating Officer; P.W. 6, Dr. P.C. Dubey preparing X-ray report; P.W. 7, Surendra Bahadur, Constable Moharrir; P.W.8, who proved about the weeding of G.D.

7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence.

8. 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 appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on their person those were not fatal to the life. Fractures said to be caused are on metacarpal bone of little finger which can also not be said to be fatal. The incident took place, as a result of altercation between the parties regarding dispute of pathway, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention or motive to cause injuries to the injured persons but it was all of a sudden. It is also submitted that general role of making assault with lathi and tabli was not assigned to the present appellants. There was no any intention or knowledge with the appellants to cause injury to the injured persons.

10. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1992 and till now 32 years have elapsed and appellant no. 3, Piyarey had already died, other appellants have also become old, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending them to jail. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellants that they had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award compensation to be given to the injured persons since no purpose will be served by sending the appellants in jail.

11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature. The weapon used in causing those injuries were said to be lathi and tabli though no any incised wound was found on the person of injured. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 32 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now they have become old. By sending the appellants to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

16. 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 appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and to impose compensation for Rs. 20,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no. 1, Gangoo @ Ganga Ram, appellant no. 2, Ram Sufal, appellant no. 4, Matadeen and appellant no. 5 Nokhai is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they are to deposit Rs. 20,000/- before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.

18. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench