High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Shri Santosh Kumar Kanaujia, Advocate, who is already appearing on behalf of appellant no.2, has also put in appearance on behalf of appellants no.1 and 3 by filing his Vakalatnama before this Court, which is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants appearing on behalf of appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

3. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants, namely, Baleshwar Prasad s/o Jag Mohan Lal Verma, Annoo Lal s/o Baleshwar Prasad Verma and Sudhir s/o Harbansh Lal, challenging the judgment and order

26.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kheri in S.T. No.94 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No.276 of 1995, Police Station- Kheri, District- Kheri, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of 15 days; appellant no.2- Annoo Lal was convicted and sentenced to further undergo one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 324 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. According to the case of prosecution, that comes out from the Page No.2 of 5 FIR lodged by Shyam Pyarey s/o Mansha Ram Pasi r/o Jhansiya under P.S.- Kheri, Distt. Lakhimpur Kheri is to the effect that he got the report written by one Mishri Lal s/o Mansha Ram Pasi, r/o village Banstali and submitted the same at P.S.- Kheri. According to this report (Ext.-Ka-1) that on

17.12.95 at about 11.00 A.M., complainant alongwith his son was levelling the land from 'Pata' and Baleshwar, Annoo, Sudhir (appellants herein) and Nanhu alias Sanjai, all residents of village Jhansiya Purva under P.S.- Kheri, came at the field and started abusing and said as to why he was cutting the sugarcane and in response it was said that they had not cut the same. On this all the four started beating. Annoo had a sickle in his hand which he hit him in the hand and the remaining accused assaulted him and his son by kicks and fists and danda. The occurrence was seen by Kamnath and Daya Ram of the village, who saved them. The complainant and his son had received the injuries in the alleged incident.

5. The FIR was registered on 17.12.1995 at about 15:20 P.M. under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act against the accused- appellants.

6. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet (Ex.Ka-3) under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act against the accused-appellants.

7. Investigating Officer proved chik FIR and G.D. of registration of case as Ex.Ka-4 and Ex.Ka-5 respectively. P.W.4 – Dr. Subhash Chandra has proved the injury reports of injured- Ram Sagar and Shyam Pyarey as Ex.Ka-6 and Ex.Ka-7 respectively.

8. After submission of charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and thereafter the said case was committed to the Court of Session where it was registered as S.T. No.94 of 2002 Page No.3 of 5 and charges were framed against the appellants to which they denied and claimed trial.

9. The prosecution to establish its case examined as many as four witnesses i.e. informant/Shyam Pyarey (P.W.1), Ram Sagar (P.W.2), S.I. Paras Nath Sharma (P.W.3) and Dr. Subhash Chandra (P.W.4).

10. That after closing of the evidence, statements of accused/ appellants were recorded by the trial court, after explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellants denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

11. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence including the evidence of P.W.1/informant (injured) and P.W.2 (injured), who were present at the situs of crime, and also after perusing the injury reports of injured (Ex.Ka-6 and Ex.Ka-7), convicted the accused-appellants as above and acquitted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Accused- appellants no.1 and 3, namely, Baleshwar Prasad and Sudhir were also acquitted from the charge of Section 324/34 I.P.C.

12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accused- appellants have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offender. The learned counsel at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and is confining submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence. Page No.4 of 5

14. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the court below and keeping in view the evidence on record, accused-appellants have been rightly convicted.

15. That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year 1995. The accused-appellants have suffered in the matter for the past about 30 years and there is no criminal antecedent against them during these years, as stated.

16. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case including the case of the prosecution, as set up in the FIR and statements of witnesses of fact examined before the trial court, which includes the statement of informant/injured Shyam Pyarey (P.W.1) and injured Ram Sagar (P.W.2) also relevant provisions of law and settled proposition on the issue and also the period lapsed from the date of incident i.e. about 30 years and the sentence awarded by the trial court under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Annoo Lal also convicted and sentenced under Section 324 I.P.C., indicated above, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the trial court be modified. The accused-appellants, named above, are sentenced as under. (i) For the offence under Section 323/34 I.P.C. the accused- appellants are sentenced to period already undergone and fine of Rs.2000/- each. (ii) For the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., the accused- appellant no.2 -Annoo Lal is sentenced to period already undergone and fine of Rs.5000/-. (iii) The accused-appellants shall deposit the amount of fine within two months from today. The fine awarded in judgment under appeal, if has been deposited, shall be adjusted. Page No.5 of 5

17. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed.

18. A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for compliance.

19. Trial court record shall also be sent back to the district court concerned. Order Date :- 14.07.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellants appearing on behalf of appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

3. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants, namely, Baleshwar Prasad s/o Jag Mohan Lal Verma, Annoo Lal s/o Baleshwar Prasad Verma and Sudhir s/o Harbansh Lal, challenging the judgment and order

26.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kheri in S.T. No.94 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No.276 of 1995, Police Station- Kheri, District- Kheri, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of 15 days; appellant no.2- Annoo Lal was convicted and sentenced to further undergo one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 324 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. According to the case of prosecution, that comes out from the Page No.2 of 5 FIR lodged by Shyam Pyarey s/o Mansha Ram Pasi r/o Jhansiya under P.S.- Kheri, Distt. Lakhimpur Kheri is to the effect that he got the report written by one Mishri Lal s/o Mansha Ram Pasi, r/o village Banstali and submitted the same at P.S.- Kheri. According to this report (Ext.-Ka-1) that on

17.12.95 at about 11.00 A.M., complainant alongwith his son was levelling the land from 'Pata' and Baleshwar, Annoo, Sudhir (appellants herein) and Nanhu alias Sanjai, all residents of village Jhansiya Purva under P.S.- Kheri, came at the field and started abusing and said as to why he was cutting the sugarcane and in response it was said that they had not cut the same. On this all the four started beating. Annoo had a sickle in his hand which he hit him in the hand and the remaining accused assaulted him and his son by kicks and fists and danda. The occurrence was seen by Kamnath and Daya Ram of the village, who saved them. The complainant and his son had received the injuries in the alleged incident.

5. The FIR was registered on 17.12.1995 at about 15:20 P.M. under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act against the accused- appellants.

6. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet (Ex.Ka-3) under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act against the accused-appellants.

7. Investigating Officer proved chik FIR and G.D. of registration of case as Ex.Ka-4 and Ex.Ka-5 respectively. P.W.4 – Dr. Subhash Chandra has proved the injury reports of injured- Ram Sagar and Shyam Pyarey as Ex.Ka-6 and Ex.Ka-7 respectively.

8. After submission of charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and thereafter the said case was committed to the Court of Session where it was registered as S.T. No.94 of 2002 Page No.3 of 5 and charges were framed against the appellants to which they denied and claimed trial.

9. The prosecution to establish its case examined as many as four witnesses i.e. informant/Shyam Pyarey (P.W.1), Ram Sagar (P.W.2), S.I. Paras Nath Sharma (P.W.3) and Dr. Subhash Chandra (P.W.4).

10. That after closing of the evidence, statements of accused/ appellants were recorded by the trial court, after explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellants denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

11. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence including the evidence of P.W.1/informant (injured) and P.W.2 (injured), who were present at the situs of crime, and also after perusing the injury reports of injured (Ex.Ka-6 and Ex.Ka-7), convicted the accused-appellants as above and acquitted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Accused- appellants no.1 and 3, namely, Baleshwar Prasad and Sudhir were also acquitted from the charge of Section 324/34 I.P.C.

12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accused- appellants have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offender. The learned counsel at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and is confining submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence. Page No.4 of 5

14. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the court below and keeping in view the evidence on record, accused-appellants have been rightly convicted.

15. That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year 1995. The accused-appellants have suffered in the matter for the past about 30 years and there is no criminal antecedent against them during these years, as stated.

16. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case including the case of the prosecution, as set up in the FIR and statements of witnesses of fact examined before the trial court, which includes the statement of informant/injured Shyam Pyarey (P.W.1) and injured Ram Sagar (P.W.2) also relevant provisions of law and settled proposition on the issue and also the period lapsed from the date of incident i.e. about 30 years and the sentence awarded by the trial court under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Annoo Lal also convicted and sentenced under Section 324 I.P.C., indicated above, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the trial court be modified. The accused-appellants, named above, are sentenced as under. (i) For the offence under Section 323/34 I.P.C. the accused- appellants are sentenced to period already undergone and fine of Rs.2000/- each. (ii) For the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., the accused- appellant no.2 -Annoo Lal is sentenced to period already undergone and fine of Rs.5000/-. (iii) The accused-appellants shall deposit the amount of fine within two months from today. The fine awarded in judgment under appeal, if has been deposited, shall be adjusted. Page No.5 of 5

17. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed.

18. A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for compliance.

19. Trial court record shall also be sent back to the district court concerned. Order Date :- 14.07.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench