High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Lal Ji And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ga.. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

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 07.03.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Vth, court no. 14, Sultanpur by which appellants were convicted and sentenced arising out of Case Crime No. 747 of 1997 and S.T. No. 453 of 1998, under Section 308/34 I.P.C. for a period of four years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/34 for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

3. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no. 1, Lal Ji and appellant no. 3, Goloo have died as to which appeal is abated to them.

4. Facts in brief are that on 24.09.1997 at about 12 'o' clock in the night. The appellants went to the temple and started beating Sobhnath and Vinod Kumar Shukla who were taken to the hospital and provided treatment. They also abused and threatened to kill regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged as Crime No. 797 of 1997 under Sections 452/34, 308/34, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C.

5. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants on which cognizance was taken and copies of necessary papers were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and case was committed for trial.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and adduced evidence in defence.

7. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the injured Sobhnath sustained simple injuries on his person those were four in number and were simple in nature. No any injury is fatal to the life. Likewise Vinod Kumar Shukla also sustained four simple injuries on his person those were in the nature of contusion and abrasion not fatal to the life. In X-ray no any fracture was found on the person of injured. Only on the basis of injury on head conviction under Section 308 I.P.C. was held by the learned trial court whereas the case squarely comes within the purview of Section 323 I.P.C. for causing simple hurt.

9. Further the learned counsel for the appellant without going into merits of the case submitted that the appellant nos. 1 and 3 have died except appellant no. 2, (Gopal) who is also aged person. The incident took place in the year 1997 and till now 27 years have elapsed and there is no any subsequent conduct of the appellant that he had committed similar offence. At the time of incident the appellant was aged about 30 and now he is aged about 57 years, 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 appellant to jail.

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured Sobhnath were simple in nature likewise of Vinod Kumar Shukla. In X-ray no any fracture was found. The weapon used in causing those injuries was said to be danda. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 27 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and at that time appellant was also young but now he has come towards the old age. By sending the appellant to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

15. 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.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded on the appellant no. 2, (Gopal) 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 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.

17. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Appellant :- Lal Ji And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ga.. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

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 07.03.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Vth, court no. 14, Sultanpur by which appellants were convicted and sentenced arising out of Case Crime No. 747 of 1997 and S.T. No. 453 of 1998, under Section 308/34 I.P.C. for a period of four years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/34 for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

3. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no. 1, Lal Ji and appellant no. 3, Goloo have died as to which appeal is abated to them.

4. Facts in brief are that on 24.09.1997 at about 12 'o' clock in the night. The appellants went to the temple and started beating Sobhnath and Vinod Kumar Shukla who were taken to the hospital and provided treatment. They also abused and threatened to kill regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged as Crime No. 797 of 1997 under Sections 452/34, 308/34, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C.

5. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants on which cognizance was taken and copies of necessary papers were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and case was committed for trial.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and adduced evidence in defence.

7. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the injured Sobhnath sustained simple injuries on his person those were four in number and were simple in nature. No any injury is fatal to the life. Likewise Vinod Kumar Shukla also sustained four simple injuries on his person those were in the nature of contusion and abrasion not fatal to the life. In X-ray no any fracture was found on the person of injured. Only on the basis of injury on head conviction under Section 308 I.P.C. was held by the learned trial court whereas the case squarely comes within the purview of Section 323 I.P.C. for causing simple hurt.

9. Further the learned counsel for the appellant without going into merits of the case submitted that the appellant nos. 1 and 3 have died except appellant no. 2, (Gopal) who is also aged person. The incident took place in the year 1997 and till now 27 years have elapsed and there is no any subsequent conduct of the appellant that he had committed similar offence. At the time of incident the appellant was aged about 30 and now he is aged about 57 years, 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 appellant to jail.

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured Sobhnath were simple in nature likewise of Vinod Kumar Shukla. In X-ray no any fracture was found. The weapon used in causing those injuries was said to be danda. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 27 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and at that time appellant was also young but now he has come towards the old age. By sending the appellant to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

15. 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.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded on the appellant no. 2, (Gopal) 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 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.

17. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench