High Court · 2025

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Pratapgarh by which appellants were convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 39/01 (State Vs. Jhablu Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 614 of 1999, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) X SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh.

3. Facts in brief are that on 9.10.1999 at about 7 AM, appellants arrived at the door of the informant and started abusing with words relating to his caste and also made assault with 'lathi' and 'danda' causing injuries to Arjun, Sohan Lal and Ram Milan. The FIR was lodged on the same day at the police station at about 8:30 AM. The injured persons were sent to hospital for medical examination. All of them were medically examined and their injury reports were prepared.

4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the Investigating OfÏcer against the appellants under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) X of SC/ST Act. 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.

5. The prosecution examined PW-1 Arjun Singh; PW-2 Sohan Lal; PW-3 Dev Prasad; PW-4, Vipul Kumar Srivastava, Investigating OfÏcer and PW-5 Barkat Ullah, who proved medicolegal report, as witnesses of fact.

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 did not adduce any 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 in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, present appeal has been preferred.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that they have not made assault and caused injuries to the injured persons. There is no any public witness. PW-3 is said to be eye witness but he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Injured Ram Milan has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the general role of making assault with 'lathi' and 'danda' was assigned to the appellants though there was no any intention or knowledge with the appellants to cause injury to the injured persons.

9. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1999 and till now 25 years have elapsed and the 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.

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 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 'danda'. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured but all were simple in nature. Twenty five 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.

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 appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and to impose compensation for Rs. 10,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellants is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they have to deposit Rs. 10,000/- proportionately 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 :- 11.2.2025 AKK AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Pratapgarh by which appellants were convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 39/01 (State Vs. Jhablu Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 614 of 1999, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) X SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh.

3. Facts in brief are that on 9.10.1999 at about 7 AM, appellants arrived at the door of the informant and started abusing with words relating to his caste and also made assault with 'lathi' and 'danda' causing injuries to Arjun, Sohan Lal and Ram Milan. The FIR was lodged on the same day at the police station at about 8:30 AM. The injured persons were sent to hospital for medical examination. All of them were medically examined and their injury reports were prepared.

4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the Investigating OfÏcer against the appellants under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) X of SC/ST Act. 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.

5. The prosecution examined PW-1 Arjun Singh; PW-2 Sohan Lal; PW-3 Dev Prasad; PW-4, Vipul Kumar Srivastava, Investigating OfÏcer and PW-5 Barkat Ullah, who proved medicolegal report, as witnesses of fact.

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 did not adduce any 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 in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, present appeal has been preferred.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that they have not made assault and caused injuries to the injured persons. There is no any public witness. PW-3 is said to be eye witness but he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Injured Ram Milan has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the general role of making assault with 'lathi' and 'danda' was assigned to the appellants though there was no any intention or knowledge with the appellants to cause injury to the injured persons.

9. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1999 and till now 25 years have elapsed and the 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.

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 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 'danda'. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured but all were simple in nature. Twenty five 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.

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 appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and to impose compensation for Rs. 10,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellants is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they have to deposit Rs. 10,000/- proportionately 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 :- 11.2.2025 AKK AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench