Vijendra Kumar Misra v. State of U.P on 09 Dec 2025

Order

- "As per Office report dated 20.11.2025, bailable warrant could not be executed against the appellant. Accordingly, Non bailable warrant be issued to the appellant through C.J.M. concerned for ensuring their presence before this Court. In case, the appellant appear before the C.J.M. concerned, he shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- as also the undertaking regarding appearance before this Court on the date fixed. Copy of the bond shall be sent to this Court. List on 09.12.2025."

2. Today, the appellant-Vijendra Kumar Mishra is present before the Court and an application for recall of the order dated 20.11.2025 has been filed. 3. Finding the grounds/reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application for recall to be sufficient, the application for recall is allowed. The order dated 20.11.2025 is hereby recalled. 4. Heard Shri Shaquiel Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the trial court record. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed 5. on behalf of the appellant-Vijendra Kumar Mishra against the judgment 2 CRLA No. - 62 of 2011 and order 16.12.2010, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) in Session Trial No. 424 of 2009 (State Vs. Vijendra Kumar Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 233 of 2005, Police Station - Maharajganj, District - Faizabad (now Ayodhya) convicting the appellant - Vijendra Kumar Mishra for the offence under Sections 324, 452, 427 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 Years for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 Years' with a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 Year for the offence under Section 427 I.P.C. with default stipulation. 6. According to the case of prosecution, in nutshell, as set up in the written report submitted by Uma Prasad Mishra, S/o Late Rampher Mishra at Police Station - Maharajganj, District-Faizabad (now Ayodhya) on 01.06.2005, the incident occurred on 01.06.2005 in which the accused-appellant attacked the Anamika Mishra after entering into the rented house of the informant in which the injured-Smt. Anamika Mishra (PW-2) was present and she sustained injuries caused by the accused-appellant Vijendra Kumar Mishra, who is the real nephew of the informant.

7. As per written report the accused-appellant also damaged various articles available in the house of the informant and the injured Smt. Anamika Mishra was saved by the neighbours and she was admitted at District Hospital, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) for her treatment where she was medically examined by Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW-7) who prepared the injury report (Ext.Ka-5) of injured Smt. Anamika Mishra, according to which the injured sustained six injuries which were simple in nature and could be caused by axe or with Banka or by a sharp edged pipe. On the basis of the above written report the F.I.R. was registered 8. as Case Crime No.233/2005, under Sections 452, 307, 427 I.P.C., at Police Station - Maharajganj, District - Faizabad (now Ayodhya) and on the basis of the said F.I.R. the investigation proceeded in the matter and the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O."), after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet (Ext.Ka-8) against the accused -appellant under Sections 452, 427, 307 I.P.C. Along with the charge sheet, the I.O. submitted the Written Report (Ext.Ka-1), Fard Supurdaginama (Ext.Ka-2), Chik FIR (Ext.Ka-3), Nakal Rapat (Ext.Ka- 4), Injury Report (Ext.Ka-5), Site Plan (Ext.Ka-6), Recovery Memo of Axe (Ext.Ka-7), Charge Sheet (Ext.Ka-8). After filing of the charge sheet, the Magistrate concerned took 9. cognizance in the matter and committed the case to the Court of Session, where it was registered as S.T. No.424 of 2009 and charges were framed against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 452, 427, 3 CRLA No. - 62 of 2011 307 I.P.C. which were denied by the accused-appellant and he claimed the trial.

10. In order to prove/establish its case, the prosecution examined informant-Uma Prasad Mishra (PW-1), injured Smt. Anamika (PW-2), who proved the prosecution story. Ram Chandra Gupta (PW-3), Sitaram (PW-4), Guddu Saini (PW-5), who are independent witnesses and supported the prosecution story. Head Constable Raj Kumar (PW-6), Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW-7), S.I. Shada Shiv Mishra (PW-8) are the formal witnesses who proved the documentary evidence including the injury report, site plan, charge sheet, etc.

11. It would be apt to indicate here that it is well established that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355].

12. After closing of the evidence, statement of accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court, after explaining the entire evidence and circumstances, in which appellants denied prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

13. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence oral as well as documentary, found the accused/appellant guilty and convicted him as above. 4 CRLA No. - 62 of 2011 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

14. and order of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused- appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is 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 his submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence. Learned counsel for accused-appellant submits that in view of the 16. aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused- appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1958'). The Trial Court did neither invoke the provisions of the Act, 1958 17. nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. while sentencing the accused- appellant. The Trial Court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Act, 1958.

18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that to that extent, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of section 361 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without 19. the beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise is eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act, 1958.

20. The accused-appellant has statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act, 1958 and the learned Trial Court was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act, 1958 as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or provisions of the Act, 1958 were not applied, then the learned Trial Court should have recorded reasons for the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State of Uttar 21. Pradesh has its own local law of probation i.e. Uttar Pradesh First Offenders Probation Act, 1938. He further submitted that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act) is also applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of 5 CRLA No. - 62 of 2011 Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P.; (2017) 2 SCC 198. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is upon the discretion of the Court to grant benefits in either of the Acts. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he does 22. not want to press the appeal on merits. He has submitted that the incident took place 20 years ago and there is no further criminal antecedent of the appellant. The delay in trial deprives the right of the appellant of speedy trial and he may be given benefit of first offender and appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein after referred as the Act of 1958). He further submitted that appellant is first time offender and is not previously convicted in any case. He further submitted that it is the Court which may consider the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the accused-appellant.

23. 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- appellant has been rightly convicted.

24. Learned AGA appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that accused-appellant is the first time offender and was not previously convicted in any other case. He also submits that in view of the expressed provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C., considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused- appellants and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 can be granted in this case.

25. Learned A.G.A. further states that the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 could be extended to the accused-appellant on certain stipulations as specified in Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

26. After considering the arguments advanced by the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, this court finds that except apart the merits of the case, so far as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for providing benefits of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal position and law propounded in this regard. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are

27. extracted hereunder: "3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- "Where any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal code, or any other law, 6 CRLA No. - 62 of 2011 and no previous conviction is proved against him and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this Section or Section 4.

4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond."

28. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Lal vs State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444, while discussing the purpose and object of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, has observed in para no. 4, as follows:- "4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the condition laid down in the appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act."