Milap Singh vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7347 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 899 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- Milap Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.N.S.Chauhan,Arun Sinha,Rajendra Jaiswal,Ram Chandra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Milap Singh under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No.02), Unnao in Sessions Trail No.325 of 1999 bearing Case Crime No.47 of 1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and awarded sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month rigorous imprisonment.

Facts, in brief, as per case of prosecution, an F.I.R. dated 01.03.1999 was lodged by Yashtendra Singh (P.W.-1), who is the nephew of injured-Ram Pratap (P.W.-2), regarding the incident occurred on 01.03.1999 at about 08:00 A.M. which was registered at 08:35 AM as Case Crime No.47 of 1999 under Section 307/ 34 I.P.C. at P.S. Safipur, District Unnao, alleging therein that on 01.03.1999 when he alongwith his uncle Ram Pratap was going from his place of residence at village Safipur for taking dip in Ganga, the appellant-Milap Singh having knife in his hand alongwith another person, who can be identified by us if he comes in front of us, having Danda in his hand surrounded my uncle in front of puliya at village Jhaboo Khera and said that I had taken field on "batai" how did you get in between and with common intention to cause death the appellant-Milap Singh with "Knife " alongwith another person who was having "Danda" attacked my uncle on his face and head, on account of which, my uncle sustained injuries on forehead as also on head and he fell down on the spot and on my outcry several persons came at the scene of crime and on challenge made by them the appellant-Milap Singh and person with him fled away towards grove.

The F.I.R. on reproduction reads as under:-

"lsok eas]

Jheku~ Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk lQhiqj ftyk mUuko fuosnu gS fd esjs pkpk jke izrki iq= LoxhZ- Jh ckds yky o xkao ds feyki flag ;kno iq= x;k yky ls ,d cVkbZ ds [ksr dks ysdj vkt fnukad 1-3-99 dks le; djhc 8 cts lqcg eSa o esjs pkpk jkeizrki ?kj xk¡o lfQ;kiqj ls xaxk ugkus ds fy;s tk jgs Fks rHkh feyki flag ftlds gkFk esa pkdw Fkk o mlds lkFk ,d O;fDRk vkSj ftldks eSa o esjk pkpk lkeus vkus ij igpku ldrs gSA gkFk esa MaMk fy;s gq, xkao >Ccw [ksM+k ds lkeus iqfy;k ds ikl lM+d ij mDr nksuks us esjs pkpk jkeizrki dks ?ksj fy;k vkSj dgk fd cVkbZ dk [ksr eSaus fy;k Fkk rqe dSls chp esa vk x;s vkSj esjs pkpk ij feyki flag us pkdw ls o mlds lkFk okys O;fDRk us MaMs ls tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls flj o psgjs ij ,d jk; gksdj okj fd, ftlls esjs pkpk jke izrki ds flj o ekFks esa M.Ms dh pksV o psgjs esa pkdw dh xEHkhj pksV vk;h og ekSds ij gh fxj x;s eSus 'kksj fd;k rks ekSds ij cgqr ls yksx vk x, ftUgksus yydkjk rks feyki flag o mldk lkFkh ckx dh rjQ Hkkx x;sA eSa vius pkpk jke izrki dks ysdj Fkkuk fjiksVZ dks vk;k gw¡A esjh fjiksVZ fy[kdj dk;Zokgh dh tk;A ys[kd vuh'k vgen iq= c'khj vgen ldgu eqlyekuku Fkkuk lQhiqj mUuko g0 ;'krsUnz flag mQZ iIiw izkFkhZ ;'krsUnz flag mQZ iIiw iq= jke vkljs ;kno fu0 xzke lfQ;kiqj Fkkuk lQhiqj mUukoA

uksV%& EkSa dk0eq0 355 fcuksn dqekj izekf.kr djrk gw¡ fd udy rgjhj fpd gktk ij v{kj'k% vafdr dh x;h gSA"

After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. and thereafter, charge was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and they were put to trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined five witnesses, namely, Yashtendra Singh (informant) P.W.-1, Ram Pratap (injured) P.W.-2, Dr. Haseen Ahmad P.W.-3, CP 2216 Vinod Kumar P.W.-4 and Sri Rama Shanker Singh Parihar P.W.-5 and they proved relevant documents relating to crime.

Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

After hearing the learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf of appellant and defence and considering the material available on record the trial Judge acquitted Om Prakash, who was not named in the F.I.R. and convicted the appellant-Milap Singh and awarded the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

Assailing the judgment, under appeal, learned counsel for appellant at the very outset submits that he would confine his arguments only on the issue of quantum/ proportionality of sentence awarded by Court below. He submits that in view of the facts and evidence available on record, no offence is made out under Section 307 and in this case the Court below has erred in law and facts both in not awarding the sentence under Section 324 I.P.C.

Elaborating his argument, while admitting the incident which took place on 01.03.1999 in regard to which, an F.I.R. dated 01.03.1999, was lodged by the informant-Yashtendra Singh @ Pappu, it is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that he is not an ocular witness. In this regard, he relied upon the statement of this witness during cross examination, according to which, he was with the injured at the scene of crime but when the accused attacked he ran away from the spot and came back after about 10-12 minutes.

He further submits that no doubt that the injuries were caused by the appellant but the intention was not to cause death. On this issue, learned counsel for appellant stated that if at all the intention of the applicant was to cause death then in that event, within the period of 10-12 minutes, which is the time between which as per the statement of PW-1 no one was present at the scene of crime, the appellant could have stabbed Ram Pratap (injured) on vital part of the body such as abdomen or chest etc. In fact this is a case of exaggerated form of scuffle/ altercation and on account of which the injured sustained injuries of Knife on his face and in fact which are not fatal. On the point of injury, counsel for appellant has drawn attention of this Court on the injury report, which is on record and reads as under:-

"Examined Sri Ram Prasad 30 y S/o Banke Lal R/o Safia Pur, P.S. Safipur, Distt. Unnao B/B-Vimlesh Kumar Yadav of P.S. Safipur.

M/I- Not traceable.

(1) L.W. 12.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the forehead just above the both eye brows.

(2) I.W. 4.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over Right Side Face 1.0 cm below the right lower eyelid.

(3) I.W. 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over left side face 2.0 cm below the left lower eyelid.

(4) Multiple L.W. in an area of 20.00 cm x 12.00 cm on the whole face.

(5) Traumatic swelling over both eye lids.

Opinion- Injuries are in and around the face so patient admitted and advised X-ray skull .

Duration-Fresh."

On the basis of injury report, counsel for appellant submits that the injuries are neither grievous nor fatal in nature and in fact the same are simple. He further stated that in the injury report it has not been mentioned that the same are bone deep or grievous in nature or of such nature which can cause death. He also stated that the Doctor, who conducted the medical examination has also not given his opinion to the effect that the death can be caused by the injuries sustained by the injured. The opinion of the Doctor is very relevant in this regard as such considering the nature of injuries and relevant facts of the case the Trial Court ought to have awarded the punishment under Section 324 I.P.C.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ramesh vs. State of U.P. reported in (1992) SCC (Cri) 183, relevant paras of the same on reproduction reads as under:-

"3. The learned counsel for appellant has assailed the finding recorded by the High Court and the trial Judge and has urged that the appellant was implicated due to enmity. He urged that even though the High Court held that in the FIR the main part was specifically assigned to the appellant and one Jagat Singh but in the evidence it was confined to the appellant as the relations between the two were strained. The learned counsel further urged that the case of the prosecution was that the complainant was bitten by Jagat Singh and there being no injury of biting, the High Court committed an error in maintaining the conviction. We are not impressed by the argument. The learned counsel then urged that the High Court committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 307, Penal Code, 1860. We do not propose to decide it as a matter of law. But we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in peculiar circumstances of the case it being a case of single injury in the back of neck the conviction can be altered to be under Section 324, Penal Code, 1860.

4. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The conviction under Section 307/34, IPC is converted to under Section 324, IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs 3000 as fine within six months which shall be paid to the complainant. In default of payment he shall serve out the entire sentence. On deposit of fine the bail bond shall stand discharged."

Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shyam Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 362, relevant paras of the same on reproduction reads as under:-

"3. The contention of Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, is that the independent witnesses Anoop Bhargava (PW 1) and Ramprakash (PW 4) did not support the prosecution case. Manjeet Singh (PW 3) is an interested witness. The appellant is a computer engineer and has no criminal background. At the most, the appellant can be convicted under Section 324 IPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the judgment of the High Court.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, both Anoop Bhargava (PW 1) and Ramprakash (PW 4) have turned hostile. It was established that Manjeet Singh has sustained gunshot injury. Dr Vikram Singh Tomar (PW 2), on examination, found two entry wounds over the lateral aspect of left shoulder and interior aspect of upper part of left scapula region of Manjeet Singh. However, firearm injury suffered by Manjeet Singh (PW 3) could not be impeached in their cross-examination. It is also evident that the accused fired at Manjeet Singh without any premeditation. The injury suffered by Manjeet Singh was not on the vital part of his body. In our view, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused intended to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant can only be convicted under Section 324 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the appellant is convicted under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.

5. The appellant has already been imprisoned for about four months. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant Shyam Sharma. Ordered accordingly."

Further, reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for appellant on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 7 SCC 545, relevant paras of the same on reproduction reads as under:-

"15. In Jameel v. State of U.P. [(2010) 12 SCC 532 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 582] this Court reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, the Court observed thus: (SCC p. 535, paras 15-16)

"15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

16. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

In the said case, there was a fracture of bone and the trial court had convicted the appellant therein under Section 308 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

16. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 2 SCC 359 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 499] the Court has observed thus: (SCC pp. 361-62, para 7)

"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of ''order' should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: ''State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.' Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration."

17. Recently, this Court in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 SCC 734 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 594] , while discussing the concept of appropriate sentence has expressed that: (SCC pp. 744-45, para 33)

"33. ... It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored."

In addition, learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udham and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 300, relevant paras of the same reads as under:-

8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the reasoning of the High Court, for passing the impugned order and partly allowing the appeals of the respondent-accused herein, is limited to one sentence. The High Court states in its order that looking to the nature of the offence, the fact that this is the first offence of the respondents and the period of sentence already undergone by them, it is passing the impugned order.

9. At this stage the observations of this Court in X v. State of Maharashtra [X v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 10] , in which two of us were part of the Bench, with respect to sentencing in India are relevant here : (SCC p. 25, paras 49-50)

"49. Sentencing is appropriate allocation of criminal sanctions, which is mostly given by the judicial branch. [ Nicola Padfield, Rod Morgan and Mike Maguire, "Out of Court, Out of Sight? Criminal Sanctions and No Judicial Decision-making", The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (5th Edn.).] This process occurring at the end of a trial still has a large impact on the efficacy of a criminal justice system. It is established that sentencing is a socio-legal process, wherein a Judge finds an appropriate punishment for the accused considering factual circumstances and equities. In light of the fact that the legislature provided for discretion to the Judges to give punishment, it becomes important to exercise the same in a principled manner. We need to appreciate that a strict fixed punishment approach in sentencing cannot be acceptable, as the Judge needs to have sufficient discretion as well.

50. Before analysing this case, we need to address the issue of the impact of reasoning in the sentencing process. The reasoning of the trial court acts as a link between the general level of sentence for the offence committed and to the facts and circumstances. The trial court is obligated to give reasons for the imposition of sentence, as firstly, it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that the adjudicators must provide reasons for reaching the decision and secondly, the reasons assume more importance as the liberty of the accused is subject to the aforesaid reasoning. Further, the appellate court is better enabled to assess the correctness of the quantum of punishment challenged, if the trial court has justified the same with reasons.

10. In the present case, it is clear that there is no detailed analysis of the facts of the case, the nature of the injuries caused, the weapons used, the number of victims, etc. given by the High Court in the impugned order. The High Court while sentencing the accused, has not taken into consideration the second charge proved against the respondent-accused herein, under Section 452 IPC. Even the fact that the respondent-accused had only undergone sentence of 4 days at the time of passing of the impugned order, brings into question the High Court pointing to the same as a reason for reducing their sentence. As such, the order of the High Court merits interference by this Court.

11. We are of the opinion that a large number of cases are being filed before this Court, due to insufficient or wrong sentencing undertaken by the courts below. We have time and again cautioned against the cavalier manner in which sentencing is dealt in certain cases. There is no gainsaying that the aspect of sentencing should not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has determinative impact on the society. In light of the same, we are of the opinion that we need to provide further clarity on the same.

12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analysed on the touchstone of three tests viz. crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defence, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a Judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).

13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach."

Lastly, he has placed reliance on the decision dated 13.02.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.4156 of 2017 and 1807 of 2019 in the case of Hukam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., relevant paras of the same on reproduction reads as under:-

"15-In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926, explaining rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court:-

"Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries."

16-In Sham Sunder vs Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, where the high court reduced the sentence for the offence under section 304 part I into undergone, the supreme court opined that the sentence needs to be enhanced being inadequate.

It was held: "The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of offence."

17-In State of MP vs Najab Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 509, the high court, while upholding conviction, reduced the sentence of 3 years by already undergone which was only 15 days. The supreme court restored the sentence awarded by the trial court. Referring the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734, the court observed as follows:-

"In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice dispensation system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment."

18-Earlier, "Proper Sentence" was explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing that Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

19-In subsequent decisions, the supreme court has laid emphasis on proportional sentencing by affirming the doctrine of proportionality. In Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is that the society may not suffer again by such crime. The principle of proportionality between the crime committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on the society as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been expressed in Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323, State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463.

20-In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh(2017) 13 SCC 449, it has been observed that reforming criminals who understand their wrongdoing, are able to comprehend their acts,have grown and nartured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world, have the capacity of humanising the world.

21-In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734, Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 and has reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. While considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on the society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced.

22- The judicial trend in the country has been towards striking a balance between reform and punishment. The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system.

23- In view of the above, it is clear that in our country the reformative and corrective approach has been adopted in criminal justice administration. There is nothing on record to show that the accused-appellants are incapable of being reformated. The accused-appellants are in jail continuously for more than five years. Every convict is entitled for the advantage of reformative and corrective jurisprudence."

Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that out of sentence awarded by the Court below i.e. 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs.500/- appellant has already undergone with the punishment of about 25 months. The incident is of the year 1999 and during trial, he was in jail about 9 months. During pendency of present appeal, the appellant also was in jail for the period of about 12 months. Thereafter, in compliance of non-bailable warrant issued by this Court he was arrested and sent to jail on 26.02.2021 and since then he is in jail. Further, stated that during the period he was enlarged on bail, the appellant never misused the liberty. The appellant has no criminal antecedent/ history. Prayer is to allow the appeal.

On the aspect of the period of incarceration of the appellant as also regarding misuse of liberty and criminal history, a query was put to learned A.G.A. and in response to the same, on the basis of material available on record, he could not dispute the aforesaid. However, learned A.G.A. vehemently argued in support of the judgment, under appeal, dated 22.09.1991. He submits that injured witness has proved the case and the injuries are on the face, as such, the punishment/ sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and is not liable to be interfered.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record as well as taking note of the entirety of the case this Court is of the view that injuries sustained by the injured-Ram Pratap are not fatal and in regard to same Doctor has also not opined that injuries are fatal in nature and the appellant-Milap Singh caused injuries without premeditation, as appears from the statement made by the injured Ram Pratap (P.W.-2) wherefrom it can be deduced that despite dispute and non-talking terms between the injured and appellant, the appellant-Milap Singh never threatened the injured and prior to causing injuries squabble took place. Moreover, if at all the intention of the applicant was to cause death then in that event, within the period of 10-12 minutes, which is the time between which as per the statement of PW-1 no one was present at the scene of crime, the appellant could have stabbed Ram Pratap (injured) on vital part of the body such as abdomen or chest etc. This Court also considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove and the fact(s) that the incident took place almost 22 years back and from the material available on record it appears that there is no criminal antecedent/ criminal history of the appellant as also that the appellant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court and he has already undergone about 25 months imprisonment, as stated by learned counsel for appellant.

Considering the aforesaid, this court is of the view that appellant ought not to have convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and is liable to be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. Accordingly, appellant-Milap Singh is convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 I.P.C.

Accordingly, judgment and order dated 22.09.2001 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Court No.02), Unnao in Session Trial No. 325 of 1999 convicting accused-appellant-Milap Singh, under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, is hereby modified to the extent that period of imprisonment is confined to the period of 25 months, which as per learned counsel for appellant is the period in which appellant remained in jail. That apart the appellant-Milap Singh shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the concerned Court. The amount so deposited by the appellant-Milap Singh shall be provided to the injured-Ram Pratap or his successor, if required, after proper verification.

With aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.

Lower Court record alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to Court concerned for compliance and further necessary action.

Order Date :- 9.7.2021

Vinay/-