Allahabad High Court
Ram Bilas And Ors.4 vs The State Of U.P. on 21 November, 2022
Bench: Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(LUCKNOW)
Reserved on 14.10.2022
Delivered on 21.11.2022
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 758 of 2001
Appellantd :- 1. Ram Bilas (died during the pendency of the appeal)
2. Munnilal;
3. Luxman Prasad;
4. Ram Lotan;
5. Harilal alias Hari Prasad
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mr. S.K.Singh,
Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Prachis Pandey, Additional Government Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.4, Lucknow convicting the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 790 of 1998 (State Versus Ram Bilas & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 9 of 1995, under Sections 147, 308/149, 435/149 IPC, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.
2. As per the Office report dated 01.09.2021, based on the report dated 31.08.2021 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, the appellant no. 1- Ram Bilas has died during the pendency of the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal with respect to the appellant no. 1 stands abated.
3. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Prachis Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent.
4. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in short, are as under:-
An F.I.R. at Case Crime No. 9 of 1995 was registered at Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow on the basis of written report presented by the complainant Harinam Singh. It was stated in the written report that complainant was the Village Pradhan of Village Khandola Majra Goila. One Hari Lal son of Ram Adhar Maurya used to work at the truck of Jagat Pal (real brother of the complainant). For that purpose, he took Rs.1000/- in advance but he was not coming on work. On 17.01.1995 at about 3 PM when Jagat Pal (brother of the complainant) was coming back to home from the market, Harilal met him on the way near the brick-kiln of Monu. His brother Jagatpal asked him that he had taken the money also and is not even coming
to do the work. For this reason brother of complainant scolded Harilal, and then Harilal abused his brother. On it the brother of the complainant slapped Harilal. Harilal started raising noise. On the noise raised by Harilal, Ram Vilas, Munni Lal, Laxman Prasad, Ram Lakhan, Ram Lotan, Rabhubar Prasad, Nanhe, his clerk and some other persons armed with Lathis-Dandas (sticks) came there and started beating his brother. After hearing his noise, he and his clerk also reached there and saw the incident. Ram Lotan set ablaze motor-cycle of his brother on the spot. After beating, all these persons ran away. Many persons gathered on the spot. The report was lodged on the date of incident itself.
5. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the seven persons including the appellants under Sections 147, 323, 308, 504 and 435 IPC.
6. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Court framed charges against the appellants, wherein they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed, examined following witnesses:-
(i) P.W. 1- Harinam Singh, the complainant;
(ii) P.W. 2- Asharam @ Pappu, an eye witness;
(iii) P.W. 3- Ram Khelawan, an eye witness;
(iv) P.W. 4- Jagat Pal, injured;
(v) P.W. 5- Constable Ramveer Singh, who registered the F.I.R. and made entry in the concerned G.D;
(vi) P.W. 6- S.I. Radhey Shyam Yadav, Investigating Officer;
(vii) P.W. 7- Dr. S.M. Kalra, who medically examined the injured Jagat Pal.
8. After close of evidence the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons denied the crime and stated that witnesses have deposed falsely. Harilal stated also that when he asked for his money and wages, Jagat Pal slapped him and he went to his home.
9. No evidence in defence was adduced by the accused appellants though opportunity was afforded by the trial Court.
10. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and observing the evidence, the trial Court found the evidence of witnesses of facts trustworthy. The injured himself testified the facts of the case. The medical evidence also corroborated the statement of the injured. Being aggrieved with the conviction
and sentence this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused appellants have no criminal history and some of the accused persons were acquitted and only the appellants have been convicted. During trial, they remained in jail for about four months. In the present matter, the injured first slapped Harilal, as such, he was the aggressor and a long span of period has passed. The incident occurred in the year 1995 and the conviction was made in the year 2001, hence the appellants should be released on probation of good conduct.
12. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and specially keeping in view the nature of injuries and period of detention, it appears just to release the appellants on probation of good conduct. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount and further furnishing an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned. It is further directed that if the appellants commit breach of any terms of undertaking given by them, they shall be called upon to undergo remaining sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court.
13. The present appeal is accordingly disposed off with the aforesaid terms.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)
Order Date:- 21.11.2022
Arun/A.K. Singh
