Ajab Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 3396 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajab Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133820
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 95 of 1984
 

 
Appellant :- Ajab Singh And Another
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Singh,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

In Re: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 02 of 2025

(under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.)

1. Today by a separate order passed on the appeal, it was held as under:

"16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

17. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is upheld. However the sentence for the offences under Section 324 IPC is modified and altered from R.I. of one year to fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

18. The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.

19. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Agra for compliance.

20. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

21. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule."

2. Thus no orders are required to be passed in the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 02 of 2025.

Order on Criminal Appeal

1. Heard Shri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Mehtab Singh and Shri Vikash Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. filed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.1983, passed in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1983 arising out of case crime no. 199 of 1988, whereby the appellant herein has been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC while sentencing him for R.I. of one year.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 8/9.08.1982 at about mid night, the first informant, Shree Ram Singh was sleeping at his tubewell and Dalbir Singh and Balbir Singh were also sleeping with them. At about mid night, the first informant, Shree Ram Singh went towards his field. He found the appellant along with co-accused Ajab Singh (deceased), Mehtab Singh and Milap Singh making 'Mend' in his field, an objection was raised by the first informant, Shree Ram then the co-accused, Ajab Singh exhorted his colleague uttering that they should fire upon the first informant and in pursuance thereof the appellant herein is alleged to have resorted gun-shot fire with fire arm pistol which caused injury to the first informant, Shree Ram Singh in his leg. The said occurrence was witnessed by Dalbir Singh and Balbir Singh. The said occurrence was reported by Shree Ram Singh in the night of 09.08.1982 at 8.15 PM. The prosecution alleged that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 9 Kms. The first informant called Sadho Ram, he wrote the report and then the FIR was lodged. The injured, first informant- Shree Ram Singh was examined by Dr. V.K. Khare, who found injuries on his body and the injured was examined on 09.08.1982 at 12 and under the medical advice the X-ray of the injury of Shree Ram Singh was conducted and the injury was found to be simple and caused by some fire arm. The Sub-Inspector, Sri Gulab Singh, was interested with the investigation. A charge-sheet came to be submitted under Section 307 IPC.

4. Charges were framed under Section 307 IPC against the appellant read with Section 34 of the IPC and against the other co-accused, Ajab Singh and Milap Singh. All the accused pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried while alleging that they have been falsely implicated and at no point of time committed the said offence.

5. Prosecution in order to bring home the charges was examined P.W.1- Dr. V.K. Khare, P.W.2- Shree Ram Singh, P.W.3- Dalbir Singh and P.W.4- Sadho Ram.

6. The appellant-accused have examined one Nathu Ram in support of their defence. The Court of XII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra by virtue of the judgment and order dated 24.12.1983 convicting the appellant herein under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him for R.I. of one year.

7. Challenging the judgment and order passed by XII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra, judgment and order dated 24.12.1983 passed in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1983 (arising out of case crime no. 199 of 1983), the present appeal has been preferred.

8. Though the appeal came to be preferred by Ajab Singh, first appellant and Mehtab Singh, second appellant but during the pendency of the said appeal, Ajab Singh has died and, thus, the appeal against the Ajab Singh stands abated and accused- Milap Singh has been acquitted.

9. Learned counsel for Mehtab Singh (appellant) has sought to argue that the judgment and order passed by the court below convicting the appellant under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained for even a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is being sought to be argued that primarily as per the own case of the prosecution, the appellant- Mehtab Singh has been attributed with the role of the gun-shot fire, pursuant whereto injuries were extended to the first informant, Shree Ram on his legs. However, post medical examination, it was found that the injuries were simple, however, on the medical advice, the injured was subjected to X-ray (Radio-logical test) and it was found that injuries were sustained on account of fire-arm but the said injury report was not produced and proved before the court below. Submission is that a well-developed story has been cocked up much after deliberation just in order to falsely implicate the appellant herein. Further submission is that though much reliance has been placed upon the deposition of PW2-Shree Ram (injured) and PW3- Dalbir Singh and PW4- Sadho Ram but the defence statement of Nathu Ram has been completely brushed aside. Submission is that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses has to be corroborated with the medical examination and it is come on record that the injured sustained simple injuries then the question of injury through fire-arm cannot be made a basis to falsely implicate the applicant while attributing in the role of gun-shot fire, once the same does not stand proved from the Radio-logical report in that regard. It is also submitted that no specific motive has been attributed so as to take an extreme step of resorting to gun-shot fire, particularly, when the entire incident does not even fully establish the presence of the appellant. It is also contended that there has been a delay in lodging the first information report, particularly, when the incident is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night on 8/9.08.1982, however, the FIR stood lodged at 8.15 PM and it was the injured on whose dictation, the written report came to be written by Shree Ram. Submission is that the distance of the 9 kilometers cannot be said to be such a long distance, particularly, when the allegation is regarding gun-shot injuries.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is dated 8/9.08.1982 and more than 43 years have passed and the appellant does not possess any criminal history, thus, the conviction under Section 324 be upheld but the sentence be altered and modified from imprisonment of one year to fine.

11. Countering the submission so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vikash Sharma, learned State Law Officer has submitted that none of the contentions so sought to be raised by the counsel for the appellant has any legs to stand, particularly, when it is not a case wherein there happens to be in delay in lodging of the first information report, particularly, when the incident is of the year 1982 and it is the matter of common knowledge that in rural area, the transportation facilities are not at par with the urban area and the first informant, injured being a rustic who claims to have been injured had to depend upon others to lodge the first information report and the first information report stood lodged on 09.08.1982 at 8.15 hours. He further submits that even in the first information report and the testimony of PW2, Shree Ram Singh, PW3, Dalbir Singh and PW4, Sadho Ram, the factum of gun-shot injuries has been mentioned and, thus, merely because it is the allegation of appellant that the X-ray report was not produced and not proved, would not be a ground to completely overrule the possibility of the resorting of gun-shot firing. He further submits that so far as the motive is concerned, the same stands explicitly proved from the fact that the appellant herein along with the co-accused were making 'Mend' which in rural background is nothing but a case of encroachment and disturbance of the peaceful possession. He however submits that the incident is of the year 1982 and the appeal is taken up in the year 2025, 43 years have passed and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant possess any criminal history, thus, the conviction under Section 324 IPC be upheld, however, the sentence be converted from one year R.I. to fine.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

13. Apparently, the first information report alleged that the first informant, Shree Ram along with Dalbir Singh and Balbir Singh were sleeping in their house in the intervening night on 8/9.08.1982 and when the first informant woke up, he saw the appellant and other co-accused making a 'Mend'. Ajab Singh on witnessing the same, raised an alarm and uttered that they should resort to gun-shot firing and the appellant extended injuries to the first informant. The written report came to be lodged by the first informant at 8.15 in the P.M., the injured-first informant was examined by Dr. V.K. Khare who found injuries on the body at 09.08.1982 at 12 noon, on a medical advice, X-ray was done which revealed the fire arm injuries.

14. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the X-ray was not proved, thus, there is no question of resorting to gun-shot fire and the entire prosecution theory is bound to fail, is concerned, the same is not convincible, particularly, in the first information report, the allegation made by the injured-first informant is that he received gun-shot injuries through the firing so done by the appellant. Further the statement of PW2, Shree Ram and PW3, Dalbir Singh also corroborates the same. Even otherwise, the court below has convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC thus it cannot be said that there were no injuries, particularly, when at the medical examination, it was found that the injured has sustained injuries.

15. As regards the question of delay in lodging the first information report which would make the prosecution theory vulnerable and unbelievable is concerned, the same is not liable to be accepted, particularly, the place of incident is a rural place and police station is about 9 kilometers ago and the incident is taken place in the year 1982 when the transportation facility was not so sound as it is now days. The argument is that there is no motive is concerned that the same cannot be accepted as it explicitly clear from the prosecution theory that the appellants were making the 'Mend' just obstructing encroaching the land, the same would be sufficient. However, looking into the nature of the allegations and penal sections under which the appellant has been convicted and also fact that the incident is dated 8/9.08.1982 and more than 43 years have been passed and there is nothing to suggest that the appellant possess any criminal history, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is liable to be confirmed, however, with an alteration that in place of sentence for R.I. of one year, it should be modified and altered to fine.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

17. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is upheld. However the sentence for the offences under Section 324 IPC is modified and altered from R.I. of one year to fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

18. The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.

19. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Agra for compliance.

20. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

21. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule.

Order Date :- 6.8.2025

A. Prajapati