Gulab Chand And Ors. vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6904 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gulab Chand And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145040
 

 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145040
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2843 of 1983
 

 
Appellant :- Gulab Chand And Ors.
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Haider Abbas,Manik Chandra Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Manik Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and the order dated 17.11.1983 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.85 of 1980 whereby, the appellants herein were convicted under Section 325/34 IPC while sentencing them for rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the injured Ram Khelawan had purchased manure from the Co-operative Store, Badshahpur on 08.11.1978 and he was going back to his house at Sarai Rustam. Injured Ram Khelawan was accompanied by Shyam Sundar and Devi Prasad and all the three were proceeding towards the market at Badshahpur and when Ram Khelawan reached near the post office, it was about 02:45 pm, and the accused herein, who are three in numbers, along with co-accused Doodh Nath (since deceased) came on the way of the post office and in front of injured Ram Khelawan and the co-accused Doodh Nath (since deceased) were armed with lathi, while the appellants, who are three in numbers, were armed with iron rod. The co-accused Doodh Nath (since deceased) instigated that injured Ram Khelawan should be done to death, therefore, applicants along with co-accused started assaulting him and Ram Khelawan fell down unconscious and the said incident was witnessed by Shaym Sunder and Devi Prasad, who intervened.

4. The second appellant-accused Paras Nath was apprehended on the site while the other appellant-accused escaped. After a short while, Ram Khelawan gave consciousness, his brother Ram Dular also arrived, to whom Ram Khelawan (injured) narrated the incident. Ram Dular prepared a written report on the spot. The second appellant-accused Paras Nath along with the injured and the informant Ram Dular and the witnesses went to the police station Badshahpur, which was at a distance of 4 furlong from the place of occurrence.

5. On the said basis, written report, chik FIR came to be preferred on 08.11.1978 at 03:30 pm and the case was registered in the case diary. Injured Ram Khelawan was sent through Constable Ram Nagina Singh along with chitthi mujrabi to Primary Health Centre, Badshahpur for medical examination. Dr. Satish Kapoor examined injured at 03:30 pm on the same date wherein as many as 11 injuries were found. The appellant-accused pleaded non-guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The following witnesses Ram Dular (PW1), Shyam Sundar (PW2), Ram Khelawan Yadav (PW3), Dr. Satish Kapoor (PW4), Sundari Prasad (PW5), S.I. Ram Sewak Singh (PW6) and Dr. K.P. Singh (PW7) stepped in the witness box in order to bring home the charges.

7. PW1 Ram Dular is the informant of the case, PW2 Shyam Sundar is the witness along with PW3. PW2 Shaym Sundar and PW3 Ram Khelawan Yadav are injured, PW4 Dr. Satish Kapoor is the Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, PW5 Sundari Prasad Srivastava is x-ray technician, PW 6 S.I. Ram Sewak Singh is the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation, and PW7 Dr. K.P. Singh is radiologist.

8. The court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur by virtue of the judgment and the order dated 17.11.1983 passed in Sessions Trial No.85 of 1980 (State vs. Gulab and others) proceeded to convict the appellants herein under Section 325/34 IPC while sentencing them for rigorous imprisonment of three years.

9. This appeal came to be filed in the year 1983 and there is an order dated 10.08.2016 that the fourth appellant Doodh Nath s/o Rameshwar has expired and the appeal stood abated against him.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 has sought to argue that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case as they have at no point of time committed the said offence. There is no motive, which could be a factor for committing criminality as the appellants were not even present on the spot in question.

11. Submission is that the appellants' presence has been falsely implanted and there is no recovery being made from them. It is also contended that the first information report is ante-time and further, the appellants were also not arrested on the spot. It is also contented that the informant/witness are the medical practitioner and the lawyer and they have created a false story in that regard. Though, according to the statement of the PW1 Ram Dular, there is an enmity of litigation between the parties but there is nothing on record to show any of them.

12. He next submits that the incident took place on 08.11.1978 and approximately 47 years have passed and the appellants do not possess any criminal history thus, the conviction under Section 325/34 IPC be upheld but the sentence of imprisonment of three years be altered and modified to fine.

13. Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that from the perusal of the allegations contained in the first information report as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses PW1 Ram Dular, PW2 Shyam Sundar, PW3 Ram Khelawan, it is apparent and beyond doubt that the offence has been committed by the appellants particularly when fourth appellant Doodh Nath was armed with lathi whereas the appellant nos.1, 2 & 3 herein were armed with iron rods and as many as 11 injuries stood sustained by the injured Ram Khelawan. The injury report also supports the prosecution theory and further, it has come on record from the statement of the PW1 that litigation has been going on between the parties thus, the element of motive for commission of the offence also stands surfaced. He, however, submits that except the injury no.10, rest of the injuries are simple in nature and the incident is of the year 08.11.1978 approximately 47 years have passed thus, according to him, the conviction under Sections 325/34 of the IPC be upheld however, sentence may be altered and modified from imprisonment of three years to the fine.

14. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

15. The first information report alleges that on 08.11.1978, when the injured Ram Khelawan after purchasing the manure from the Co-operative Store, Badshahpur was coming back to his house at Sarai Rustam road along with Shyam Sundar and Devi Prasad then, the appellants herein along with the co-accused Doodh Nath (deceased) came in their way and the accused Doodh Nath (since deceased) was armed with lathi and the appellants herein were armed with iron rods and the accused Doodh Nath (since deceased) instigated that Ram Khelawan should be done to death and thereafter, all the accused including the appellants herein started assaulting him and he fell down and the said incident was witnessed by Shyam Sundar and Devi Prasad.After sometime, the injured Ram Khelawan gained consciousness and his brother Ram Dular also arrived, wherein the injured Ram Khelawan narrated the entire incident and the injured was taken to the Police Station whereupon a first information report came to be lodged and as many as 11 injuries on medical examination were found upon the injured.

16. The testimony of PW1 Ram Dular, PW2 Shyam Sundar, PW3 Ram Khelawan Yadav itself supports the prosecution theory as they were present at the time when the incident took place as per his deposition and the deposition of the injured PW3 on the top of it, identifies the appellants to be the assailants. Furthermore, the incident took place in the month of November, which cannot be said to be a period where there was any fog so that it is not the case of mistaken identity and it is also come on record from the statement of one of the witnesses that litigation is going on. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellants are not guilty and they are innocent.

17. However, looking into the facts that the incident dated 08.11.1978, approximately 47 years have passed and there is nothing on record to substantiate that the appellants possess any criminal history, thus, the facts and circumstances, the interest of justice necessitates that the conviction under Section 325/34 of the IPC be upheld. However, the sentence for rigorous imprisonment of three years be altered and modified to fine.

18. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.

19. The conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 of the IPC is upheld. The sentence for the offences committed under Section 325/34 of the IPC is modified and altered to the fine of Rs.5000/- each.The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellants within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellants shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to them by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.

20. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Sessions Court, Jaunpur for compliance.

21. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

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

Order Date :- 22.8.2025

Priya