Allahabad High Court
Ram Shankar And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 10 February, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9198
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1735 of 2008
Appellant :- Ram Shankar And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- B.P. Nigam,Arjun Singh Somvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2008 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act)/F.T.C. Court no. 6 Hardoi in Session Trial No. 1343 of 1998 (State Vs. Ram Shankar and three others) arising out of Crime No. 11 of 1996, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Baghauli, District Hardoi by which appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 323/34 IPC for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/-; under Section 504 IPC for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-; under Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. Facts in brief are that on 02.02.1996 at about 6 p.m., the informant was irrigating genda near the manure pit. Appellants came there and asked him why he had planted genda near manure pit on which the informant told them that it was his own land. The appellants started beating with lathi and abused by using words relating to his caste. His mother Shanti, brother Ramnarayan and Prahlad came there in rescue, the appellants assaulted them also. On the same day F.I.R. was lodged at the police station concerned as Crime No. 11 of 1996 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act.
4. Injured were sent to P.H.C. for medical examination where they were medically examined.
5. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act on the basis of police report the court concerned took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed for trial.
6. The trial court framed the charges against accused persons under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act. It was read over and explained to them which they denied and claimed for trial.
7. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ramkumar; P.W. 2 Shanti Devi; P.W. 3 Ramnarayan. P.W.4 Prahlad; P.W. 5 S.I. Jairam Yadav; P.W. 6 R.B. Lal.
8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegation and did not adduce any evidence in defence.
9. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in this case, they were innocent and had committed no offence but on account of village enmity, they were named in the F.I.R. by the informant. The injuries said to be caused are simple in nature and were fabricated. There is no any public witness to support the allegation of marpeet. Offence cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt against them. The injuries said to be caused were not on vital part of the body and no fatal to the life but were simple superficial in nature.
11. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1996 and till now 28 years have elapsed and appellants have also become old from young, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending them to jail. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellants that they had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award compensation to be given to the injured persons since no purpose will be served by sending the appellants in jail.
12. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
13. In the case of Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 S.C. 664 where a single injury was found in the back of the neck of injured, appellant who was tried alongwith two others under Section 307/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years while two other were acquitted, appeal was partly allowed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. His conviction was altered into Section 324 IPC and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/- which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.
14. In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of Gujarat, 1996 AIR 3236, there was an attempt to commit murder with fire arm and injury was by a pellet that struck the head, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that Section 307 IPC cannot be held to have been satisfied and conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC.
15. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 326 IPC simplicitor. Incident took place in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
16. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature. The weapon used in causing those injuries were said to be lathi though no any incised wound was found on the person of injured. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 28 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now they have become old. By sending the appellants to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.
17. To sum up the totality of case, in view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and to impose compensation for Rs. 10,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.
18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no. 1, Ram Shankar, appellant no. 2, Mahipal, appellant no. 3, Siya Ram and appellant no. 4 Ram Naresh is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they are to deposit Rs. 10,000/- proportionately before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.
19. Trial court record along with this order be sent back to the concerned court for compliance.
Order Date :- 10.2.2025/Anurag Singh
