Allahabad High Court
Shesh Narain vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9556
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1990 of 2008
Appellant :- Shesh Narain & others
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Misra,Gaurav Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
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 07.08.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Second, Court No. 11, Sultanpur by which appellant was convicted and sentenced involved in Session Trial No. 235 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 732 of 2004, under Sections 325/149 I.P.C. for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in case of default of payment to undergo six months additional imprisonment, under Section 147 I.P.C. for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 323/149 for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 506 I.P.C. for a period of three months rigorous imprisonment, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur.
3. Facts in brief are that there was dispute relating to Gram Samaj land between the informant and the appellants. On 17.11.2004 in the evening when the informant and others were coming back from Sudamapur the appellants made assault on the informant and his companion with lathi/danda causing them fatal injuries and also damaged their vehicles. On their hue and cry several people from the village came in rescue in the incident, right hand of Shiv Bahadur Singh, the brother of informant got fractured. Appellants also threatened them to kill. In this regard, Crime no. 732 of 2004 under Sections 147, 323, 506, 325, 427 I.P.C. was registered and injured Shiv Bahadur was examined medically. Injury report was prepared by the doctor and injuries were found to be caused with hard and blunt object. There was fracture on the right elbow joint and tenth rib.
4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants under Sections 147, 323, 325, 326, 427, 308 read with Section 149 and 506 I.P.C.
5. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellants under Sections 147, 323, 325, 326, 427, 308 read with Section 149 and Section 506 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused persons but they denied and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Ramesh Pratap Singh; P.W. 2, Shiv Bahadur Singh; P.W. 3, Dr. Ramesh Chand; P.W.4, Dr. L.S. Yadav; P.W. 5, S.I. Maharaj Singh; P.W. 6, Constable Surendra Kumar Shukla.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence.
8. 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.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on their person were said to be caused are on elbow joint and tenth rib which can also not be said to be fatal to life. The incident took place, as a result of altercation between the parties regarding dispute of Gaon Sabha land, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention or motive to cause injuries to the injured persons but it was all of a sudden. It is also submitted that general role of making assault with lathi/danda was not assigned to the present appellants. There was no any intention or knowledge with the appellants to cause injury to the injured persons.
10. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 2004 and till now 20 years have elapsed and appellants have become old aged persons, 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 offences, 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.
11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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/danda. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 20 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.
16. 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. 20,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no.1, Shesh Narain, appellant no. 2, Jagat Narain, appellant no. 3, Sree Narain, appellant no. 4, Awadhesh Narain is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they are to deposit Rs. 20,000/- proportionately before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.
18. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025
Suraj Srivastav
