Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur 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:9559
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2682 of 2008
Appellant :- Ram Bahadur
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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 18.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, III, Raebareli by which appellants were convicted and sentenced involved in S.T. No.223 of 2002 arising out of Case Crime No.141 of 2001 relating to Police Station Jayas, District Raebareli to the extent of conviction and sentences of the appellant, appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted.
3. Facts in brief are that appellant entered into the house of the victim and molested her in absence of her husband on 30.08.2001 at about 9:00 A.M. She lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant as Crime No.141 of 2001, under Sections 323, 354, 504, 452 I.P.C. & 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jayas, District Raebareli.
4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. on the basis of which learned court concerned took cognizance of the offences and after compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. case was committed for trial.
5. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellant u/s 323, 354, 506, 452 I.P.C. & 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act which was read over and explained to the accused persons which they denied and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Smt. Shushila Devi; P.W. 2, Radheylal; P.W. 3, Constable, Brijraj Singh.
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 appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 354, 452 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.
9. Without making comment on the merit of the case, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2001 and 23 years have elapsed till now and the appellant has also become 66 years old. The incident said to be committed was trivial in nature and punishment was awarded u/s 354 I.P.C. six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 452 I.P.C. one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act it was one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. From the record, it appears that appellant did not commit the offence with intention to insult the victim on public place and in public view but it was within the precinct of the house, therefore, offence u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out against the appellant. He also submits that appellant remained in jail for certain period during trial and no purpose will be served by sending him to jail. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellant that he 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 appellant in jail.
10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A., the nature of offence, the age of the appellant and the fact that 23 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now the appellant has become aged about more than 66 years and by sending the appellant to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.
15. 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 appellant to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by him and to impose compensation for Rs. 10,000/- that will be paid to the victim.
16. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant (Ram Bahadur) is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and he is to deposit Rs. 10,000/- before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.
17. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025
Ashok Gupta
