Allahabad High Court
Pappu Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 14 February, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10135
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 621 of 2008
Appellant :- Pappu Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anirudha Singh,Janardan Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
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 04.03.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, Hardoi by which appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 323 I.P.C. for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 504 I.P.C. for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act for a period of six months with fine Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine; one month additional imprisonment, involved in Session Trial No. 157 of 1999, arising out of Case Crime No. 61 of 1995, Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi.
3. Facts in brief are that on 09.03.1995 the informant was grazing animals in his field and his buffalo went in the field of sugarcane of Pappu Singh on which Pappu Singh abused the informant and when objected he assaulted with lathi. An F.I.R. was lodged at the police station on the same day as Crime No. 61 of 1995 under Section 323/504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) Act. The injured/informant was sent for medical examination at P.H.C. Pihani where she was medically examined and medical report was prepared. One lacerated wound on heard and other contusion on right forearm was found on the person of the injured.
4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellant under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act.
5. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellant which was read over and explained to the accused person but he denied and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Nanhu Tiwari; P.W. 2, Phoolmati; P.W. 3, Ramashray. P.W.4, Ram Shankar Yadav.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he 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. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he is innocent and had committed no offence but he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the injured person sustained simple injuries on his person those were not fatal to the life. The appellant never intended to cause injury to the informant or to abuse him but it was result of altercation relating to entry of buffalo in his sugarcane field.
10. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1995 and till now 29 years have elapsed. The appellant was young at the time of alleged incident and now he has become old and injuries said to be caused with lathi are also simple in nature and the incident being result of altercation between the parties, therefore, 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 person since no purpose will be served by sending the appellant in jail.
11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the age of the appellant.
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 appellant, it appears that all the injuries on the person of the injured were simple in nature, the weapon said to be used was lathi and it was result of altercation relating to trivial dispute of entry of buffalo in the sugarcane field and the incident took place in the year 1995 and till now 29 years have elapsed. By sending the appellant to jail after such gap 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 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 either to the injured persons or their survivors.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant 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 his survivors.
18. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance.
Order Date :- 14.2.2025
Suraj Srivastav
