Allahabad High Court
Omkar And Another 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:11190
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1987 of 2008
Appellant :- Omkar And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- T.N.Tiwari,Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Ram Babu,Vibhav Mishra
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 14.08.2008 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act)/F.T.C. VI, Hardoi by which appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section under Section 323/34 I.P.C. for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 200/- each, section 504 I.P.C. for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 200/- each & section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 200/- each, in case of default of payment of fines one month additional simple imprisonment, involved in Session Trial No. 1899 of 1998, arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 1996, Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi.
3. Facts in brief are that on 14.12.1996, the informant Murlidhar went to give money to the appellants but he had only 102 rupees which he gave and for the remaining amount he told them to take from their relative Sundar Lal. At this, the appellants became enraged and started abusing and also made assault with kicks and fists. His son Pankaj Kumar came for rescue but he was also beaten with kicks, fists and danda. When other persons from the village came there on hue and cry they went away with threat to kill.
4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants 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.
5. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellants which was read over and explained to the accused person but they denied and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Murlidhar; P.W. 2, Pankaj; P.W. 3, Usman Ali; P.W. 4, Mainuddin; P.W. 5, R.B. Lal; P.W. 6, S.I. Ramnath Rawat & P.W. 7, S. Anand.
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 under Section 323/34 I.P.C, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act.
9. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they are innocent and had committed no offence but they have falsely been implicated in this case. The incident took place, as a result of altercation between the parties regarding dispute of money, 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 by learned counsel for the appellants that the injured person sustained simple injuries on his person those were not fatal to the life.
11. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1996 and till now 28 years have elapsed. The appellants were young at the time of alleged incident and now they have become old, 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. 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/- proportionately 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, Omkar and appellant no. 2, Hari Kishore 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 be sent back to the concerned court for compliance.
Order Date :- 14.2.2025
Suraj Srivastav
