Smt. Rani And Others vs State Of U.P. on 3 April, 2026

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:75233
 

 
Reserved 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1533 of 1987   
 
   Smt. Rani And Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Krishna Kant Shukla, V.B. Rao   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
A.G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 90
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 29.05.1987, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banda in S.T. No. 111 of 1986, (State v. Smt. Rani and two Ors.), under Sections 302/34, 323/34 IPC, P.S. Naraini, district Banda, whereby appellants, namely Smt. Rani, Kumari Saina and Lalu were convicted under Sections 304 part II, 323/34 IPC. Appellant No. 1 Smt. Rani was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 part II IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Kumari Saina and Lalu were given benefits of Section 30 of U.P. Children Act and they were released on probation.

2. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 1 Smt. Rani has passed away and thus, appeal on behalf of appellant No. 1 Smt. Rani has already abated vide order dated 11.12.2025.

3. Heard leaned counsel for appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State.

4. Learned counsel for appellant Nos. 2 and 3 submits that at the time of incident appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were children and that they were released on probation for a period of two years and that period of probation has already passed and thus, appeal may be decided accordingly.

5. Learned AGA submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement.

6. Perusal of record shows that on 16.09.1985 on the issue of dispute over cutting of grass, appellant No. 1 Smt. Rani and her son Lalu and daughter Kumari Saina have assaulted the wife of informant, namely Smt. Sarvaniyan and resultantly she sustained injuries. She was provided treatment but on 18.09.1985 she died of injuries. The informant reported the matter to the police by submitting tehrir Ex. Ka-1 and on the basis of that tehrir, first information report was registered on 18.09.1985 vide Ex. Ka-4, under Section 302 IPC. The inquest proceedings were conducted and dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of witnesses, prepared site-plan and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.

7. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and later committed case to the court of session.

8. Learned trial court has framed charge under Sections 302/34, 323/34 IPC against the appellants. The appellants / accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. After prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they have denied the evidence and claimed false implication. However, it appears that no evidence was led in defence.

10. After hearing and analysing the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 304 part-II/34, 323/34 IPC and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were given benefit of Section 30 of U.P. Children Act and they were released on probation for a period of two years.

11. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, the accused-appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal.

12. As per postmortem report, deceased has sustained following ante-mortem injuries:- i. contusion 10 cm x 6 cm on right side parietal bone under line bone was fractured. Haematoma (clotted blood) was present between maninges and brain. Contusion was 4 cm above the right ear. ii. Multiple contusions on right side of face in an area of 8 cm x 7 cm. 2 cm away medially from right ear. iii. Multiple contusion in an area of 14 cm x 11 cm over right shoulder front top and back. iv. Contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm over right side back 6 cm below the inferior angle of right scapula. v. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on lateral side middle part of right thigh. vi. Multiple contusions in an area of 20 cm x 5 cm over front side of right leg 6 cm below the knee joint. vii. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on middle of right leg front side. viii. Multiple contusions in an area of 8 cm x 6 cm over lateral side of right hip. ix. Contusion 6 cm x 3 cm on left side of back slightly lateral side 5.5 cm above the wrist.

13. In evidence, informant / PW-1 Nandram has stated that appellant No. 1 Smt. Rani is wife of his brother and on account of dispute over cutting of grass, appellants-accused have assaulted the deceased with lathis and sticks and resultantly she sustained injuries and died of injuries on 18.09.1985.

14. PW-2 Tikaram has inter-alia stated that after hearing cries, he has reached at the spot and saw that appellants were assaulting the deceased with lathis and sticks. PW-3 Mira, who is daughter of deceased, has also supported the prosecution version and made similar statement.

15. PW-4 Dr. P. Khatri has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased. PW-5 S.I. Siddheshwar Awasthi is Investigating Officer of the case.

16. Statement of informant / PW-1 Nandram is quite clear and cogent that appellant No. 1 Smt. Rani along with her children appellant No. 2 Kumari Saina and appellant No. 3 Lalu have assaulted the deceased with lathis and sticks and resultantly she sustained injuries and later died. PW-1 has been subjected to cross-examination but no such fact could emerge so as to create any doubt about the authenticity of his statement. Version of PW-1 has duly been corroborated by PW-2 Tikaram as well as by PW-3 Mira. They have also been subjected to cross-examination but nothing adverse could be shown. The version of informant is further supported by postmortem report of the deceased. The testimony of the witnesses appears credible. The trial court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and came to the conclusion that on account of a small issue, appellant No. 1 Smt. Rani along with her children appellant No. 2 Kumari Saina and appellant No. 3 Lalu has assaulted the deceased and resultantly she sustained injuries and later died of injuries. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court has convicted all the three accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 304 part II, 323/34 IPC. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the findings rendered by the trial court. In view of material on record, the conviction of appellants is liable to be upheld.

17. So far question of sentence is concerned, as stated above, main accused Smt. Rani has passed away during pendency of this appeal and her appeal has already been abated. So far appellant No. 2 Kumari Saina and appellant No. 3 Lalu are concerned, the trial court has found that at the time of incident, they were children. At the time of incident appellant No. 2 Kumari Saina was aged about 15 years and appellant No. 3 Lalu was aged about 13 years. In view of these facts and circumstances, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were given benefits of Section 30 of U.P. Children Act and they were released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years. It appears that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have already undergone some part of probation. In case their period of probation has not been completed, now no useful purpose would be served by keeping them on probation, as since then a period of about 39 years has passed.

18. Considering aforesaid facts, conviction of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Kumari Saina and Lalu under Sections 304 part II, 323/34 IPC is upheld and they are given benefit of Section 30 of U.P. Children Act and they are released on probation of good conduct for the period already completed by them. The impugned order stands altered to this extend. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are not required to surrender before the trial court concerned and their sureties are discharged.

19. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

20. The record of trial court alongwith copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

April 3, 2026

Anand