[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Jai Ram And Another vs State Of U.P. on 12 May, 2026
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:110140
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2506 of 1984
Jai Ram And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Raj Kumar Kesari (A.C.), Arbind Kumar Soni, P.Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.08.1984 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Session Trial No. 211 of 1982 under Sections 392, 412 I.P.C. by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 392/412 I.P.C. for a period of four years rigorous imprisonment.
2. Facts in brief are that on 28.06.1982 in the night at about 2 to 2:30 am when the informant Ram Sahai was sleeping outside his house and his wife and other members of her family were sleeping inside the house where lantern was lit. On cry of his wife he awoke and also made hue and cry then the villagers with torches came there and at the south-east corner of the house Baij Nath and Chhakki Lal were seen by them who ran away. The present appellant was neither caught on the spot nor seen by the villagers but during the course of investigation, recovery of anklet was shown from his possession. During the course of identification parade the present appellant was identified.
3. After investigation of the case charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellant on the basis of which cognizance of offence was taken by the learned court concerned and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. case was committed to the learned court of Session for trial.
4. The learned trial court framed the charge under Sections 392/412 IPC against the present appellant which was read over and explained to the appellant but he denied and claimed for trial.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined, P.W. 1, Ram Sahai; P.W.2, Kusuma; P.W. 3, Ram Prasad; P.W. 4, Umrao; P.W. 5, Irshad Ali; P.W. 6, R.K. Sikroriya and P.W. 7, Constable Ram Shankar.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations and also stated the evidence as deposed to be false and implicated him falsely. In defence D.W. 1, Ram Swaroop, D.W. 2, Jwala Prasad, D.W. 3, Mata Din were examined.
7. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order in question against the present appellant.
8. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
9. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
10. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant without going into merit of the case argued that in this case the incident is said to have taken place on 28.06.1982 and till now 44 years have elapsed. The appellant was about 26 years of age at that time and now he has become more than 67 years old and is suffering from old age ailments. He has served in jail for some period during the course of trial and appeal, therefore, it will serve no purpose to send him jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence but it will be sufficient to impose fine and sentence be reduced to already undergone by him.
11. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard.
12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it transpires that in this case the incident took place on 28.06.1982 in which there was robbery in the house of informant. Recovery of an anklet was made from the possession of the present appellant and during test identification parade he was identified by the witnesses. At the time of alleged incident he was aged about 26 years and now after lapse of 44 years from the date of incident till now he has become aged about 67 years old.
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. In considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the time gap from the date of incident till now, the age of the appellant and the nature of offence, it will be sufficient to reduce the sentence already undergone by him in jail and to impose some fine.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded by learned trial court is reduced to the period of already undergone by him and also with fine Rs. 5000/- that will be deposited by him before the learned trial court within a period of 60 days. In case of default, he will serve the remaining part of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court.
18. Learned Amicus Curiae Sri Raj Kumar Kesari be paid Rs. 25,000/- as professional fees for the assistance which has been rendered. The Registrar General to oversee the payment.
19. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the appellant through C.J.M. concerned within 48 hours.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
May 12, 2026
Suraj Srivastav
