Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1823 of 1983 Appellant :- Bade @ Ranjit And Another Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Misra,Ashish Bajpayee Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ashish Bajpayee,learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.8.1983 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) and Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 1982 (State of U.P. Vs. Bade alias Ranjit and another) whereby the accused-appellant Bade @ Ranjit was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under sections 307 IPC while accused-appellant Raja Ram was convicted and sentenced to undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment under section 326/34 IPC.
As per prosecution case, it is stated that the injured Sushil used to visit Tea Stall of the accused persons for having tea. There Munni, daughter of accused Raja Ram used to talk to him. The accused persons did not like this and they even asked the injured Sushil not to come to their Tea Stall. On 20.12.1981 at about 11.00 A.M. when injured Sushil was proceeding from Gandhi Chowk Chauraha towards Gopal Talkies and when he was in front of Nagar Mahapalika Balika Vidyalay, Prem Nagar the accused persons caught hold of him and pushed him inside the Gali. The accused Raja Ram assaulted Sushil by an iron rod which struck on the left hand of Sushil while the accused Bade @ Ranjit pierced knife in his abdomen. The injured Sushil was sent immediately to hospital where his injuries were examined and found traumatic swelling with contusion and stab wound.
The trial court after recording evidence convicted the accused persons under the aforesaid sections vide judgment and order dated 1.8.1983.
Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 1.8.1983 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) and Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, this criminal appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident has happened in the year 1981 and more than 40 years have passed and since then they are living peacefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that he does not want to argue the appeal on merit and he has further submitted that during trial after conviction the appellants had served the prison term of about five months. Learned counsel for the appellants has further prayed that since the accused persons are old, they should not be sent to jail at this juncture. He has further submitted that the appellants are suffering from age related ailments and prays to the Court that they may be leniently dealt with in terms of the sentence.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the trial court has properly awarded sentence to the accused persons and no interference in their sentence is called for.
There is no criminal history of the appellants. It is also found that the appellants are more than 70 years of age and they are also not young men and they have a family to maintain. These points should be considered for mitigating their sentence.
In the case of Bankat and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 1 SCC, 343; accused were convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced for one year imprisonment with fine. Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute outside the Court and 10 years have elapsed from the date of incident.
In the case of Sattan Sahani Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2002) 7 SCC, 604; accused were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 I.P.C. In appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that the incident took place two decades back and parties have also compromised.
In the case of Uthem Rqajanna Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005 (11) SCC, 531, accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304-A I.P.C. along with fine and for three months under Section 338 I.P.C. In appeal Hon'ble Supreme Court has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2010) 2 SCC, 229; accused was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Hon'ble Supreme Court has convicted accused under Section 326 I.P.C. and reduced the sentence to period already undergone, i.e. almost one year, on the ground that the incident happened in the year 1987 when the accused was of young age of 25 years.
After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the accused/appellants and considering that the incident has taken place in the year 1981 and more than 40 years have elapsed after the incident and the accused persons have suffered the mental and physical agony of criminal trial and conviction for a long period and now it would not be in the interest of justice that the accused/appellants be sent to jail to serve their remaining sentences and since the appellants have not challenged the finding of the conviction, hence the finding of conviction is affirmed and the sentence of the accused persons/appellants are modified to the period already undergone by them in prison and the fine of Rs.5000/- is imposed. The fine amount will be given to the injured and in case the injured has died, the fine amount will be given to the legal heirs of the injured and the fine amount will be deposited by the accused persons within three months from the date of the order in appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the accused/appellants in the aforesaid case is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and fine as imposed. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled.
Office is directed to send the copy of order in appeal to the learned trial court for compliance and the trial court record of the case be transmitted forthwith to the trial court.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 AU