Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2948 of 1985 Appellant :- Mange Ram And Others Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Radhey Shyam,Amul Kumar Tyagi,Munesh Kumar,Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. was filed by the four appellants against the judgement and order dated 14.10.1985 passed by Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 392 I.P.C. for a period of one year Rigorous Imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.2000/- on each. Three accused persons Mange Ram, Yashvir, Yogendra have died and the appeals of the dead accused have been abated by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2018, only the accused Satyabir @ Nemi is surviving.
The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the complainant against all the accused persons and it was alleged in the F.I.R. that the complainant was Managing Director of the Co-operative Society and loan amount was due on a person Banshi who was grand father of appellant no.4 Yogendra and it was alleged that on 19.02.1981 at about 11 AM the accused Mange Ram and accused Yogendra entered the office of the Society and abused the officers of the Society, regarding this incident an F.I.R. was lodged against the persons convicted. It was further alleged in the present case that on 23.02.1981 when one person entered at the office of the Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti where the complainant Ali Sher Khan, T.A. Raj Kumar and Accountant Yusuf Ali were present and that person said that he had been sent by the Mange Ram and further said that Raj Kumar Jain be sent with him at the Cane Crasher of Khachedu where the loan amount will be paid. It was further alleged that when the complainant and other officers of the society were counted the amount in the society then all four accused persons entered the room of the society and committed Maar Peet with the complainant and others officers and after committing Maar Peet, they forcibly taken the cash from the society and locked the door from outside and run away from there. The matter was reported to the police and after investigation police has submitted charge sheet against all the four accused persons and after taking evidence the trial Court convicted the accused persons with one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 392 I.P.C. and imposed fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused persons were directed to further undergo for one year rigorous imprisonment.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the accused is quite innocent and he has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that although all the accused were charged under Section 397 I.P.C. and the court found the accused guilty under Section 392 I.P.C. He further submitted that no recovery of any country made pistol or any knife was found from the possession of the accused persons. It is apparent from the F.I.R. and the evidence that the family members of the accused had taken some loan from Co- operative society which was not timely paid and due to some altercation over dispute of loan amount this false F.I.R. was lodged.
In furtherance to his submission, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the incident had taken place on 19.02.1981 and the accused-appellants were convicted for one year Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 392 I.P.C. The incident took place in the year 1981 about 38 years ago and now accused-appellant is more than 60 years of age, at this stage, it would not be proper to sent the accused-appellant to jail at the fag end of his life and the accused was on bail since 04.11.1985 and the accused-appellant has suffered the mental agony of conviction for more than 36 years and no criminal antecedents have been shown to his credit after passing of so much long period out of jail. At present accused/appellant no. 3 Satyabir @ Nemi is aged about 65 years. He next submits that it was the first offence of the accused and after conviction the accused had not indulged in any other criminal activity. He next submits that although the trial court has convicted the accused- appellant on the basis of mere conjuncture while the appellant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submission is that accused- appellant is on bail since 04.11.1985 and prior to that he was in jail for sometime and therefore, he has requested that a lenient view may be adopted and the sentence may be converted either undergone or the sentence may be substantially reduced. He also submits that on the question of legality of sentence he is not pressing this appeal and only pressing on the quantum of sentence and he has prayed for taking lenient view considering the age of the accused and his age related ailments.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. He has however, submits that if slight reduction in sentence is made, he has no objection.
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 rival submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, considering that the alleged incident which took place in the year 1981 about 38 years ago and now accused-appellant is more than 60 years of age, at this stage, this Court feels that it would not be proper to sent the accused-appellant to jail at the fag end of his life and the accused was on bail since 04.11.1985 and the accused has suffered the agony of conviction for more than 38 years and no criminal antecedents have been shown to his credit after passing of so much long period out of jail. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the accused-appellant had remained in jail for more than 3-1/2 decades during trial and after conviction. Considering all these facts, it would be appropriate and proper that the accused be sentenced with the period already undergone and the amount of fine be enhanced.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail during trial and an amount of fine imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- instead of sending him to jail. The amount of fine imposed upon the appellant shall be paid by the accused before the trial Court within four months from the date of judgement. In case, he fails to deposit the same amount within the stipulated time he shall undergo further three months imprisonment.
Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned lower court forthwith for compliance.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Rahul.