HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2748 of 1983 Court No. - 86 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. As per report of C.J.M. Prayagraj dated 24.07.2025 appellant no. 2 Sushil Kumar has died therefore appeal stands abated for appellant no. 2. Appellant no. 1, Surendra Kumar is still alive. 3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1983 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 370 of 1981 (State Versus Surendra Kumar and others) by which the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 I.P.C. 4. Prosecution story in brief is that, on 08.03.1981 at about 11:15 am in Mohalla, Katra, police station Colonelganj, district Allahabad the appellant and co-appellant Sushil Kumar made fire with a pistol at the injured inflicting injury on the eye of the person regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged at the police station concerned and he was medically examined. 5. After investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned court concerned against the appellants 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 for trial before the learned court of Sessions. 6. The learned court of Sessions framed the charges against the appellant and other co-appellant Sushil Kumar under Section 307/34 I.P.C. which was read Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhuwan Raj, Harsh Kumar Sharma, Prashant Kumar Singh, R.C. Singh, R.C.Sinha, Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Surendra Kumar And Ors. .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) over and explained to the appellants but they denied the charges and claimed for trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1, Shyam Ji Jaiswal; P.W. 2, Dr. Deepak Gupta; P.W. 3, Sri Piyush Kumar, the injured; P.W. 4, Dr. R.N. Mishra; P.W. 5, Dr. Gupta; P.W. 6, J.D. Katariya, the I.O. and P.W. 7, Gaja Nand Singh. 8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he has been implicated falsely on account of previous enmity. In defence no evidence was adduced on the part of the appellant. 9. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned trial court passed the judgment and order in question while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the charge under Section 307/34 I.P.C. sentenced him for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment. 10. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant without going into merit of the case, constrained his argument to the extent of sentence only. He argued that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1981 when the appellant was aged about 20 years and till now 45 years have elapsed and now he has become about 68 years old and is suffering from old age ailments, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served to send him jail for serving the remaining period of sentence instead adequate fine be imposed against the appellant to be paid to the injured or to his survivors as compensation. 12. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard. 13. On considering the facts and arguments as extended by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the incident took place in the year 1981 when the appellant is said who have made fire on the injured at the exhortation of co-appellant Sushil Kumar who has already been died and the incident took place in Kaha-Suni between both the parties. It shows that the incident took place all of a sudden in the heat of passion between the parties. The appellant was 23 years at the time of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and now after 45 years gap of time he is about 68 years old and is suffering from old age ailments. 14. 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 CRLA No. 2748 of 1983 2 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. As per observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and the facts of the present case that the incident took place in the year 1981, all of a sudden in the heat of passion between the parties, the time gap of 45 years from the date of incident and the age of the appellant to be 68 years, it will be of no use to send the appellant to jail for serving the remaining part of the sentence but it will be adequate and in the interest of justice to impose fine on the appellant which will be paid either to the injured or to their survivors as compensation. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant Surendra Kumar is reduced to the period already undergone with fine Rs. 40,000/- which shall be paid as compensation either to the injured or to his survivors before the concerned court within a period of 30 days from today. In case of default, he will serve the remaining part of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. 19. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Sessions Judge concerned for necessary compliance. 20. Trial court record be returned to the concerned court. May 12, 2026 Suraj Srivastav CRLA No. 2748 of 1983 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad