HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 366 of 1983 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.49 of 1981, under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- i) Under Section 396 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years to appellant- Jai Shri. 2. Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 3. The case of the prosecution as stated by the prosecution is that Harishanker Prasad (P.W.-1) is a resident of village Chandauki (Tiwaripur) Police Station Badshahpur, District Jaunpur. Towards north of his house there exists the house of Ganga Prasad. Both these houses facing towards east, there is a neem tree. In the night between 6/7.10.1980 Harihar Prasad was sleeping below the neem tree on a cot. A lantern was burning infront of the house of Harihar Prasad. At about 12 in the night one to ten dacoits armed with lathi, danda and country made pistol came on the spot, they tied Harihar Prasad on a cot. Santosh Kumar S/o Harihar Prasad was also sleeping with him, when his son started weeping then females of the house opened the main door. The dacoits started looting the house. After looting the house of Harihar Prasad the dacoits went to the house of Ganga Prasad and they started beating the females of Ganga Prasad who were sleeping in front of the door. The ladies raised alarm. Hearing the alarm Ganga Prasad came out challenging the dacoits. Consequently, one of the dacoit fired on Ganga Prasad who fell down after receiving the injuries. On the alarm raised by Harihar Prasad and ladies of the house of the Ganga Prasad, Vidyadhar, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : B.B. Srivastava, Katyayini, Prashant Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Jai Shri Alias Doctor .....Appellant(s) State .....Respondent(s) Shambhoo Nath, Ram Prakash and several others came on the spot lightening their torch. The dacoits caused injuries to Vidyadhar and Shambhu Nath. After looting the property the dacoits fled away. 4. Harihar Prasad wrote a report Exhibit-Ka-1 at the house and went to the police station in the night and lodged a report at 2:30 A.M. on 7.10.1980. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the communication dated 7.10.2025 by the Superintendent District Jail, Pratapgarh to point out that pursuant to order dated 5.10.2021 passed by this Court, the appellant was arrested on 6.10.2023 who was confined in jail upto 16.10.2025 and has almost completed the entire sentence, which would be completed on 21.10.2025. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after arrest of the appellant on 6.10.2023 the sentence of the appellant was again suspended on 16.10.2025 by coordinate Bench of this Court and his sentence would be completed on 21.10.2025, meaning thereby by now only five days sentence of the appellant is remaining. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is dated 6/7.10.1980 and now the appellant is ailing and aged about 75 years. Thus, it is submitted that he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone in jail. 6. Similar is the stand of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent. 7. So far as, sentence is concerned it has been held that:- (i) In Uthem Rajanna vs. State of A. P. reported in 2005 (11) Supreme Court Cases 531; accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304-A IPC alongwith fine, three months under Section 338 IPC. In appeal Hon'ble the Apex Court has reduced the sentence period already undergone. (ii) In Neelam Bahal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 229; accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Hon'ble the Apex Court has convicted accused under Section 326 IPC 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. 8. After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above CRLA No. 366 of 1983 2 mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the old and ailing age of the appellant and reformative theory of punishment, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail with reasonable amount of fine is imposed upon him. 9. In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by him in jail. Beside, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under the aforesaid Section, which shall be deposited to the injured/family members of injured. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount of fine within a period of two months from today before the Court concerned. 10. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained. 11. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned Sessions Judge for its onward transmission to the court concerned for information and further action in the matter. March 25, 2026 Dev CRLA No. 366 of 1983 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad