HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1105 of 1984 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 30.03.1984 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, in S.T. No. 853 of 1983, instead of sentencing the accused persons Kishan Giri, Layak Giri, Shiv Puri and Subhash Puri at once to any punishment, directed that they be released on probation of good conduct on each of them entering into a personal bond of Rs. 3,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of 2 years as the court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior U/s 452 and 307 R/w S. 34 I.P.C. 3. Vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, the appeal stands abated qua appellant no. 2 Layak Giri. Now the appeal is surviving only with respect to appellant no.1 Kishan Giri and appellant No.3 Shiv Puri. 4. In the nutshell, the prosecution story is that the accused persons on 22.11.1983 in village Gobra, P.S. Mirehchi, District- Etah committed lurking house- trespass in night by entering into the house of the complainant with the common intention of killing the complainant Ramesh Giri, Smt. Shitla Devi and Km. Kashmira and in furthurence of common intention of all, Layak Giri made a shot with katta at complainant and other two females. The reason behind the scuffle is a partition wall dispute between the accused persons and complainant wherein the accused were putting obstruction and the incident took place when the mother of the complainant was serving food Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Brij Raj Singh, S.K. Kulshreshtha Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Kishan Giri And Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) to him and Km. Kashmira came to give invitation for her sister's Sangeet. Just then the accused Layak Giri armed with a country-made pistol, Shiv Puri armed with pharsa, Kishan Giri and Subhash Giri armed with lathis arrived from the eastern side jumping over the boundary wall. After the incident, the complainant wrote himself the written report Exhibit Ka-2 and went with the injured Smt. Shitla Devi and Km. Kashmira on a bullock-cart and deposited the same at P.S. Mirehchi. On the basis of this written report, Constable Kishori Raman prepared the chik FIR Exhibit Ka-5 and registered a case in G.D as Exhibit ka-6. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Smt. Shitla Devi, P.W. 2- Km. Kashmira and P.W.3- Ramesh Giri as eye witnesses and P.W.4- Dr. B.R.G. Kamthan and P.W.5 S.I. Sri Chandresh Kumar I.O. who deposed as under :- P.W.1. Smt. Sushila Devi has fully supported the prosecution story and stated that the accused were the residents of her own village whom she knew beforehand. She also stated that the scuffle took place between her son Ramesh Giri and accused persons on the construction of Gher. P.W.2- Km Kashmira has also fully corroborated the previous witness statement and stated that the incident was three months old and it took place when she went to the house of Ramesh Giri for inviting them for musical concert of her sister's marriage. P.W.3 Ramesh Giri( Complainant) has also fully supported the prosecution case and gave a similar statement as the injured witnesses. P.W.4 Dr. B.R.G. Kamthan examined the injuries of Shitla Devi and Km. Kashmira and stated that the injuries were caused by the discharge of firearms like country made pistol and the injuries were simple as stated in the reports Exhibit ka-3 and Exhibit ka-4. P.W.5- S.I. Chandresh Kumar was the investigating officer who immediately interrogated the complainant and injured witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, collected some pellets as Exhibit Ka-4 and Dibbi as Exhibit Ka-3; prepared the site plan as Exhibit ka-11; prepared the search memo as Exhibit ka-12 and after completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet as Exhibit ka-14. 6. All the accused fully refuted the allegations of the prosecution and they alleged that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. 7. The Learned Trial court after considering the submissions of both the CRLA No. 1105 of 1984 2 counsels stated that where the medical evidence on record did not show that the injuries received by the victim could prove fatal and in fact the medical evidence did not show that the injuries received were very serious and were dangerous to life, a case under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. Therefore, necessary intention to kill despite of having deadly weapons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and a case U/s 324 I.P.C is made out. 8. Learned counsel for appellants have made no argument on the point of conviction and submitted that appellants have been released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He submitted that due to order of probation, future of appellants may not be affected. Hence this appeal. 9. Learned AGA opposed the contention made by learned counsel for appellant. 10. The P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.4 have fully supported the prosecution story in their statements given before the trial Court. 11. In this context Section 12 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is reproduced:- "12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence." 12. Interpretation of Section 12 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 will depend upon observation given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway & another vs. T.R.Challapan, AIR 1975 SC 2216 and by Delhi High Court in the case of Iqbal Singh vs. Inspector General of Police and others, AIR 1970 Delhi, 240. 13. Appellants were convicted under Sections 452, 307 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. by the learned trial Court concerned and maximum lenient view was taken by the trial Court. Two years of probation have elapsed from the date of judgment. No fruitful purpose would serve in keeping this appeal pending. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible view. No interference is called for. This appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence dismissed. CRLA No. 1105 of 1984 3 14. Office is directed to transmit copy of this order alongwith record of trial Court to the trial Court. March 10, 2026 Dev CRLA No. 1105 of 1984 4 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad