HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 435 of 1985 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. The Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.02.1985, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in S.T. No. 252 of 1981, convicting the appellant, Ram Kishore, under Section 323 IPC simpliciter and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment (R.I.), and convicting the appellants Raja Ram, Kallu, and Brijlal under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each of them to six months' R.I. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 3. As per office report 05.08.2022, the appeal stands abated qua appellant Nos. 1 and 2 namely Ram Kishore and Raja Ram respectively. Now the appeal is surviving only with respect to appellant Nos. 3 and 4 namely Kallu and Brijlal respectively. 4. The prosecution alleges that the complainant's father, Ram Lakhan, was the Upsabhapati of the Gaon Sabha, and that the accused, Ram Kishore, had a land dispute with him. It is further alleged that Ram Lakhan, with the assistance of one Babu Lal, attempted to dispossess Ram Kishore of his land, which gave rise to the enmity between the parties. 5. The occurrence is said to have taken place due to this enmity, when the accused, on 24.02.1979, at around 11 p.m., broke into the house of the complainant (son of Ram Lakhan), causing injuries to his wife and sons. On hearing the commotion, witnesses Kamta, Babadin, Shiopal, and Kuberpati arrived at the scene, upon which the accused fled. The complainant, Shanker Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Surat Patel, V.P.Goel Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Ram Kishore .....Appellant(s) State .....Respondent(s) Lal, obtained a written report from one Ram Sajiwan, on the basis of which a case was registered under Sections 452 and 307 IPC. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: P.W.1 – Shanker Lal: He narrated the entire prosecution story, including the motive behind the occurrence. He produced his written report marked as Ext. Ka-1 and also deposed about the injuries caused to Babu Lal. P.W.2 – Ram Lakhan: The father of the complainant, he testified regarding the motive and the details of the occurrence. P.W.3 – Dr. Vijay Pal: He deposed regarding the post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-2. P.W.4 – Ram Arjun (Injured): He stated that the incident occurred at his residence and described the injuries he received from a Kulari and Lathi. P.W.5 – Dr. K.B. Sarabhai: He proved the injury reports of Ram Arjun, Ram Lakhan, Nanku, Yudhisthir, and Smt. Jamuna, marked as Ext. Ka-3 to Ka-7. P.W.6 – Raja Ram Dubey (Investigating Officer): He testified regarding the investigation, proving the Chik FIR as Ext. Ka-8, and the copy of the G.D. as Ext. Ka-9. He also proved the case diary containing the statement of Babu Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-10, the site plan as Ext. Ka-11, and the recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth as Ext. Ka-12. Further, he proved the site plan of the complainant's house as Ext. Ka-13, the fard of the blood-stained and plain earth as Ext. Ka-14, and the chargesheet as Ext. Ka-20. 7. The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming that they had been falsely implicated due to their enmity with Rama Kant Mishra (Advocate) and his brother Kuberpati. 8. The learned Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder of Babu Lal against any of the four accused. Accordingly, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. However, the Court held that the charge under Section 323 IPC against Ram Kishore, and the charge under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC against the remaining accused, was fully established. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants no.3 & 4 submits that the incident is CRLA No. 435 of 1985 2 dated 24-25.02.1979 and now the appellants no.3 & 4 are ailing and aged above 60 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 appellants no.3 & 4 be reduced to the period already undergone in jail. 10. Similar is the stand of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent. 11. 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. 12. After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above 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. 13. In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellants no.3 & 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them in jail. Beside, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each under the aforesaid Section, which shall be deposited to the injured/family members of injured. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount of fine within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment before the Court concerned. CRLA No. 435 of 1985 3 14. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained. 15. 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. February 18, 2026 Pravesh Mishra CRLA No. 435 of 1985 4 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad