HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1552 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Orders dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Special Trial No.17 of 2008 (State vs. Shishupal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1724 of 2007, under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)10 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Navabad, District Jhansi, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- (i) Under sections 323/34 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year to appellants alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in case of default in payment of fine the appellant shall undergo one month additional imprisonment. (ii) Under section 504 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years to all the appellants alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- each in case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo three months additional imprisonment. (iii) Under section 506 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years to all the appellants alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo three months additional imprisonment. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shiv Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shishupal And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) (iv) Under Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo six months additional imprisonment. 2. Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 3. According to Ext. ka-1, the brief summary of the prosecution case as stated by the complainant is that the Yadavs of Mairi village- Krishnapal, Shishupal and Sumit – called him to their house and beat him up, saying " You bastard, you have imposed the Gangster Act on us and our family members" . On the morning of October 5, 2002 they beat him, chased him away and threatened, "You Chamra, if you report this, we will kill you". Based on the complain Ext. ka-1, a first information report Ext. ka-2 was registered under Case Crime no. 1724/2007. The disclosure of the case was recorded in GD diary Ext. ka-4 and after the investigation, the I.O submitted charge sheet against the accused. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution witness examined oral witnesses P.W.-1- Pannalal, P.W.-2- Tuslidas Chamar, P.W.-3- H.M. Sher Singh and P.W.-4- Pramod Kumar Yadav. 5. The documentary evidences produced by the prosecution are: (i). Complaint (Ext. ka-1) (ii). Chik FIR (Ext. ka-2) (iii). Medical Certificate (Ext. ka-3) (iv). Case registration GD (Ext. ka-4) (v). Site map (Ext. ka-5) (vi). Charge sheet (Ext. ka-6). P.W.-1- Pannalal is the victim who supported the prosecution story stating that he belonged to Chamar community and the accused belonging to Yadav community had beaten him accusing Pannalal for putting Gangster charges on their family. He proved the written report as Ext. ka-1. being made by him. CRLA No. 1552 of 2024 2 P.W.-2- Tulsidas Chamar has also supported the prosecution story stating that while he was going for his work, he saw the accused persons beating Pannalal with kicks and punches and had given his statement to the Circle officer. P.W.-3 H.M Sher Singh stated in his sworn testimony that he was posted at the University Outpost, Navabad Police station and was on duty as a Constable supporting the prosecution story and proving Chik FIR as Ext. ka-2 and GD entry as Ext. ka-3. P.W.-4 Pramod Kumar Yadav stated that he was posted as Circle officer at Mauranipur and proved paper No. 10A (Site plan/ map) and Charge sheet (3A) bearing the signatures of C.O. Dinesh Singh as Ext. ka-5 and Ext. ka- 6 respectively. 6. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the incident and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to Parti-bandi and did not provide any evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated at the bar that the appellants were in custody since 16.11.2023 and during trial they were also not admitted to bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone in jail. He points out that the incident had taken place in the year of 2002. 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. CRLA No. 1552 of 2024 3 (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 mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail. 9. In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them in jail. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount fine as imposed by the learned trial Court within a period of two months from today before the court concerned. In case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 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 concerned for its onward transmission to the court concerned for information and further action in the matter. April 6, 2026 Dev CRLA No. 1552 of 2024 4 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad