Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10648 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1299 of 2009 Appellant :- Satish Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, Hardoi by which appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 3(1)(xi) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine; six months additional rigorous imprisonment and under Section 354 I.P.C. for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment, involved in Session Trial No. 420 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2005, Police Station Kasimpur, District Hardoi. 3. Facts in brief are that the victim went to call her father for food where the appellant was present. He followed her and started molesting in the way. The incident was narrated by the victim to her mother. An F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) S.C./S.T. Act as Case Crime No. 329 of 2005, Police Station Kasimpur, District Hardoi. 4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) S.C./S.T. Act on the basis of police report the court concerned took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed for trial. 5. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellant which was read over and explained to the accused person but he denied and claimed for trial. 6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Munna; P.W. 2, the victim; P.W. 3, Putti Lal. 7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence. 8. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is only allegation of molestation. No any injury was caused to the victim. This allegation was made by the victim but not seen by any of the witnesses. 10. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 2005 and till now 19 years have elapsed and the appellant has come in the age of over 60. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellant that he had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award compensation to be given to the injured person since no purpose will be served by sending the appellant in jail. 11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 12. 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 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that in the case the incident took place in the year 2005 and till now 19 years have elapsed. The appellant aged about more than 60 years. The allegation against the appellant was to molest the daughter of the informant. By sending the appellant to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal. 16. To sum up the totality of case, in view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by sending the appellant to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by him and to impose compensation for Rs. 10,000/- that will be paid either to the victim or her survivors. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and he is to deposit Rs. 10,000/- before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or his survivors. 18. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench