Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6544 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 76 of 2003 Appellant :- Wahab And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajmal Khan,Mritunjay Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 26.11.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, IInd, Raebareli by which appellants were convicted and sentenced involved in Case Crime No. 18 of 1994 and S.T. No. 402 of 1995, under Section 325 read with 34 I.P.C. for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in case of default of payment to undergo three months additional imprisonment and under Section 323/34 for a period of six months imprisonment, Police Station Salon, District Raebareli. 3. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no. 1, Wahab and appellant no. 2, Ashiq had died and appeal for them was abated. As per C.J.M. report dated 30.10.2023, appellant no. 3, Mussan has also died, therefore, appeal stands abated for appellant no. 3, Mussan. 4. Facts in brief are that on 07.02.1994 at about 5:30 P.M. the informant was going to Sindhiyapur from his house. In the way in front of house of Ashiq, Mussan was standing with lathi. He exhorted and Wahab, Ashiq, Mussan and Imtiaz made assault. On his noise the nearby villagers came there who were also beaten by them regarding which Crime No. 18 of 1994 under Section 324/323 I.P.C. was registered at 6:20 P.M. 5. Injured persons were sent for medical examination by giving Mazrubi report. Injured Harish Chandra, Jagnandan, Bhola and Mewa Lal were medically examined and injury reports were prepared. Lateron, injured Bhola died, as a result, after investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 147, 302, 307, 323, 324, 504 I.P.C. 6. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellants with other co- accused persons under Sections 302/34, 307/34 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused persons which they denied and claimed for trial. 7. Prosecution examined P.W. 1, Harish Chandra; P.W. 2, Mewa Lal; P.W. 3, Shyam Lal; P.W.4, Dr. Umesh Chandra Sharma; P.W. 5, Dr. S.S. Trivedi; P.W. 6, J.P. Mehrota; P.W. 7, Sub-Inspector, Shiv Kumar; P.W.8, Sub-Inspector, D.S. Rana; P.W. 9, S.K. Diwakar; P.W. 10, Shior Ram; P.W. 11, Constable, Jai Prakash Tiwari; 8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence. 9. 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 appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 323, 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the place of Section 302, 307/34 I.P.C. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on their person those were not fatal to the life. No role for causing injury to Bhola, who died lateron, was assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that general role of making assault with lathi was assigned to the present appellant. There was no any intention or knowledge with the appellant to cause injury to other injured persons. 11. Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1995 and till now 29 years have elapsed and three co-appellants Wahib, Ashiq and Mussan have already died and present appellant Imtiaz was 59 years old at the time of alleged incident and now he is more than eighty years, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending him to jail. 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 persons since no purpose will be served by sending the appellant in jail. 12. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature. The weapon used in causing those injuries was said to be lathi. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 29 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and at that time appellant was also 59 years of age but now he is aged more than eighty. By sending the appellant to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal. 17. 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 injured persons or their survivors. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no. 4, (Imtiaz) 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 their survivors. 19. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench