HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1581 of 1983 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 22.06.1983, passed by learned XIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur (MA) in Session Trial No.83/M/80 (State Vs. Gaffar and others), whereby the appellants namely Abdul Gaffar, Chhotey Miyan, Ramzani, Shahzade, Nawab, Babu Khan and Baker Ali have been convicted under Sections 147, 325/149 IPC and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 147 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two years under Section 325 / 149 IPC. 2. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA-Ist for State and perused the record. 3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that during pendency of this appeal, appellant no.1 Abdul Gaffar, appellant no.2 Chhotey Miyan, appellant no.4 Shahzade and appellant no.6 Babu Khan have passed away and on behalf of those appellants, the appeal has been abated. Now, this appeal is confined only in respect of appellant nos.3, 5 & 7, namely, Ramzani, Nawab & Baker Ali respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that finding of conviction of appellants recorded by the trial court is not being disputed but in view of attending facts particularly the fact that this appeal is pending since the year 1983, the sentence awarded by the trial court may be reduced to the period already undergone. It was stated that the incident took place on 28.05.1977 and that four of the appellants-accused have already been passed away and that appellants have remained in custody for about eight days. After passing of so much long period, no useful purpose would be served by sending the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prashant Kumar Singh, S.M.A.Kazmi Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Abdul Gaffar and Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) appellants to jail at this stage. The appellants are in their seventies. Referring to these facts it was submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial Court may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the appeal and submitted that conviction of appellants is based on evidence, however in view of the fact that incident took place about 48 years back appropriate sentence may be awarded. 6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The instant case relates to an incident date 28.05.1977. Though, the finding of conviction is not being disputed, however I have gone through the record. As per prosecution version on 28.05.1977 at about 04.00 PM at village Gopalpur, the appellants-accused and co-accused persons assaulted Jagat Narayan and Ramvilas and caused injuries to them. Jagat Narayan reported the matter to police vide tahrir exhibit ka-4 and consequently first information report was registered on 28.05.1977 vide exhibit ka-3. Both the injured were medically examined. The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses and prepared site plan of the spot. It appears that some of the accused-appellants have also sustained injuries and a cross case was registered from side of accused persons against injured persons. After investigation police have submitted final report with conclusion that incident is not established. Learned Magistrate rejected the final report and summoned the appellants-accused and co-accused persons. 8. The appellants-accused were charged for offence under Section 147, 325/149,323/149 IPC. The appellants-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. After evidence, accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied prosecution evidence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated. However, no oral evidence was led in defence. 10. After hearing and analysing evidence on record, accused-appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 147 and 325/ 149 IPC and sentenced as stated in paragraph no. 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved of the same, accused-appellants have preferred the present appeal. 11. PW-3 Jagat Narayan is the complainant as well as injured of the case. He has clearly supported prosecution version and stated that appellants-accused CRLA No. 1581 of 1983 2 and co-accused have assaulted him and caused injuries. Close scrutiny of evidence shows that PW-3 Jagat Narayan is complainant and injured witness and he has made clear and cogent statement. He has been subjected to cross- examination but no such fact could emerge in his statement so as to affect his credibility or could create any doubt about the authenticity of his version. PW-3 Jagat Narayan has stood the test of cross-examination and no major contradiction or inconsistency could emerge. His testimony is corroborated by other witnesses. It is well settled that if testimony of sole witness, particularly that of injured witness, inspires confidence, conviction can be based upon it. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 9SCC 719, the Supreme Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused. It was held that the fact that witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Similar view was expressed in the case of Krishan v State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459. With respect to the evidence of victim, the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 513-514 of 2014 (decided on 09.01.2017) Baleshwar Mahto & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., has reiterated the law as under : "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built- in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881:1973 SCC (Cri) 563:AIR 1972 SC 2593], Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12], Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681], Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696], Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113], Bhag Singh [(1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163], Mohar v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472], Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302], Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] 29." 12. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], the Apex Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] the Court has CRLA No. 1581 of 1983 3 held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 13. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2021] a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ). 14. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. 15. In the instant case, it is apparent that testimony of injured witness PW-3 Jagat Narayan is clear and cogent and it finds ample support from medical evidence. Considering entire evidence on record, it is apparent that conviction of accused-appellants is based on evidence and it calls for no interference. 16. So far as question of sentence is concerned, it was argued by learned counsel for accused-appellants that alleged incident has been shown of 28.05.1977 and since then a period of 48 years has passed. Accused- appellants have remained in judicial custody for about 8 days during trial and appeal and injured persons have not sustained any serious or dangerous injury, which may be fatal to life. It was submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances, it would not be appropriate to send the accused-appellants in judicial custody at this stage. CRLA No. 1581 of 1983 4 17. It is well settled principle that sentence must be just and simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the court but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. 18. In the instant case it was shown that incident took place on 28.05.1977 and appellants have remained in judicial custody for about 7-8 days. Four of the appellants-accused have already passed away. Alleged incident took place about 48 years ago and this appeal is pending since 1983 and that appellants-accused alone can not be held responsible for long delay in disposal of this appeal. Considering all aspects of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by sending accused-appellants in judicial custody at this stage, rather it appears that ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment, awarded by the trial court, is set aside and appellants-accused be sentenced to the period already undergone by them along with some fine. 19. Accordingly, conviction of appellants-accused namely namely, Ramzani, Nawab & Baker Ali under Sections 147, 325/ 149 IPC is upheld but sentence of two years imprisonment, awarded by the trial court under Sections 147 and 325/149 IPC is altered. The appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) each under section 147 IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo imprisonment of three months. Appellants are further sentenced to the period already undergone along with fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 325 IPC. In case of default of payment of fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 325 IPC, they shall undergo imprisonment of six months. The sentence awarded by the trial Court stands altered to that extent. Appellants are directed to deposit the fine within a period of six weeks from today. CRLA No. 1581 of 1983 5 20. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms. 21. Lower court record along with copy of this order be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. October 6, 2025 'SP'/- CRLA No. 1581 of 1983 6 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad