1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141799 Reserved on 5.8.2025 Delivered on 20.8.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Girjesh Shukla and Others ...Appellants v/s State of U.P. ...Respondent JUDGMENT HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal under Sections 374 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1983 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1981, whereby the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 324 I.P.C and granted the benefit of first offender and directed to furnish two sureties of Rs. 2,000/- each for keeping the peace for a period of two years and be of good behaviour. If not completed the sentence to pay Rs. 250/- each as fine and acquitted under Sections 307, 323/34 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal is that on 20.03.1972, while the first informant was cleaning his threshing floor (खलियान), the appellant no. 2, Bahadur Shukla, came to employ him for cutting away the crops. The first informant expressed inability to do so as no labour charges has been paid earlier by him. Appellant no. 2, started abusing and co-accused, appellant no. 1 Girijesh Shukla stabbed in the stomach with spear (भाा) and appellant no. 2 stabbed gupti at back and other companions committed marpeet by lathi and danda. The other persons intervened the matter and saved his life. Son of the first informant also sustained injury in Court No. 74 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2645 of 1983 2 the incident. 3. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted as Ex. Ka-4 and Ex-Ka-5, under Sections 307, 324, 323 of I.P.C. against the appellants. 4. The trial court framed the charges under Sections 307, 323/34, 324 of I.P.C. against the appellants Girijesh Shukla and Bahadur Shukla. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses namely PW-1 Ram Raj Yadav (first informant) PW-2, Manki, PW-3, Lorik Yadav, PW-4, Dr. R.N. Rai, PW-5 Sharda Mishra, S.I., I.O. to prove the charges against the appellants. 6. PW-4 Dr. R.N. Rai, Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Newaijpar, District Gorakhpur, examined the injuries of Lorik Yadav (son of the first informant) at 12’O clock and prepared the injury report Ex.Ka.2 and as per opinion of the PW-4, the injuries were about 3 hours old and the following injuries were found:- (i). Incised wound 2-1/2 cm x ¼ cm x ¼ cm oblique, on the front side of upper most part of left ring finger, alright bleeding. (ii). Contusion 2 cm x ½ cm (underlying traumatic swelling in an area of 2 cm radius) on the outer side of right elbow joint, red in colour, oblique. (iii). Contusion 5 cm x ½ cm, oblique, red in colour, extending from the middle of the vertebral column towards right side joint. (iv) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on the top of left side joint. 7. Similarly the PW-4 examined the injuries of Ram Raj Yadav (first informant) on the same day at 12.20 P.M. The injury report is Ex. Ka. 3 and as per opinion of the PW-4, the injuries were about 3 hours old and the following injuries were found:- (i). Punctured wound ¾ cm ¼ cm ½ cm, 4 cm below the umbilicus, a light bleeding. The margins of wound are sharp and 3 clear cut and the wound is elliptical in shape- oblique. (ii) Incised wound ¾ cm x ¼ cm, on the lower marginal of left scapula. The margins of wound are sharp and clear cut, oblique, a light bleeding. (iii) Contusion 3 cm x ½ cm, oblique, red in colour, on the back of upper side of left leg. (iv) Contusion 2 cm x ½ cm, oblique, red in colour, on the upper part of outer side of right arm. (v) Contusion 2-1/2 cm x ½ cm, oblique, red in colour, in the middle of right scapula. 8. Heard Sri Sanjay Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State at length and perused the material on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has not argued on the point of conviction of the appellants. It is further submitted that both the parties are having age of more than 75 years old and as per age of the appellants the period of probation is to be reduced. It is further submitted that the Additional Government Advocate has not made any adverse remarks against the reduction of the probation period. 10. After having gone through the entire material on record and keeping in mind the fact, the learned counsel for the appellants has not argued on the point of conviction to the appellants in the present case. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and order dated 22.10.1983 is modified from the period of two years to six months and the appellants shall appear before the District Probation Officer within two weeks. 12. After obtaining the certified copy of this judgment, the District Probation Officer to complete the probation of the appellant within three hearings and fix the date after two months of first hearing. 13. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. 4 14. The original record is returned to the court concerned immediately for compliance. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Ishan (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad