HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2829 of 1985 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 15.10.1985 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Session Ttrial No.214 of 1984 convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 364 I.P.C. to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case as stated in the written F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1) by Satya Narain is that the complainant has got his chak at a distance of 50 paces in the west from his house alongwith a tubewell and also a flour grinding machine and when he alongwith his relatives and cousins started preparing for cutting and thrashing wheat crop in the night, 9 to 10 miscreants appeared armed with guns, pistols etc. and kidnapped Mahipal Singh (S/o Pradhan Chotte Lal) on the direction of another man who covered his face appearing from the side of the village; meanwhile the miscreants left the place with the kidnapped boy and they were chased by the villagers but they could not be apprehended. 4. The police prepared the chik report and G.D. report on the basis of F.I.R and its investigation was entrusted to S.I. Ajab Singh (P.W.-5). Subsequently he interrogated the witnesses Lakhan Singh, Ram Bharosey and others and prepared the site plan as Exhibit Ka-4. He also inspected the torches of the witnesses and prepared the recovery memos as Exhibit Ka-5 to Exhibit Ka- 8. And after concluding the investigation he submitted the chargesheet as Exhibit Ka-9 and Exhibit Ka-10. 5. Statements of the accused were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.P.Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Ram Autar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) have stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity and village party-bandi. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined Chhote Lal ( P.W.1); Satya Narain(P.W. 2); Mahipal Singh(P.W.3); H.C. Balbir Singh(P.W.4); S.I. Ajab Singh(P.W.5); Kamlesh Kumar(P.W.6) and Ram Prasad (P.W.7) P.W.1. Chhote Lal supported the prosecution version and stated that he was sleeping with his son Satya Narain and others when the miscreants came in police and civil uniforms and abducted his son Mahipal. He also identified the miscreants in the District jail. P.W.2 Satya Narain (S/o Chhote Lal) has also supported the version stated by his father and confirmed the fact that he had recognised the accused persons in the District jail; denying the fact that he knew them beforehand. P.W 3 Mahipal Singh alias Pappu was the person who was kidnapped by the accused. He supported the prosecution version and stated that the accused were seen and recognised by him where he was kept in wrongful confinement with the intention to extract money from his parents. The learned trial court after examining the evidences adduced found the accused Sarnam Singh, Sri Pal and Ram Autar guilty for commission of crime U/s 364 I.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has stated that he does not want to press the instant appeal on merits and since the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1982 i.e. 44 years back and the appellant Ram Autar is ailing and aged about 76 years and he already remained in jail for about three years as he was not on bail during trial, as such the substantive period of six years imprisonment may be reduced to payment of fine which shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant states that Section 364 I.P.C. provides that whoever is guilty of kidnapping or abducting of any person with the intent to murder them or put them in danger of murder. This is a serious, cognizable, and non-bailable offense punishable by life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years or life imprisonment, along with a mandatory fine. Since the appellant has not challenged the veracity of the prosecution case and credibility of prosecution witness, he confined his argument to the quantum of sentence. In the case where admittedly the incident took place in year 1982, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant into jail to undergo the sentence as imposed by the trial court. CRLA No. 2829 of 1985 2 8. In the instant case, maximum lenient view has been taken by the trial Court, it is apparent that so far as culpability of accused-appellants is concerned, as noticed above, the testimony of witnesses is clear and cogent and it has stood test of cross-examination. Their version is consistent with other evidence on record. No major contradiction or infirmity could be shown. In view of evidence on record, it is apparent that conviction of accused-appellant namely Ram Autar is based on evidence and trial court was justified in convicting him and thus, conviction of accused-appellant is upheld. 11. The instant appeal, which is related to an occurrence of the year 1982, is pending since 1985 meaning thereby that the appellant is prosecuting this case for more than forty years and while prosecuting his case in various courts, he remained in jail for about three years as he was not on bail during trial, he also suffered mental agony and financial sufferings. Considering all these circumstances and the time lag in between, it appears that the justice would be served if the sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellant and a fine of Rs.10,000/- is also imposed on the appellant. 12. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by learned trial court is reduced to the period already undergone, that is, about three years subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. 13. The amount of fine shall be paid by the accused-appellant within one month of his release from jail. If he fails to pay the fine amount within stipulated time, he shall undergo further six months imprisonment. 14. In view of the above, the judgement and order dated 15.10.1985 stands modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this order along with lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith for communication and its necessary compliance. January 22, 2026 Dev CRLA No. 2829 of 1985 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad