Partly allowed

Pooran Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2018CRLA/2005/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC, the High Court dismissed the challenge to conviction but reduced the appellate sentence to the period actually suffered by the appellant, noting he was a first offender who had undergone over six months in custody.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant; appeal partly allowed; appellant set at liberty unless wanted in other cases.

Pooran Singh Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2005 of 1986 Appellant :- Pooran Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- P.N. Lal,S.K.Purwar,Shashwat Kishore Chaturve

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.07.1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur, in Session Trial No.70 of 1986 State Vs. Poshaki Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.214 of 1985 under Section 324 IPC, Police StationShahzadnagar, District- Rampur, whereby appellant has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Since the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge has not been assailed and has been admitted to the appellant, therefore, it would not be in the fitness of things that a detailed narration of the incident is sketched as that would serve no worthy purpose. Though the entire facts and circumstances of the case have been taken into consideration and described in the impugned judgment but for the proper understanding of the case, it would be feasible in the interest of justice that a mention of the relevant facts is made.

¶8

Record reflects that the first information report was lodged by the informant Nanki Singh son of Dharu Singh, resident of village Atainagar, Police Station Shazadnagar, District Rampur, on 07.12.1985 at 3:35 p.m., Police Station Shazadnagar, District

¶9

¶10

Rampur, regarding some incident that took place the very same day at 2:30 p.m. in the village Atainagar whereby it was alleged inter-alia that the appellant arrived on the spot bearing countrymade gun in his possession and shot the informant's brother Ram Lal which hit him on left leg. Apart from the informant, the incident was witnessed by a number of villagers, when they challenged the assailants then the assailants made their escape good from the scene. The report was lodged soon after the incident. The written report is Ext. Ka-1.

¶11

This report was taken down in the concerned Check FIR Ext. Ka-2 at Case Crime No.214 of 1985 under Sections 307 IPC, Police Station Shazadnagar, District Rampur and on the basis of the same, a case was registered in the concerned general diary Ext. Ka-3 on the aforesaid date and time at aforesaid crime number under aforesaid sections of IPC at Police Station Shazadnagar, District Rampur.

¶12

Record further reflects that the very same day, at 4:45 p.m., the injured Ram Lal was medically examined by Dr. Hakim Ahmad PW-7 at District Hospital, Rampur wherein he noted following injury on his person:

¶13

Lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm x not proved. Profused bleeding was present. Blackening, tattooing was present. Singing of skin was present. Entry of wound seen, on left thigh in upper part on inner side. Circular in shape.

¶14

The investigation ensued. S.I. Rajbir Singh, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of various persons apart from doing other formalities and particularly preparing spot map Ext. Ka-5 and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused as Ext. Ka-7.

¶15

Consequently, proceeding was committed to the court of Sessions, it was numbered as Session Trial No.70 of 1986, the Sessions Judge in turn heard both the sides on point of charge and

¶16

¶17

was prima-facie satisfied with the case against the appellant, accordingly, framed charge under Section 307 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the appellant who abjured charge and opted for trial.

¶18

The prosecution, in order to prove guilt of the accused examined as many as seven witnesses namely Ram Lal PW-1 is injured eyewitness. Nanki Singh PW-2 is the informant. Rajpal Singh PW-3 is scribe of the written report. Head Constable Lokman Singh PW-4 has made relevant entries in the Check FIR and the general diary. Dr. G.K Jain PW-5 conducted x-ray examination of the injured. S.I. Rajbir Singh PW-6 is the Investigating Officer and Dr. Hakim Ahmad PW-7 has medically examined the injured Ram Lal. Except as above, no other testimony was adduced by the prosecution.

¶19

Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he claimed to have been falsely implicated by the informant. No evidence, whatsoever, was led by the defence.

¶20

The learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, after appraisal of facts and consideration of the merit of the case and evaluating the evidence on record, returned aforesaid finding of conviction by specifying that instead of Section 307 IPC, the case of the accused falls squarely under Section 324 IPC and awarded sentence vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.1986.

¶21

Resultantly, this appeal.

¶22

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that insofar as finding of conviction is concerned, the same is not objected and assailed for the time being and the claim so made against conviction is relinquished. However, he will extend argument on point of quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court.

¶23

With that view in mind, learned counsel for the appellant has

¶24

¶25

submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant and at the point of time when conviction was recorded, the appellant was around 25 years of age and for the last 30-32 years, he has been suffering vagaries of the conviction and is carrying the same with him and has suffered mental pain during 32 years of pendency of the appeal. It can be gathered from the record that the accused had already suffered three months detention/ imprisonment prior to the judgment in question and remained in detention during pendency of the appeal from 24.08.2017 till today in this case.

¶26

It has been submitted next that relevant plea was raised for giving benefit of the provisions of the first offenders probation Act at the initial stage when the accused was heard on point of sentence by the trial court but the trial court overlooked particular aspect of this case and awarded sentence as aforesaid against him. During pendency of this appeal, no illegal or criminal act was committed by the appellant and now he has reformed himself as a good citizen and is languishing in jail since 24.08.2017 pursuant to the issuance of non-bailable warrant when he could not appear before this Court due to his engagement in personal work.

¶27

Lastly, it has been submitted that the entire overall period suffered by him under detention exceeds more than six months i.e. three months at trial stage and from 24.08.2017 till date. Therefore, the period spent by the appellant in its totality should be the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial court which is in proportionate to the offence committed and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

¶28

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court on the ground that it was the appellant who alone was convicted among the four accused and he was principal offender who perpetrated crime and caused injury on

¶29

¶30

the person of injured Ram Lal. The incident has been very much proved by testimony of PW-1 himself. He has categorically specified the role of firing on him by none other than the appellant. That way, the sentence imposed by the trial court is proportionate to the offence committed by the appellant. However, learned AGA has not disputed claim of the appellant that he does not carry any criminal antecedent to his name. He also did not dispute the fact that at the time of delivery of judgment by the trial court, the appellant was around 25 years of age.

¶31

The learned trial Judge while appreciating merit of the case was impressed by consistency of the aforesaid facts and proof of the same, therefore, rightly recorded conviction and awarded just sentence against the appellant.

¶32

Considered the rival submissions.

¶33

In this case, since the learned counsel for the appellant has no objection against the conviction recorded against the appellant and he seeks leniency on point of the sentencing of the appellant, it would be in the interest of justice that the plea so raised on point of sentencing be considered vis-a-vis facts and circumstances of the case.

¶34

Insofar as conviction part of the impugned judgment is concerned, there is no point in discussing the merit of the case. However, obviously the appellant has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC. The appellant was quite young at the time of the incident and he has no criminal antecedent and he remained in jail during trial for three months and is still under detention since 24.08.2017. Therefore, it is obvious that the present appellant has suffered that much of sentence in this case.

¶35

That way, when appellant has suffered imprisonment more

¶36

¶37

than six months i.e three months at the trial stage and is still under detention since 24.08.2017 and looking to the entirety of fact and also claim initially raised by the appellant that he should be given benefit of the provisions of the first offenders probation Act and no useful purpose will be served if the sentence awarded against the present appellant is not modified while comparing with present existing scenario. It would be in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice that sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment appears to be a bit harsh and the same can be modified to the extent of the period already undergone by the appellant.

¶38

In view of above, it is observed that the sentence imposed by the trial court to the magnitude of two years rigorous imprisonment is modified as above, that is to say, that the appellant is punished with the sentence of the period already undergone by him in this case.

¶39

Accordingly, sentencing part of the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 22.07.1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur, in Session Trial No.70 of 1986 State Vs. Poshaki Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.214 of 1985 under Section 324 IPC, Police Station- Shahzadnagar, District- Rampur, is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent while conviction is maintained.

¶40

The instant appeal is allowed, partly in aforesaid terms.

¶41

In this case, the appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless and until he is wanted in connected with any other case.

¶42

Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below for necessary information and follow up action. Order Date :- 07.02.2018 rkg

Pooran Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooran Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mamta Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Awasthi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jharkandey Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Vs State

Imran Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.