Partly allowed

Munna Lal v. State of U.P

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2021CRLA/255/1982

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal for an assault case from 1979, the court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. Recognizing the appellant's advanced age and the decades-long delay, the court reduced the rigorous imprisonment term to run concurrently with the period already served, allowing the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of rigorous imprisonment was altered to be served for a period of one month and three months, running concurrently including the period of sentence already undergone.

Munna Lal Vs State of U.P — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Reserved on 16.12.2021 Delivered on 21.12.2021

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 255 of 1982

¶4

Appellant :- Munna Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P Counsel for Appellant :- R.Sm. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under section 347 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.1.1982 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1981, convicting the appellants under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. for six months R.I. and one year R.I. each respectively.

¶7

Though this appeal was filed in the year 1982 and since then it remained pending undated. When the case was put up before the coordinate bench of this court on 05.8.2021, report regarding status of appellants was summoned. On the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate 26.8.2021 the appeal was abated against the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely, Munna Lal, Baboo and Dal Chand with liberty to State to seek revival if any fact comes to the notice. Non bailable warrants against the appellant Kundan were issued on 09.09.2021. In execution of the warrants the accused Kundan was arrested on 28.9.2021 and since then he is languishing in jail.

¶8

¶9

Prayer was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to recall order dated 9.9.2021 issuing the non bailable warrants against the appellant Kundan and release the appellant Kundan.

¶10

As per report dated 18.11.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned the appellant Kundan has been arrested in the execution of non bailable warrants issued vide order dated 9.9.2021 of this court, hence recall application being not maintainable is rejected.

¶11

It has also been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the remaining sole appellant Kundan that he is not pressing the appeal on merits however, the appellant is more than 80 years of age and is languishing in jail since 28.9.2021. About 42 years have been passed since the date of occurrence, so the accused may be acquitted on the basis of the sentence already undergone by him.

¶12

I have gone through the judgment whereby the incident is dated 9.6.1979 and the charge on the present appellant along with other co accused is that they assaulted the complainant and his cousin Jagannath and Lal Bihari respectively with lathi-danda and fists. Lal Bihari sustained 3 injuries and Jagannath sustained 1 injury. In supplementary report fracture on the head of injured Lal Bihari was found. Thereby vide judgment and order dated 13.1.1982 all the four accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

¶13

From the above discussion, it is clear that the incident is dated 9.6.1979 and the impugned judgment is dated 13.1.1982 so 40 years are about to pass after the date of judgment and the maximum sentence awarded is one year R.I. In my opinion, looking at the old age of the appellant accused and the long period passed after the occurrence it will be travesty of justice for the appellant accused to undergo rest period of sentence. Hence, the conviction of the appellant

¶14

2 of 3

¶15

¶16

recorded by the lower court vide judgment and order dated 13.1.1982 under section 323/34 and 325/34 is upheld and affirmed and the order of learned lower court is modified to the extent of sentence only. The sentence of six months R.I. and one year R.I. is altered by ordering the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and three months respectively which shall run concurrently including the period of sentence already gone by the appellant.

¶17

The appeal is allowed in part in the above terms.

¶18

Order dated:-21.12.2021

¶19

Gss

¶20

3 of 3

Munna Lal v. State of U.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Lal 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

Yashpal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Ashok Yadav@ Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Panchlal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avanish Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Amir Ansari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Amalesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another