Partly allowed

MINAUAand Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2022CRLA/1094/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the partly conviction appeal, modifying the original sentence of one year imprisonment by up to time to the rise of court and directing payment of a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each appellant for the offence under Section 323 IPC, considering the appellants' advanced age and the incident's remoteness.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rise of the court for each appellant, with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- payable by 14.11.2022.

MINAUAand Others Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1094 of 1995

¶3

Appellant :- Minauaand Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- D.N.Gupta,Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- .../Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Three persons namely, Minaua, Girbara and Aman were tried in Session Trial No.42 of 1993 before the learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. The incident had taken place on 21.08.1992 at about 11:00 a.m. in village-Lidhora, Police Station-Madawara, District-Lalitpur and FIR was lodged on the same day by Madhole (P.W.-2), brother of the deceased on 21.08.1992 at 03:30 a.m. Deceased-Jooja was done to death by throwing stones by all the three accused persons.

¶6

The lower court convicted the accused-appellants under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for one year but they were acquitted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

¶7

The defence of the appellants before the lower court was of false implication owing to enmity.

¶8

At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 (Hardas), P.W.-2 (Madhola), P.W.-3 (Dr. R.C. Sahu), P.W.-4 (H.C.-Ramesh Prasad) and P.W.-5 (S.I.Roop Narain) in support of its case. The accused-appellants have examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.-10 (Bhawani Singh) and D.W.-2 (Bircha @ Miroha) in their defense.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-appellants confined his

¶11

argument only on the aspect of sentence that offence proved against them being only of having caused hurt. They should be treated with leniency in the matter of sentence. It is true that charge under Section 323 IPC had been proved against them at the trial on the trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses, out of whom, one i.e. P.W.-2 (Madhola) was himself brother of the deceased. The accused-appellants allegedly wielded stones. The autopsy was conducted by P.W.-3 (Dr. R.C. Sahu) on 22.08.1992 and he found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased, which reads as follows:-

¶12

"1. A contusion swelling 8 c.m. X 6 c.m. on left cheek just below and anterior to the left ear. On cut, sub-cutaneous tissue and muscles are infiltrated with the blood.

¶13

2. An abraded contusion 8 c.m. X 6 c.m. on the left anterio-laternal side of chest, 12 c.m. below from the left nipple, at 5 o'clock position. On cut, muscles are infilterated with the blood.

¶14

3. An abraded contusion 9 c.m. X 7 c.m. on the left posterior-lateral side of back, 3 c.m. above from the left glutinal region. On cut, muscles are infilterated with blood."

¶15

From perusal of the records, it is evident that incident took place more than 30 years back on 21.08.1992 in front of the house of the deceased. Accused-appellants had thrown the stones at the deceased Jooja causing a contusion to him as mentioned above. Mention has been made above regarding his simple injuries too. The incident took place when the accused persons were taking away their oxen and passing in front of the house of the deceased. It was not an intentional case. On the spur of the moment, the said incident took place. The parties must have settled and burried their differences by now and they must have settled in their life. The appellants have also grown in age and at present they are in the age of their life 85 years, 70 years and 55 years respectively. Thus, sending the appellants to

¶16

jail at this stage would not expedient in the interest of justice. This Court inclined to accept the submission from the side of the accused-appellants that no useful purpose would be served to unsettle his settled life by awarding them substantive sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed more than 30 years back of causing simple injuries to the deceased.

¶17

In case of Pancham Singh Vs. State of M.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1047 of 1980 dated 09.01.2001, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "under Section 323 IPC, jail sentence is not mandatory. The appellant has remained in jail for one day. A fine amount of Rs.1,000/- is imposed.

¶18

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the above-mentioned case-law, this Court feels that sentence of imprisonment awarded should be reduced and the ends of justice would be met to modify their sentence to till the rising of the Court plus the fine of Rs.1,000/-for each to the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.

¶19

This Court, accordingly, partly allowed this Appeal upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 323 IPC and modifying their sentence to till the rising of the Court plus payment of fine of Rs.1000/- for each. The fine should be paid by 14.11.2022.

¶20

In default of payment of fine, they shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence of imprisonment awarded to be undergone in default of payment of fine indicated above.

¶21

The office is directed to send the copy of the judgment along with record of the lower court within seven working days. The compliance be reported to this Court by 21.11.2022.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.9.2022/Ashutosh

¶23

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH SINGH Date: 2022.10.19 16:30:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

MINAUAand Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MINAUAand Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Vs State of U.P.

Nando Vs State

Karam Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Om Prakash

Dhundha Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Ganga Vishan and Others