Partly allowed

Narsingh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022CRLA/1948/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal, upholding the conviction for causing hurt but commuted the prison term to till the date of judgment. The court considered the 30-year delay, the appellant's age, and the lack of prejudice to resolve the matter with a fine to avoid unsettling the appellant's settled life.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to till the rising of the court; fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed.

Narsingh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1948 of 1996

¶3

Appellant :- Narsingh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- H.P.Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Two accused persons namely, Narsingh Yadav and Rameshwar Yadav were tried in Session Trial No.50 of 1994 before the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. The incident had taken place on 24.10.1991 at about 05:45 p.m. in villageBankati, Police Station-Sikriganj, District-Gorakhpur and FIR was lodged on the same day by the complainant, Ram Lalit Pandey (P.W.-1) on 24.10.1991 at 07:40 p.m.

¶6

The prosecution story in brief is that, on 24.10.1991, when complainant (Ram Lalit Pandey), P.W.-1 after closing his shop was returning back for his home by his cycle, on the way, he saw the Jeep No.UP-53/A-5019 standing by the side of the Kharanja Road. The accused Narsingh Yadav was sitting on the seat of the driver while another co-accused Rameshwar Yadav was sitting by his side. When he (complainant) reached near Brick-kiln, the said Jeep driven by the accused-appellant Narsingh Yadav came behind and dashed his cycle with the intention to commit murder, as a result, complainant received serious injuries.

¶7

The lower court only convicted the present appellant, Narsingh Yadav under Section 338 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three months but acquitted both the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 307, 325, 323, 504 IPC.

¶8

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

¶9

At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 (Ram Lalit Pandey), P.W.-2 (Sheo Charan Yadav), P.W.-3 (Dr. S.D.P. Gupta), P.W.-4 (Dr. V.S. Singh), P.W.-5 (S.I.-Yadil Khan) and P.W.-6 (H.C., Rama Shanker), out of whom, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are the eye-witness and rest of the witnesses i.e P.W-3 to P.W.-6 are the formal witnesses in support of its case.

¶10

The accused-appellant has not led any evidence in his defence.

¶11

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

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant confined his argument only on the aspect of sentence that offence proved against them being only of having caused hurt. He should be treated with leniency in the matter of sentence. It is true that charge under Section 338 IPC had been proved against him at the trial on the trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses, out of whom, one i.e. P.W.-1 (Ram Lalit Pandey) and P.W.-2 (Sheo Charan Yadav) are the eye-witness to the said incident. The accused-appellant allegedly dashed the cycle of the appellant by the Jeep.

¶13

The injured (complainant) was medically examined by Dr. V.S. Singh (P.W.-4) and doctor found the following injuries on the person of the complainant-Ram Lalit Pandey (P.W.-1), which reads as follows:-

¶14

1. Lacerated wound 6 c.m. X 2 c.m. X bone deep on anterior aspect of left leg 12 c.m below from left knee. Bleeding present.

¶15

2. Lacerated wound 4 c.m. X 2 c.m. X muscle deep on lateral aspect of left

¶16

knee. Bleeding present.

¶17

3. Lacerated wound 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. X muscle deep on lateral aspect of left leg 6 c.m. below from injury no.2. Bleeding present.

¶18

4. Contusion 10 c.m. X 6 c.m. on lateral aspect of left ankle. Advised X- Ray of left ankle. Suspected dislocation.

¶19

5. Abrasion 3 c.m. X 3 c.m. on lateral aspect of left leg 8 c.m. above from left ankle. Skin bright red.

¶20

6. Abrasion 6 c.m. X 4 c.m. on left skin bright red.

¶21

7. Abrasion 3 c.m. X 3 c.m. on lateral aspect of right leg 4 c.m. above from right ankle.

¶22

8. Contusion 4 c.m. X 3 c.m. on medial aspect of right sole skin red.

¶23

9. Multiple abrasion in an area of 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. on root of right toe.

¶24

10. Abrasion 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. on root of right little finger skin bright and red.

¶25

The doctor referred injury no.4 for X-ray for expert opinion and the same was made under the supervision of Dr. S.D.P. Gupta (P.W.-3), the then Senior Radiologist, District Hospital, Gorakhpur on 29.10.1991 and found hairline fracture.

¶26

From perusal of the records, it is evident that incident took place more than 30 years back on 24.10.1991 on the way when the complainant-Ram Lalit Pandey was returning back his home after closing his shop. Mention has been made above regarding his simple and grievous injuries too. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was not an intentional case. The parties must have settled and burried their differences by now and they must have settled in their life. The appellant has also grown in age and, at present, he is in the age of 62 years of his life. Thus, sending the appellant to jail at this stage would not be expedient in the interest of justice. This Court inclined to accept the submission from the side of the accused-appellant that no useful purpose

¶27

would be served to unsettle his settled life by awarding him substantive sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed more than 30 years back of causing simple injuries to the deceased.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and perusal of records, this Court feels that sentence of imprisonment awarded should be reduced and the ends of justice would be met to modify his sentence to till the rising of the court plus fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC.

¶29

This Court, accordingly, partly allowed this Appeal upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 338 IPC and modifying his sentence to till the rising of the court plus payment of fine of Rs.1000/- . The fine should be paid by 14.11.2022.

¶30

In default of payment of fine, he 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 27.9.2022 Ashutosh

¶33

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH SINGH Date: 2022.10.20 09:58:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narsingh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsingh Yadav 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

Abdul Alam @ Mohd. Alam @ Sheru Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Akash Jat Vs State of U.P.

Shauki @ Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Kamran Vs State of U.P.