Partly allowed

Shesh Narain Pandey @ Khedu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023CRLA/1394/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant was convicted for lathi blows causing injuries. The High Court upheld the conviction but, considering the 33-year-old incident and no other criminal antecedents, modified the sentence to release the appellant on probation under the U.P. Probation of Offenders Act for two years with conditions including depositing Rs. 25,000 for the victim.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence modified to release on probation under U.P. Probation of Offenders Act for two years, subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs. 35,000 each and a personal bond, and deposit

Shesh Narain Pandey @ Khedu Pandey Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Reserved on 22.5.2023 Delivered on 26.5.2023

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1394 of 2002

¶4

Appellant :- Shesh Narain Pandey @ Khedu Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Abdul Rafey Siddiqui,Abhishek Mishra,Subhash Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the materials on record.

¶7

2. By means of instant appeal, Judgement and order dated 27.9.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-3, Gonda, convicting the appellant in S.T. No.139/93, and sentencing him three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 I.P.C. and six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on each count arising out of Case Crime No.188/91 of Police Station Karnail Ganj, District Gonda.

¶8

3. As per the version of the prosecution, on 19.3.1991, appellant Shesh Narain Pandey gave lathi blows when the informant was on the way. Regarding the said incident, an N.C.R. No.53 of 1991 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Kotwali Colonelganj. Thereafter, the informant was taken to Primary Health Centre, Colonelganj, Gonda by C.P. 46 Rajpati Saroj for medical treatment on the same day.

¶9

4. Injuries sustained by the informant are as under:-

¶10

^^1- flj ij ckbZ rjQ 8 lseh- x 7 lseh- ds {ks= esa QSys gq, [kjk'k tks lwtu ls f?kjs gq, 10-5 lseh- x 9 lseh- Fks vkSj vkxs ls ihNs dh rjQ Fks vkSj f?kjs FksA

¶11

2- nkfguh Åijh Hkqtk ij 12 lseh- x 6 lseh- dk uhyxw fu'kku tks 14 lseh- yEcs nkfguh Åijh Hkqtk ckag ds pkjksa rjQ f?kjk gqvk FkkA ;g fu'kku ykyjax dk Fkk rFkk Hkqtk dk vkdkj fcxM+k gqvk FkkA

¶12

3- nkfgus gkFk ds ihNs dh rjQ rktk 1 lseh- x 1@2 lseh- dk [kjk'kA ^^

¶13

5. All the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. Injury No.1 and 2 were kept under observation and same were referred to the District Hospital. Injury No.3 was simple in nature. In X-ray, the bone of sculp was found broken. Based on the X-ray report aforesaid, N.C.R. was converted into First Information Report, which was registered as Case Crime No.188 of 1991 under Sections 307, 325, 323 I.P.C. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet before the court. The C.JM. concerned committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 323, 325 and 327 I.P.C. against the accused. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶14

6. After conclusion of statements of prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. However, in defence, he did not produce any evidence.

¶15

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is material contradiction in the statement of the P.W.1 and the allegations made in the F.I.R. Motive of the incident is not proved as P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly stated in their cross examinations that there was no enmity between the appellant and the informant. Statement of the P.W. 2 dated 19.12.1995 is absolutely contrary to the statement of the P.W.1. On the basis of X-ray report, the NCR was converted into First Information Report under Section 323, 325, 307 I.P.C. thus, the very basis of prosecution is the X-ray report but the Radiologist, who conducted the X- ray report, did not appear before the court and the doctor of Primary Health Centre who appeared and gave his statement before the court has clearly said that he did not know full name of Dr. S. Mishra (Senior

¶16

Radiologist, District Hospital, Gonda nor he was posted along with him nor he was aware of his signature or writing. As such, the statement of the doctor of Primary Health Centre is not admissible under Evidence Act. P.W.1 in his statement named two persons as eye witnesses, namely, Dev Saran and Ram Swaroop but they were not produced before the court for examination. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident.

¶17

8. After indicating the aforesaid perversity and cursory appreciation of evidence in the Judgment and order by the trial court, he submits that alleged incident is of the year 1991 and now the appellant is aged about 72 years. Since then the accused-appellant was never involved in any other offence except apart the present case. He next added that after passing of 33 years, no fruitful purpose would be served if the appellant is sent back to the jail who is living peaceful life and settled in the society.

¶18

9. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Judgment reported in 2004 (114) DLT 132, Sanjay Vs. State and has referred to paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Judgement. Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Judgement are as under:-

¶19

6. From the evidence of witnesses as also from the recovery and the medical evidence, it can safely be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt.

¶20

7. On the question of sentence, it is submitted by Counsel for the appellants that the appellants are facing the ordeal of trial for over 17 years and that no weapon was used in the present case. He further submitted considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the same can be dealt with under Section 360, Cr.P.C. and the appellants can be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He draws my attention to the statement of Dr. M.S. Sagar, who admitted in his cross-examination that injuries mentioned in the post-mortem are possible by falling on hard surface. He further submitted that the deceased may have ruptured his liver by a fall or by sudden contraction of abdominal muscle and that the above findings could be the cause of death as has been stated by PW 1 that Urminder Singh fell on the counter of the

¶21

shop and thereby hurt himself in the stomach. Counsel for the State has submitted that in a case where originally the accused persons were challaned under Section 302, IPC for murder, surely the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act would not be applicable.

¶22

8. Heard Counsel for the parties on the question of sentence and have also gone through the statements of witnesses. It appears to me that the fight took place on a spur of the moment and there was no intention whatsoever to cause the injury to the liver or cause such an injury as would be known to cause death. In that event of the matter, since the Court of Sessions has already held the appellants guilty under Sections 304(II)/34, IPC, the case of the appellants can be considered under Section 360, Cr.P.C. and also under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. For this, I draw support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muddappa, IV (1999) CCR 319 (SC)=1999 SCC (Cri.) 1046. In this circumstance, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, the sentence of imprisonment and fine as awarded to them is set aside.

¶23

9. Having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is considered expedient to release them on probation of good conduct. It is, therefore, directed that the appellants be released for a period of three years on their entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period and, in the meantime, the appellants shall keep peace and be of good behavior. The requisite bonds to be furnished by the appellants and the surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The fine, if already, paid, is directed to be treated as litigation expenses of the State.

¶24

10. He has also placed reliance on Judgement rendered in Criminal Appeal No.143 of 1994, State of Karnataka Vs. Muddappa order dated 20.4.1999 and referred para 2 of that Judgment. Para 2 of the said Judgment is quoted as under:-

¶25

"2. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to assail the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., but he vehemently contends that the Court did not bear in mind germane considerations for releasing the accused on probation after convicting him under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended in any particular case depends upon the circumstances of that case. Admittedly, there is no statutory bar for application of the Act to

¶26

an offence under Section 304 Part II where the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. In that view of the matter and on examining the impugned judgment of the High Court, we find that the Court did consider the relevant material and then came to the conclusion that the accused should be released on probation by applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We see no infirmity with that order to be interfered with by this Court after this length of time, more so when nothing has been pointed out as to whether the accused has, in any way, violated the terms and conditions of allowing him on probation."

¶27

11. After the aforesaid arguments, he submits that the appellant is not pressing the appeal on merits and added that the appellant may be given the benefit of the Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958 to meet the ends of interest of justice.

¶28

12. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the appellant and the Investigating Officer, after thoroughly investigating the matter, has filed the Chargesheet against the appellant and the trial court appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses including the other material facts, has rightly passed the Judgment and order and has punished the appellant under the aforementioned secitions and thus, the appellant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever, as has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

13. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of Judgment and order including the lower court record, it transpires that on 19.3.1991, appellant Shesh Narain Pandey gave lathi blows when the informant was on the way. Regarding the said incident, an N.C.R. No.53 of 1991 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Kotwali Colonelganj. Thereafter, after thorough investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the trial court, after hearing the submissions of the parties and after appreciating the material placed on record, has passed the Judgment and order and thus, no interference is warranted by this Court.

¶30

14. So far as the fact that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1991 and about 33 years have passed and certainly, the appellant would have settled his life in the society and therefore, unsettling the life by sending him to jail again, would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶31

15. Except apart the merit of the case, so far as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for according benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal position and the law propounded by the Apex Court.

¶32

16. In the context above, Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant for the purpose of probation to first offenders. Both these sections are reproduced as under:-

¶33

"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition.--(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

¶34

Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-section (2).

¶35

(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and,

¶36

if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken. (3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), punishable with not more than two years, imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.

¶37

(4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.

¶38

(5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law: Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.

¶39

(6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section.

¶40

(7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender under sub-section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions.

¶41

(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension.

¶42

(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.

¶43

(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders.

¶44

361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases.--Where in any case the Court could have dealt with,-- (a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958); or (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, 135 but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so."

¶45

17. There is one central Legislation on the subject in the name of ''Probation of Offenders Act Act 1958' , relevant Section 3 and 4 of are extracted hereunder:-

¶46

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.-When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition.

¶47

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4.

¶48

4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--

¶49

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during

¶50

such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

¶51

(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

¶52

(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

¶53

(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

¶54

(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."

¶55

18. There is one more legislation on the subject namely ''Uttar Pradesh First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938'. Section 3 and 4 of this Act are reproduced herein below:-

¶56

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition. - In any case in which a person is found guilty of the offences of theft, dishonesty, misappropriation or cheating, punishable under the Indian Penal Code, or of any offence punishable with not more than two years imprisonment and no previous conviction is proved against him, the court by which he is found guilty may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender, and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence

¶57

was committed instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.

¶58

Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. - (1) When any person is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or transportation for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct the court may instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years as the court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour :

¶59

Provided that the court shall not direct the release of an offender under this section unless it is satisfied that the offender, or his surety, has a fixed place of abode and regular occupation in the place for which the court acts, or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions :

¶60

Provided also that if a person under twenty-one years of age is convicted of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, or any other enactments prescribed in this behalf under rules made by the [State Government], which is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six months, the court shall take action under this section unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it does not consider it proper to do so.

¶61

(2) Where the offender ordered to be released under sub-section (1) is under twenty-four years of age, the court may make a supervision order directing that such offender shall be under the supervision of such probation officer as may be named in the order during the period specified therein and imposing such other conditions for securing such supervision as may be specified in the order :

¶62

Provided that the period so specified shall not extend beyond the date on which, in the opinion of the court, the offender will attain the age of twenty-five years.

¶63

(3) A court making an order under sub-section (2) shall require the offender, before he is released to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the condition with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants and any other matters as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

¶64

(4) A court making an order under sub-section (2) shall furnish to the offender and the sureties, if any, a notice in writing stating in simple terms the conditions of the bond.

¶65

19. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Misri Lal and others reported in 1982 CRI. L. J. 1420 held as under :-

¶66

"26- ...................The application of Section 360 in Utter Pradesh was taken away by an Ordinance of the year 1975. The Ordinance was repealed and replaced by the Criminal P.C. (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, No. 16 of 1976. This Act received the assent of the President on 30-4-1975 and published in the Utter Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 1-5-1976. Section 12 of this Act repealed the Ordinance and laid down that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act as if this Act had come into force on November, 28, 1975. The learned trial judge decided the case on 2-2-1976. Section 10 of the Amending Act No. 16 of 1976 amended S.484 of the Code and inserted the following clause (e) after clause (d) :-

¶67

"(e) .... the United Provinces First Offenders' Probation Act 1938......shall continue in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh .... and accordingly the provisions of Section 360 of this Code shall not apply to that State and the provisions of Section 361 shall apply with the substitution or reference to the Central Acts named therein by references to the corresponding Act in force in that State".

¶68

20. It follows from this provision read with clause (e) of S.484 mentioned above, the Court is required to record special reasons for not extending the benefit of the provisions of the Utter Pradesh First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938."

¶69

21. Thus, provisions of U. P. Probation Of First Offenders' Act shall be followed, in the geographical area where that has been made applicable and not Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. In this way enforcement of Probation Act in some particular area, thus excludes the applicability of the provisions of Section 360 of the Code in that particular area, however it will be the bounden duty of the Court to consider as to why not to proceed to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, as provided under Section 361 of the Cr.P.C.

¶70

22 . Coming to the point of desirability of extending the benefit of Probation Act to the Accused/Revisionist in Sitaram Paswan and Anr v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3534 Supreme Court held as under:-

¶71

"For exercising the power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. Thebenefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is subject to the limitation embodied in the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that the discretion vests with the Court whether to release the offender in exercise of the powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case. The powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act vest with the Court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power can be exercised by the Courts while finding the person guilty and if the Court thinks that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, benefit should be extended to the accused, the power can be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or revisional stage and also by this Court while hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."

¶72

23. In AIR 2017 SC page 660, Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P and

¶73

Ors. the Supreme Court opined as under:-

¶74

"20-.........In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444. Subba Rao, J., speaking for the majority, opined thus:-

¶75

"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to

¶76

imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."

¶77

24. In view of the aforesaid legal provisions and the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is apparent that the incident which had taken place, is 33 years back. Further, the appellant accused is leading a respectful and decent life in the society and he has settled himself.

¶78

25. This court has also considered that pre or post trial except, apart from the present case, there is no other criminal antecedent of the appellant and therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of the Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be given to the appellant.

¶79

26. Consequently, so for as the conviction part is concerned, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or irregularity in the Judgment and order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the trial Court, but, keeping in view the submissions and discussions made hereinabove, the sentence inflicted on the appellant-accused requires modification.

¶80

27. Thus, the appeal is hereby partly allowed with the following modifications:-

¶81

28. The conviction of the accused-appellant by the trial Court is upheld. The sentence of the appellant accused is modified to the tune that he is provided the benefit of U.P. Probation of Offenders Act and he is released on probation on the condition that he will maintain peace and good conduct for further two years from today and he shall file two sureties each to the tune of Rs.35,000/- along with his personal bonds before the trial court and also an undertaking to the effect that he shall maintain peace and good behavior. Further the appellant will also deposit Rs. 25,000/-before the Court below within two months which shall be released in favour of the victims/injured persons or their legal heirs. In

¶82

case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the appellant will be subjected to undergo the sentence as directed by the trial Court. The bonds aforesaid will be filed by the accused-appellant within two months from today before the trial Court.

¶83

29. The office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶84

30. Let the trial Court record be returned back to the trial Court. Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Ram Murti

¶85

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shesh Narain Pandey @ Khedu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shesh Narain Pandey @ Khedu Pandey 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

Juvenile 'S' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anant Ram @ Lalla Thru. Father Pitam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smrati Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Sneh Lata @ Shilpi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Nidhi Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another