Dismissed¶24

Shobh Nath Sharma and 2 Others v. State of Up

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025CRLA/1295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court criminal appeal dismissed December 2, 2025; conviction under Sections 147, 323/149, 342 IPC affirmed; probation order upheld; appeal on probation infructuous once probation completed without adverse report; appellate interference limited to perverse or misread evidence; relies on Ram Prakash 1973 (2) SCC 185 and Subhash Mehta 1998 Cri. L.J. 3633 (Delhi); trial court order dated 26.10.2023, ADJ Court No.1 BhadohiGyanpur; S.T. No. 36 of 2017; Case Crime No. 54 of 2016; Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 342, 504, 506 IPC; P.S. Chauri, District Bhadohi; Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act 1958; bail bonds discharged; trial court record transmitted.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed and bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. ¶24

Shobh Nath Sharma and 2 Others vs State of Up — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed and bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings of guilt/conviction recorded by the trial court suffer from misappreciation of the evidence so as to warrant appellate interference with the conviction. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

In appeal proceedings, a conviction can be interfered with only where the finding suffers from perversity or misreading of evidence.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

On close scrutiny the Court found no infirmity in the order under challenge; the trial court's appreciation of the evidence is sound and does not call for interference.

¶18

Key takeaways

The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 147, 323/149, 342 I.P.C. as recorded by the trial court is hereby affirmed.ratio¶20
Since the appellants have already completed the probation period with no violation or adverse report placed before the Court, no modification of sentence is necessary and the appeal with respect to the order of probation becomes infructuous.ratio¶18
The order releasing the appellants on probation is upheld, noting that the probation period has already been completed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.) — Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2024, decided December 2, 2025: appeal against the order dated 26.10.2023 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, BhadohiGyanpur in S.T. No. 36 of 2017 (State Vs. Shobh Nath Sharma and others), Case Crime No. 54 of 2016, P.S. Chauri, District Bhadohi, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 147, 323/149, 342 I.P.C. and released on probation for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. During the appeal the appellants completed the entire probation without violation or adverse report. The Court held that a conviction can be interfered with only on perversity or misreading of evidence, found the trial court's appreciation sound, affirmed the conviction, and held that once probation has been duly completed the appeal on the probation order becomes infructuous (relying on Ram Prakash Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh, 1973 (2) SCC 185, and Subhash Mehta Vs. State of Delhi, 1998 Cri. L.J. 3633 (Delhi)). Appeal dismissed; bail bonds discharged; trial court record ordered transmitted forthwith.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1295 of 2024

¶3

Shobh Nath Sharma And 2 Others

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

		.....Res	pondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Jai Vardhan Upadhyay : G.A.	Tripathi,	Shailesh

¶8

Court No. - 54

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

¶10

This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, BhadohiGyanpur in S.T. No. 36 of 2017, State Vs. Shobh Nath Sharma and others, Case Crime No. 54 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Chauri, District Bhadohi, whereby the accused appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323/149, 342 I.P.C. but were extended benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and were released on probation for a period of one year on extending bonds of good conduct.

¶11

The appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction as well as the order releasing them on probation. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the findings of the trial court suffers from misappreciation of the evidence. During the pendency of the appeal, it is admitted position that the appellants have already undergone and successfully completed the entire period of probation as directed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the period of probation is already over, any interference with the order of trial court at this stage would serve no fruitful purpose. However, he presses the appeal only to the extent of challenging the conviction.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the appeal and submitted that the trial court has recorded the cogent findings based on the evidence on

¶13

CRLA No. 1295 of 2024

¶14

¶15

record. It is further contended that once the appellants have availed and completed the benefit of probation, the scope of interference in the appeal becomes limited unless the conviction is shown to be perverse or unsustainable.

¶16

I have perused the entire trial court record, the deposition of the witnesses and the impugned judgement.

¶17

The trial court has recorded the finding of guilt on the basis of consistence and reliable evidence. Learned trial court has also given adequate reasons for invoking the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, considering the nature of offence, age and the background of the accused persons. In an appeal proceedings of conviction can be interfered with only where the finding suffers from perversity or misreading of evidence.

¶18

Upon the close scrutiny, the Court finds no such infirmity in the order under challenge in the appeal. The trial court's appreciation of the evidence is sound and does not call for interference. As regards to the sentence, it is undisputed that the appellants have already completed the period of probation and no violation or adverse report has been placed before this Court, in such circumstance, it is well settled that once the direction of probation has already been complied with the appeal with respect to the order of the probation becomes infructuous.

¶19

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh, 1973 (2) SCC 185 held once the period of probation has expired and probationer has observed good conduct, in on appeal interference becomes academic unless the conviction is found illegal. Similarly, in Subhash Mehta Vs. State of Delhi, 1998 Cri. L.J. 3633 (Delhi) , it was held that once the accused has completed period of probation without adverse report, the appellate Court need not modify the sentence even if the appeal is pending.

¶20

In the facts and circumstances, no modification of sentence is necessary and no further order is required on the aspect of sentence. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 147, 323/149, 342 I.P.C. as recorded by the trial court is hereby affirmed. The

¶21

CRLA No. 1295 of 2024

¶22

¶23

order releasing the appellants on probation is also upheld noting that the probation period has already been completed.

¶24