Partly allowed

Faiz Mohd. and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2025CRLA/1623/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction under IPC sections for an armed assault causing simple injuries. Citing Apex Court precedents on reducing aged sentences, the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and imposed Rs. 24,000 compensation payable to the injured or their survivors.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of appellants 1,4,5,6,7 reduced to period already undergone; Rs. 24,000 compensation to be deposited within 45 days and paid to injured or their survivors.

Faiz Mohd. and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1623 of 2005

¶3

Appellant :- Faiz Mohd. And 6 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- G.M. Kamil Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

As per the C.J.M. report, appellant nos.2 & 3 Kamal Ahmad & Mohd. Ahmad have died, therefore, appeal for them stands abated.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the 7^th Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Faizabad in Session Trial No.102 of 1999 arising out of Crime No.248/1997, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Tanda, District Faizabad by which appellants were convicted and sentenced u/s 147, 323/149, 324/149, 504, 506(2) I.P.C. for a period of 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

¶8

Facts in brief are that on 02.05.1997 at about 11:30 O'clock in the day, the informant demanded back his money given to Faiz Mohammad but he abused him and threw down when he was going to lodge report in this regard. The appellants armed with lathi, hockey and knives made assault on him with intention to kill in which he sustained injuries with other injured Sirajul Hauqe and Meraj Ahmad. The injured persons were medically examined and F.I.R. was lodged.

¶9

After conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants u/s 147, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. on the basis of which cognizance was taken and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed for trial.

¶10

The learned trial court framed charges which were explained to the appellants to which they denied the charges and claimed for trial.

¶11

After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and the material against them and did not adduce

¶12

any evidence in defence.

¶13

After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the appellants the learned trial court passed the order in question by which the appellants were acquitted of the charge u/s 307/149 but convicted and sentenced u/s 147, 323/149, 324/149, 504, 506(2) I.P.C. and under Section 324/149 and maximum punishment of 2 years rigorous imprisonment was awarded.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in this case the injuries said to be caused to the injured are simple in nature and not fatal to the life of the injured persons and were also not on the vital part of the body. The incident took place on 02.05.1997 till then 27 years have elapsed and now the appellants have turned to old age from the young. It is also submitted that after conviction the appellants remained in jail for a period of 2 months and 5 days. During trial they also remained in jail for some period, therefore, request to reduce the sentence to the extent already undergone and award compensation on the place of physical sentence, since no purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶16

In the case of Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 S.C. 664 where a single injury was found in the back of the neck of injured, appellant who was tried alongwith two others under Section 307/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years while two other were acquitted, appeal was partly allowed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. His conviction was altered into Section 324 IPC and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

¶17

In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of Gujarat, 1996 AIR 3236 , there was an attempt to commit murder with fire arm and injury was by a pellet that struck the head, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that Section 307 IPC cannot be held to have been satisfied and conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC.

¶18

In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 326 IPC simplicitor. Incident took place in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him.

¶19

On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that all the injuries on the persons of injured were simple in nature. The weapons used in causing those injuries were said to be lathi , hockey and knives. No injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 27 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and at that time appellants were also young but now they have come towards the old age. By sending the appellants to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

¶20

To sum up the totality of case, in view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by them and to impose compensation for Rs. 24,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

¶21

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded on the appellant nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 & 7 namely Faiz Mohd., Taj Mohd., Juber, Suhel & Mohd. Asharaf respectively is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they are to deposit Rs. 24,000/- before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.

¶22

Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Faiz Mohd. and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiz Mohd. and 6 Ors. 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

Madhuri Patel Vs Addl. Chief Judicail Magistrate, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Mamta Thru. Her Husband Viresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Deepu vs State of U.P, Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another