Ram Prakash @ Natoo and Anothers. Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9135

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 349 of 2008

Appellant :- Ram Prakash @ Natoo And Anothers. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Umesh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2008 passed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 2, Faizabad by which appellants were convicted and sentenced involved in Session Trial No. 543 of 1996, arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 1995, under Sections 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act for a period of six months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 250/- each in case of default of payment to undergo two weeks additional imprisonment and under Section 323/34 for a period of three months imprisonment, Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Faizabad.

¶8

Facts in brief are that on 26.05.1995 at about 6 P.M. when informant was present in front of his door accused persons Mani Ram, Bali Ram, Ram Prakash alias Natoo passed through the lane and abused the informant by using words relating to his caste. When objected they started beating the informant. The wife of accused Mani Ram also came there and assaulted them. As a result of assault with lathi , kicks and fists the informant fell on the ground and he sustained fracture on his hand. Incident was seen by Ramlakhan, Munnu Lal and Kalideen. The informant was medically examined on the same day and three injuries were found on his person. In X-ray his forearm was found fractured.

¶9

On the same day F.I.R. was lodged at the police station as Crime No. 145 of 1995 under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act.

¶10

After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants under Sections 325/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x) S.C./S.T. Act.

¶11

On the basis of police report the court concerned took

¶12

cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed for trial to the learned court of Session.

¶13

The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Tejai; P.W. 2, Munnu Lal (as witness of fact); P.W. 3, Dr. K.C. Verma; P.W.4, Constable Ram Bahadur Singh.

¶14

After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence.

¶15

After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they are innocent and had committed no offence but they have falsely been implicated in this case. There is no any independent witness. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on their person those were not fatal to the life. It is also submitted that general role of assaulting with lathi was not assigned to the present appellants. There was no any intention or knowledge with the appellants to cause injury to the injured persons.

¶17

Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1995 and till now 29 years have elapsed. The appellants were young at the time of alleged incident and now they have become old, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending them to jail. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellants that they had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award compensation to be given to the injured persons since no purpose will be served by sending the appellants in jail.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that all the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature. The weapon used in causing those injuries were said to be lathi . No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 29 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now they have become old. By sending the appellants to jail no better purpose will be served though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

¶24

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. 10,000/- that will be paid either to the injured persons or their survivors.

¶25

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellants is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they are to deposit Rs. 10,000/- proportionately before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today which shall be paid either to the injured or their survivors.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Suraj Srivastav

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prakash @ Natoo and Anothers. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

Ram Prakash @ Natoo and Anothers. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mayavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajmani Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Feran Vs State of U.P.

Shahzad S/O Ghulam Vs State of U.P.

Ram Samuj @ Majjai Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P.