Ram Feran Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9065

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 466 of 2009

Appellant :- Ram Feran Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Misra,Afzal Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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 29.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II Bahraich by which appellants were convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 160/01, arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2000, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Bahraich.

¶8

During the pendency of appeal, appellant no. 1, Ram Feran and appellant no. 3-Ram Samujh have died, therefore, appeal stands abated for appellant nos. 1-Ram Feran and appellant no. 3-Ram Samujh.

¶9

Facts in brief are that on 19.6.2000, the appellants were constructing hedge on the land of informant who objected. On this, there was dispute between the parties and appellants made an assault causing injury to informant, his wife and daughter regarding which FIR was lodged at the Police Station Nawabgang as Case Crime No. 92 of 2000, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶10

After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. On the basis of police report the court concerned took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed for trial.

¶11

The prosecution examined PW-1 Onkar Gupta; PW-2 Smt. Savitri Devi; PW-3 Jagdish Prasad; PW-4, Mohammad Anis; PW-5 Pardeshi; PW-6 Kumari Suman; PW-7 Bhanu Prakash; PW-8 Dr. S.K. Rai; PW-9 Ravinandan Tripathi and PW-10 Rawswaroop, the Investigating OfÏcer as witnesses of fact.

¶12

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.

¶13

After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well

¶14

as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, present appeal has been preferred.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the injured persons sustained simple injuries on their person those were not fatal to the life. The incident took place, as a result of altercation between the parties regarding dispute for constructing hedge on the land of informant, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention or motive to cause injuries to the injured persons but it was all of a sudden. It is also submitted that general role of making assault with 'lathi' and 'danda' was assigned to the appellants. There was no any intention or knowledge with the appellants to cause injury to the injured persons.

¶16

Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 2000 and till now 24 years have elapsed and appellant no. 1, Ram Feran and appellant no. 3-Ram Samujh have already died, rest of the appellants have also 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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,

¶21

Hon'ble the Apex Court, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him.

¶22

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' and 'danda' though no any fatal wound was found on the person of injured. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. Twenty four 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no. 2-Lalji and appellant no. 4-Raju Lal is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they have 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 AKK

¶27

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

Ram Feran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Feran 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

Mursheed @ Mo. Murseed and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rubi Devi Thru. Her Husband Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chhotkauo @ Israil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Nankoo vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

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

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