Partly allowed¶17

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

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2025CRLA/624/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence reduction to period already undergone; simple injuries; compensation in lieu of imprisonment; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act S.3(1)(X); IPC Ss.147, 323/149, 504, 506; abatement of appeal on death of appellant; 26-year lapse since 1998 incident; Apex Court precedents altering S.307 convictions to S.324/S.326; Sessions Judge Shravasti; Lucknow Bench; order dated 12.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Sentences of appellant nos. 1 (Shahzad), 2 (Rais) and 4 (Bachchan) reduced to the period already undergone; Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited proportionately before the concerned court within 45 days and paid either to the injured persons or their survivors; trial court record to be sent back for compliance. ¶17

Shahzad S/O Ghulam Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether, given that all injuries on the injured were simple in nature, the assault arose from a sudden altercation over a children's dispute, and about 26 years have elapsed since the 1998 incident, the sentences of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone with compensation in lieu of further incarceration.

¶15

Court's answer

All injuries on the person of the injured were simple in nature; the weapons used were said to be farsa, kicks and fists, with no incised wound found and no injury fatal to life.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

No purpose would be served by sending the appellants to jail; it would be adequate to reduce their sentences to the period already undergone and to impose compensation of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the injured persons or their survivors.

¶16

Key takeaways

Appeal partly allowed: sentences of appellant nos. 1 (Shahzad), 2 (Rais) and 4 (Bachchan) reduced to the period of sentence already undergone; Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited proportionately before the concerned court within 45 days and paid either to the injured or their survivors.ratio¶17
The convictions recorded by the trial court were left undisturbed; only the quantum of sentence was modified (short inference from the appeal being 'partly allowed' with sentence alone reduced).ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2009, Shahzad v. State of U.P., order dated 12.02.2025 — Appeal against conviction and sentence dated 06.03.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shravasti in Session Trial No. 61/2000 (Case Crime No. C-5 of 1999, P.S. Malhipur) under Sections 147, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appeal of appellant no. 3 (Sagar) stood abated on his death. Observing that all injuries were simple (caused with farsa, kicks and fists; no incised or fatal wound), that the incident arose from a sudden altercation over children, and that 26 years had elapsed, and relying on Ramesh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1992 SC 664), Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1996 AIR 3236) and Neelam Bahal v. State of Uttarakhand (2010 (2) SCC 229), the Court held that no purpose would be served by sending the appellants to jail: appeal partly allowed; sentences of appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 reduced to the period already undergone, with Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited proportionately within 45 days and paid to the injured or their survivors.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8934

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 624 of 2009

¶4

Appellant :- Shahzad S/O Ghulam Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Kant Dixit,Shiv Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶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

As per the report of C.J.M., Shravasti dated 19.09.2024, appellant no.3- Sagar has died, therefore, appeal on his behalf stands abated.

¶8

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Shravasti by which appellants were convicted and sentenced involved in Session Trial No.61/2000, arising out of Case Crime No.C-5 of 1999, under Sections 147, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti.

¶9

Facts in brief are that on 16.09.1998 at about 4:00 P.M. Vidyaram son of the informant Salik Ram was coming back to home from school, Chhotkau son of accused Sagar snatched pen from Vidyaram and an altercation took place between the wife of informant and Sagar. In the meantime, accused Shahzad, Rais, Sagar and Bachchan reached on the spot and started abusing with words relating to the caste of the informant and also made assault on the informant and his wife with farsa, kicks and fists causing injuries to them. The incident was witnessed by Zahoor, Jagram and others. The police did not lodge the F.I.R. as a result an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned court on which direction was given to lodge the F.I.R. Injured Mustakim was medically examined and medical report was prepared.

¶10

After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act 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 P.W. 1 Mustakim, PW-2 Salik Ram, PW-3 Ureha Devi, PW-4 Shankar Lal, PW-5 Mohd. Salim pharmacist and PW-6 Barsati Lal Kannaujia S.I.

¶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 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1998 and till now 26 years have elapsed, 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of Gujarat, 1996 AIR 3236 , there was an attempt to

¶19

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

¶21

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 farsa, kicks and fists though no any incised wound was found on the person of injured. No any injury was fatal to the life of the injured. 26 years have elapsed from the date of incident till now and now they have become aged persons. In view of nature of dispute no better purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail though awarding compensation in its place may be adequate redressal.

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no.1- Shahzad, appellant no.2Rais and appellant no.4- Bachchan 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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzad S/O Ghulam 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.

Ram Samuj @ Majjai Vs State of U.P.

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

Ram Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P.