Partly allowed¶¶38

Shishupal and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2026CRLA/1562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence reduction to period already undergone; conviction under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act maintained; incident of 2002; custody since 16.11.2023; Uthem Rajanna (2005) 11 SCC 531; Neelam Bahal (2010) 2 SCC 229; CRLA No. 1562 of 2024; Allahabad High Court; Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Jhansi; Special Trial No.80 of 2008; Case Crime No.1789 of 2007; P.S. Navabad District Jhansi; caste-based abuse; fine deposit within two months; appeal partly allowed on sentence only.

What did the court decide?

Custodial sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants in jail; conviction maintained; entire fine as imposed by the trial court to be deposited within two months, default entailing the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. ¶¶38

Shishupal and 2 Others Vs State of Up and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants should be reduced to the period already undergone in jail, having regard to the age of the case (incident of 2002) and the sentences in the cited Apex Court decisions. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

After perusing the impugned judgment and considering the Apex Court decisions relied upon by counsel, the ends of justice would be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Modifying the period of custodial sentence, the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them in jail.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

The appellants are directed to deposit the entire fine as imposed by the learned trial Court within two months; in case of default in payment of fine they shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court.ratio¶¶37
The appeal is partly allowed with modification confined to the point of sentence only; the conviction is maintained.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.) partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1562 of 2024 against the judgment and orders dated 16.11.2023 of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Special Trial No.80 of 2008 (arising out of Case Crime No.1789 of 2007, P.S. Navabad, District Jhansi), whereby the appellants stood convicted under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with concurrent sentences of one year, two years, two years and three years respectively and fines. Counsel for the appellants pressed nothing on merits and sought only reduction of the custodial sentence to the period already undergone, pointing out that the incident was of the year 2002 and the appellants had remained in custody since 16.11.2023 without bail during trial. Reliance was placed on Uthem Rajanna vs. State of A.P., 2005 (11) Supreme Court Cases 531, and Neelam Bahal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 229, where the Apex Court had reduced sentences to the period already undergone. Holding that the ends of justice would be met thereby, the Court reduced the custodial punishment to the period already undergone, maintained the conviction, and directed deposit of the entire fine imposed by the trial court within two months, failure whereof would attract the entire trial-court sentence.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1562 of 2024

¶3

Shishupal And 2 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Shiv Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 93

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

¶11

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Orders dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Special Trial No.80 of 2008 (State vs. Shishupal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1789 of 2007, under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)10 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Navabad, District Jhansi, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶12

(i) Under sections 323/34 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year to appellants alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in case of default in payment of fine the appellant shall undergo one month additional imprisonment.

¶13

(ii) Under section 504 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years to all the appellants alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- each in case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo three months additional imprisonment.

¶14

(iii) Under section 506 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years to all the appellants alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo three months additional imprisonment.

¶15

CRLA No. 1562 of 2024

¶16

¶17

(iv) Under Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo six months additional imprisonment.

¶18

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶19

2. Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶20

3. According to the prosecution's narrative, the complainant states that in their village, Yashpal, Shishupal, Sumit, Sheetla and Dharmendra held significant influence. The complainant was a member of the Dalit/ Harijan community and do not have the courage to do or say anything against their will. Two days before the Municipal Corporation elections, these individuals called people to their homes and instructed them to vote for specific candidates. The complainant initially agreed to their demands. However, on the third day, after the elections, some unknown persons told the accused that the complainant did not vote for their chosen candidate. Consequently, the accused allegedly called the complainant to a house and abused him using caste based slurs (specifically 'chamar'), stating, "Show him what happens when you work against our will". They then proceeded to beat the complainant with kicks and punches.

¶21

4. Based on the complaint (Ext. ka-1), FIR Ext. ka-2 was registered. The details of the case were noted in G.D. as Ext. ka-4.

¶22

5. In support of its case, the prosecution produced oral evidence through:P.W.-1- Lalaram, P.W.-2- H.M. Sher Singh, and P.W.-3- Pramod Kumar Yadav.

¶23

6. The Documentary evidences includes: 1. Complaint (Ext. ka-1) 2. Chik FIR (Ext. ka-2) 3. Destruction certificate (Ext. ka-3) 4. Case registration GD (Ext. ka-4) 5. Site map (Ext. ka-5) 6. Charge sheets (Exts. ka-6 and 7).

¶24

CRLA No. 1562 of 2024

¶25

¶26

P.W.-1- Lalaram supported the prosecution story stating that he belonged to the Chamar caste and the accused persons belonging to upper caste and used caste- based slurs and had beaten him which was witnessed by Jagdish and Vrindavan. He testified the written complaint made by him.

¶27

P.W.-2 - H.M. Sher Singh He was posted at the University outpost under police station Navabad and based on the complaint he registered the chik FIR against Shishupal and others in his own handwriting.

¶28

P.W.-3- Pramod Kumar Yadav was posted as Circle Officer in the years 2009 and 2010 (who identified the signatures and handwriting of the Investigating officer C.O. Dinesh Singh) supported the prosecution story by affirming the site plan and charge sheets against the accused persons.

¶29

The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incident, stating that they have been falsely implicated due to village politics and did nit provide any evidence in their defense.

¶30

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated at the bar that the appellants were in custody since 16.11.2023 and during trial also they were not released on bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone in jail. He points out that the incident had taken place in the year of 2002.

¶31

So far as, sentence is concerned it has been held that:-

¶32

(i) In Uthem Rajanna vs. State of A. P. reported in 2005 (11) Supreme Court Cases 531 ; accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304-A IPC alongwith fine, three months under Section 338 IPC. In appeal Hon'ble the Apex Court has reduced the sentence period already undergone.

¶33

CRLA No. 1562 of 2024

¶34

¶35

(ii) In Neelam Bahal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 229 ; accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Hon'ble the Apex Court has convicted accused under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence to period already undergone i.e. almost one year on the ground that the incident happened in the year 1987 when the accused was of young age of 25 years.

¶36

8. After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail.

¶37

9. In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them in jail. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire fine as imposed by learned trial Court within a period of two months from today in the court concerned. In case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court.

¶38

10. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained.

¶39

11. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned Sessions Judge concerned for its onward transmission to the court concerned for information and further action in the matter.

¶40

April 6, 2026 Dev

¶41

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shishupal and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishupal and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hariom Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Juvenile X Minor Vs State of U.P.

state of u.p. Vs Zubair Quraisee and 3 others

Raju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shishupal and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Jhunni Lal Vs State of U.P.