Kallu and Other Vs State of U.P.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.09.1987 passed by Additional District Judge in S.T. No. 436 of 1986 thereby convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo two years R.I. U/s 325 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.500/- each.

¶11

It is to be noted that the the present appeal has already been abated qua appellant no.1 namely Kallu vide order dated 18.08.2022 of this Court and now the present appeal survives only with respect to the appellant no.2 namely Chhinga.

¶12

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.06.1985, the informant's brother, Islam @ Aslam, was sitting in his bara with cattle when a buffalo cart belonging to the accused entered the bara and the animals started grazing. When the complainant's brother drove them out, the accused persons became annoyed. Thereafter, accused Kallu, armed with a farsa , and accused Chhinga, armed with a lathi , came to the spot, abused the victim, and upon protest, assaulted him with the intention to cause death. As a result of the assault, the injured sustained multiple injuries, including a fracture in his right hand.

¶13

A first information report was lodged, and the injured was medically examined. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 308, 323, and 325 I.P.C.

¶14

CRLA No. 2515 of 1987

¶15

2

¶16

Charges were framed and read over to the accused, who denied all the allegations and claimed trial.

¶17

The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, namely: P.W.-1 (complainant), P.W.-2 (injured, Islam @ Aslam), P.W.-3 Dhammu, P.W.-4 Dr. D.S. Sharma, and P.W.-5 S.I. Surendra Pal Singh.

¶18

The complainant (P.W.-1) supported the prosecution case. P.W.-2, the injured witness, who was deaf and mute, communicated the occurrence through gestures. P.W.-3 Dhammu interpreted and explained the gestures of P.W.-2., P.W.-4 Dr. D.S. Sharma proved the injuries sustained by the injured, and P.W.-5 S.I. Surendra Pal Singh narrated the course of investigation and the evidence collected.

¶19

Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 308 I.P.C., but found the appellants guilty under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo two years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant no.2 does not dispute the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court and has confined his arguments only to the question of sentence. It is submitted that the incident is of the year 1985, i.e., about four decades old. The appellant no.2 has undergone seven days' imprisonment when he was sent to jail in execution of a non-bailable warrant issued against him. It is prayed that the sentence of imprisonment be modified to the period already undergone.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. supports the conviction.

¶22

The issue that arises for consideration is whether the substantive sentence of imprisonment requires modification.

¶23

The testimony of P.W.-2 carries great evidentiary value. Merely because the victim was deaf and mute, his testimony cannot be discarded, particularly when it has been interpreted and explained by P.W.-3 Dhammu. The presence of the injured at the place of occurrence is undisputed, and his testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and the injury report duly proved by P.W.-4 Dr. D.S. Sharma, which discloses a fracture in his right hand. The prosecution evidence is consistent and reliable, and no material contradiction has been pointed out to disbelieve the prosecution case.

¶24

CRLA No. 2515 of 1987

¶25

3

¶26

The trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. The findings of guilt recorded by the trial court under Section 325 I.P.C. do not call for any interference. However, so far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court cannot ignore that the incident occurred in the year 1985, and nearly four decades have elapsed. The appellant no.2 has faced prolonged trial and appellate proceedings. It is a settled principle that long lapse of time and prolonged litigation are mitigating circumstances warranting reduction of sentence.

¶27

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

¶28

Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant no.2, while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court.

¶29

The appeal is partly allowed .

¶30

In case the fine has not been deposited, the same shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this judgment.

¶31

Let a copy of this judgment, along with the trial court record, be transmitted to the trial court for necessary compliance.

¶32

March 28, 2026 Pravesh Mishra

¶33

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kallu and Other v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu and Other 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Bundo Vs State of U.P.

Jai Shri Alias Doctor Vs State

Mukut Singh Vs State of U.P.

Tar Babu @ Tara Chand Vs State

Bhopal Vs State of U.P.