Videshi Vs State

Heard Sri Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief for Sri Amaresh Yadava, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶12

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.11.1985 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 374/1985 (State vs. Videshi and others), whereby the accused persons, including the present appellant Nirthu, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, and 304 read with Section 149 I.P.C., but were convicted under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. Instead of awarding a substantive sentence, the trial court extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released the accused on probation for a period of one year upon furnishing bonds for maintaining good conduct.

¶13

The prosecution case, as set out in the First Information Report lodged by the first informant Balraj, is that Balraj and Balram are real brothers. They had a manure pit (ghoor) situated about 50 kattha to the south-east of their house, over which they claimed possession for the last forty years. On 06.06.1984 at about 8:00 a.m., the daughter of the informant informed him that the accused persons, namely Videshi, Swadeshi, and their family members, were digging and filling up the said manure pit. Upon receiving this information, Balram went to the spot to restrain them and found all the accused persons present there. Accused Nirthu was armed with a spear, while others were carrying lathis. Videshi, Swadeshi, and Pardeshi were filling the pit, while the remaining accused stood there.

¶14

CRLA No. 3190 of 1985

¶15

2

¶16

When Balram objected, the accused persons started assaulting him with lathis. On hearing the alarm, Balraj, Rajai, and Smt. Gudiya arrived at the scene, but they were also assaulted. It is specifically alleged that Nirthu inflicted a spear blow on the chest of Balram, causing him to fall down. Witnesses Johar and Jagbandhu also reached the spot, witnessed the occurrence, and intervened. The report was scribed by P.W.-2 Dr. Ram Chandra Chaudhary at the instance of Balraj and was lodged at the police station, leading to the investigation of the case and submission of the chargesheet after investigation.

¶17

Charges were framed under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C., to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶18

The prosecution examined P.W.-1 Balram; P.W.-2 Balraj (complainant); P.W.-3 Dr. Ram Chandra Chaudhary; P.W.-4 Johar; and P.W.-5 S.I. Chandrika Prasad. Documentary evidence, i.e., Ext. Ka-1 to Ka-11, is also available on record.

¶19

After hearing the arguments advanced by both parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial court held that although the occurrence was established, no grievous or life-threatening injury was caused to any person. It was further held that the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was not present. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, and 307/149 I.P.C. However, considering the injuries sustained by the complainant's side, the trial court convicted the accused persons under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.

¶20

Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial court erred in believing the prosecution case and the evidence adduced in support thereof; that the conviction of the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record; and that the sentence is excessive.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. supported the findings of the trial court and the judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶22

During the pendency of the appeal, it stood abated qua appellant nos. 1, 2, and 3, namely Videshi, Swadeshi, and Pardeshi. The present appeal now survives only with respect to appellant no. 4, namely Nirthu.

¶23

CRLA No. 3190 of 1985

¶24

3

¶25

This Court has considered the entire evidence on record and the findings recorded by the learned trial court. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. is based on cogent and reliable evidence and does not call for interference. However, so far as the question of sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 1984 and more than four decades have passed. The parties belong to the same village, and the occurrence arose out of a land dispute. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. Taking into account that the appellant has no prior criminal history and that both parties belong to the same family and village, the trial court rightly extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released him on probation for a period of one year.

¶26

It is contended on behalf of the appellant's counsel that the appellant Nirthu was taken into custody pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued by this Court and has remained in jail since 17.03.2026.

¶27

Considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone incarceration since 17.03.2026 pursuant to the order of this Court, along with the long lapse of time, the nature of the offence, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone.

¶28

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed .

¶29

The conviction of the appellant Nirthu under Section 324 I.P.C. is affirmed. However, the sentence is modified, and the appellant Nirthu is sentenced to the period already undergone. It is directed that the appellant Nirthu shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶30

Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the court concerned as well as the Jail Superintendent, Azamgarh, for immediate compliance.

¶31

April 15, 2026 Pravesh Mishra

¶32

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶33

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

Videshi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Videshi v. State

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

Pankaj Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P.

Chatur Bhuj and Others Vs State of U.P.

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs Rabbani and Others

Divyansh Pandey @ Tinkoo Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.