Partly allowed¶26

Jai Shri Alias Doctor v. State

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2026CRLA/366/1983

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence reduction to period already undergone; Section 396 IPC dacoity (incident 6/7.10.1980, district Jaunpur); old and ailing accused aged about 75 years; 1983 appeal decided on sentence alone, merits not pressed; conviction maintained, appeal partly allowed; fine of Rs.5,000/- payable to injured/family members; reformative theory of punishment; Apex Court precedents Uthem Rajanna (2005) 11 SCC 531 and Neelam Bahal (2010) 2 SCC 229 applied; Allahabad High Court, CRLA No. 366 of 1983, Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment already undergone; fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed under Section 396 IPC, payable to the injured/family members of injured and to be deposited within two months; conviction maintained. ¶26

Jai Shri Alias Doctor Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the custodial sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 396 IPC should be reduced to the period already undergone, given the appellant's old age (about 75 years), ailing health, the incident dating to 6/7.10.1980, and near-completion of the sentence. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Custodial sentence modified: the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone, the Court being guided by the cited Apex Court judgments, the old and ailing age of the appellant and the reformative theory of punishment.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

A fine of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed under Section 396 IPC, to be deposited to the injured/family members of injured, the entire amount to be deposited within two months.

¶25

Key takeaways

The appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only; the conviction is maintained.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.) partly allowed CRLA No. 366 of 1983. The appellant, Jai Shri Alias Doctor, convicted under Section 396 IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur (Sessions Trial No.49 of 1981, judgment dated 18.12.1982), did not press the merits and sought reduction of sentence to period already undergone, being aged about 75 years, ailing, with the incident dating to 6/7.10.1980 and the sentence nearly complete. Following the Apex Court decisions in Uthem Rajanna vs. State of A.P. (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 531 and Neelam Bahal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 229, and applying the reformative theory of punishment, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the custodial sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 396 IPC, payable to the injured/family members of injured, to be deposited within two months.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 366 of 1983

¶3

Jai Shri Alias Doctor

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State		.....Resp	ondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: B.B. Srivastava, Mishra	Katyayini,	Prashant
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 93

¶7

HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.49 of 1981, under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶9

i) Under Section 396 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years to appellant- Jai Shri.

¶10

Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶11

The case of the prosecution as stated by the prosecution is that Harishanker Prasad (P.W.-1) is a resident of village Chandauki (Tiwaripur) Police Station Badshahpur, District Jaunpur. Towards north of his house there exists the house of Ganga Prasad. Both these houses facing towards east, there is a neem tree. In the night between 6/7.10.1980 Harihar Prasad was sleeping below the neem tree on a cot. A lantern was burning infront of the house of Harihar Prasad. At about 12 in the night one to ten dacoits armed with lathi, danda and country made pistol came on the spot, they tied Harihar Prasad on a cot. Santosh Kumar S/o Harihar Prasad was also sleeping with him, when his son started weeping then females of the house opened the main door. The dacoits started looting the house. After looting the house of Harihar Prasad the dacoits went to the house of Ganga Prasad and they started beating the females of Ganga Prasad who were sleeping in front of the door. The ladies raised alarm. Hearing the alarm Ganga Prasad came out challenging the dacoits. Consequently, one of the dacoit fired on Ganga Prasad who fell down after receiving the injuries. On the alarm raised by Harihar Prasad and ladies of the house of the Ganga Prasad, Vidyadhar,

¶12

CRLA No. 366 of 1983

¶13

¶14

Shambhoo Nath, Ram Prakash and several others came on the spot lightening their torch. The dacoits caused injuries to Vidyadhar and Shambhu Nath. After looting the property the dacoits fled away.

¶15

Harihar Prasad wrote a report Exhibit-Ka-1 at the house and went to the police station in the night and lodged a report at 2:30 A.M. on 7.10.1980.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the communication dated 7.10.2025 by the Superintendent District Jail, Pratapgarh to point out that pursuant to order dated 5.10.2021 passed by this Court, the appellant was arrested on 6.10.2023 who was confined in jail upto 16.10.2025 and has almost completed the entire sentence, which would be completed on 21.10.2025. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after arrest of the appellant on 6.10.2023 the sentence of the appellant was again suspended on 16.10.2025 by coordinate Bench of this Court and his sentence would be completed on 21.10.2025, meaning thereby by now only five days sentence of the appellant is remaining. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is dated 6/7.10.1980 and now the appellant is ailing and aged about 75 years. Thus, it is submitted that he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone in jail.

¶17

Similar is the stand of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above

¶22

CRLA No. 366 of 1983

¶23

¶24

mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the old and ailing age of the appellant and reformative theory of punishment, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail with reasonable amount of fine is imposed upon him.

¶25

In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by him in jail. Beside, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under the aforesaid Section, which shall be deposited to the injured/family members of injured. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount of fine within a period of two months from today before the Court concerned.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

March 25, 2026 Dev

¶29

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶30

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

Jai Shri Alias Doctor v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Shri Alias Doctor v. State

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

Kailash Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Nirgun Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Bundo Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Vs State of U.P.