Girraj Vs State of U.P.

The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.01.1987 passed by the Special Judge, Mathura, in S.T. No. 62 of 1985, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment.

¶12

To briefly state the prosecution case, the complainant's brother, Kundan Lal, who was employed as a driver by Jagdish Lal, a contractor of Ford Company, proceeded with Tractor No. 3600 on 25.12.1982 from Faridabad to Muzaffarpur (Bihar). The complainant, Sukhram, accompanied him up to Palwal. He got down at the Palwal Bus Stand, where the accused persons, Ramnath and his son Diwan Singh, joined the deceased as they were traveling towards Agra. On the following morning, a driver informed the complainant that the dead body of a driver of a Ford tractor had been found in the Farah police circle. The dead body was identified as that of the complainant's brother, Kundan Lal, and a First Information Report was lodged by the complainant. The police undertook the investigation and, upon completion, submitted a charge-sheet.

¶13

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses, namely: P.W.-1 Sukhram, P.W.-2 Hari Singh, P.W.-3 Gurucharan Lal, P.W.-4 Buddho, P.W.-5 Chhitaria, P.W.-6 Jaharia, P.W.-7 Rammurti, P.W.-8 Jagdish Arora, P.W.-9 Daulat Ram, P.W.-10 Hari Singh, P.W.-11 Constable Vinod Kumar, P.W.-12 SI Ajay Pal Singh, P.W.-13 Dr. Arvind Kumar, P.W.-14 SI Bhagwat Singh, P.W.-15 Sri Dharmendra Singh, P.W.16 SI Vijay Pal Singh, and P.W.-17 SI Rakesh Kumar. Documentary evidence, Ext. Ka-1 to Ext. Ka-29, has been duly proved by the prosecution

¶14

CRLA No. 416 of 1987

¶15

2

¶16

witnesses and is available on record.

¶17

The present appellant, Girraj, was not initially named in the First Information Report. However, during the course of investigation, certain documents relating to the tractor and an amount of Rs. 700/- were allegedly recovered from his possession.

¶18

In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges levelled against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that nothing was recovered from his possession. In defence, D.W.-1 Mohan Singh was examined.

¶19

After hearing the arguments advanced by both parties and perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial court found that there was no evidence of murder against the appellant and no direct or circumstantial evidence linking him to the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the recovery of registration papers and other relevant documents relating to Tractor No. 3600 from his possession led to his conviction under Section 411 IPC.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, at the stage of arguments, the appellant does not wish to challenge the judgment and order of conviction under Section 411 IPC, as he has already suffered the agony of criminal proceedings for about forty years and has recently been taken into custody pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued against him. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the appellant be released on bail and that the sentence be modified to the period already undergone.

¶21

The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but did not dispute the long pendency of the appeal, nor the fact that no appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal under Section 302 IPC, and that the conviction is only under Section 411 IPC.

¶22

The initial question before this Court is whether, in view of the long lapse of time and the peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be modified.

¶23

It is well settled that sentencing must be proportionate and humane, taking into account delay, age, and surrounding circumstances. The Court may adopt a lenient approach where the incident is old and the accused has

¶24

CRLA No. 416 of 1987

¶25

3

¶26

undergone prolonged proceedings. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, modification of the sentence is justified.

¶27

The appeal has remained pending for nearly forty years, which is an exceptional and unexplained delay. The appellant stands convicted only under Section 411 IPC, which is not a grave offence.

¶28

A perusal of the record further reveals that the appellant was in custody from 20.01.1987 to 09.02.1987 and has again been in jail since 20.03.2026. The appellant has fairly conceded his conviction and has limited his prayer only to modification of the sentence.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified.

¶30

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed . The conviction of the appellant is affirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial court is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant.

¶31

The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. A copy of this judgment along with trial court record, if received, be transmitted forthwith for necessary compliance.

¶32

April 16, 2026 Pravesh Mishra

¶33

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶34

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

Girraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girraj 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

Onkar Singh and Another Vs State

Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Rakhha Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Bhan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mukhtyar Ahmad Vs Union of India

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P.