Partly allowed¶40

Ram Kishore v. State

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026CRLA/435/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence reduction to period already undergone; aged and ailing appellants above 60 years; reformative theory of punishment; Section 323 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC conviction maintained; fine of Rs. 5,000/- each payable to injured/family members; appeal abated qua two appellants; reliance on Supreme Court precedents on sentence reduction (Uthem Rajanna; Neelam Bahal); CRLA No. 435 of 1985; Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

Custodial sentence of appellants Kallu and Brijlal reduced to the imprisonment already undergone; fine of Rs. 5,000/- each imposed, payable to the injured/their family members and to be deposited within two months; conviction maintained. ¶40

Ram Kishore Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the custodial sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the surviving appellants Kallu and Brijlal should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to their old and ailing age and the reformative theory of punishment. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Taking into account the old and ailing age of the appellant, the reformative theory of punishment, and the Apex Court precedents relied upon, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the custodial punishment to the period already undergone, coupled with a reasonable fine.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Appellants no. 3 and 4 (Kallu and Brijlal) are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by them and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, to be deposited to the injured/their family members within two months of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

¶37

Key takeaways

The appeal is partly allowed with modification confined to the point of sentence; the conviction recorded by the trial court is maintained.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.) partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 435 of 1985, modifying the sentence only. The appellants had been convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in S.T. No. 252 of 1981 — Ram Kishore under Section 323 IPC, and Raja Ram, Kallu and Brijlal under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC — each sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, after acquittal of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC. The appeal stood abated qua Ram Kishore and Raja Ram; it survived only qua Kallu and Brijlal, who were stated to be ailing and above 60 years, and whose counsel pressed no argument on merits. Relying on Uthem Rajanna v. State of A.P., (2005) 11 SCC 531, and Neelam Bahal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 2 SCC 229, and applying the reformative theory of punishment, the Court reduced the custodial sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each appellant, payable to the injured/their family members within two months. Conviction maintained.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 435 of 1985

Ram Kishore

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Ram Surat Patel, V.P.Goel
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 93

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

¶11

The Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.02.1985, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in S.T. No. 252 of 1981, convicting the appellant, Ram Kishore, under Section 323 IPC simpliciter and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment (R.I.), and convicting the appellants Raja Ram, Kallu, and Brijlal under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each of them to six months' R.I.

¶12

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

¶13

As per office report 05.08.2022, the appeal stands abated qua appellant Nos. 1 and 2 namely Ram Kishore and Raja Ram respectively. Now the appeal is surviving only with respect to appellant Nos. 3 and 4 namely Kallu and Brijlal respectively.

¶14

The prosecution alleges that the complainant's father, Ram Lakhan, was the Upsabhapati of the Gaon Sabha, and that the accused, Ram Kishore, had a land dispute with him. It is further alleged that Ram Lakhan, with the assistance of one Babu Lal, attempted to dispossess Ram Kishore of his land, which gave rise to the enmity between the parties.

¶15

The occurrence is said to have taken place due to this enmity, when the accused, on 24.02.1979, at around 11 p.m., broke into the house of the complainant (son of Ram Lakhan), causing injuries to his wife and sons. On hearing the commotion, witnesses Kamta, Babadin, Shiopal, and Kuberpati arrived at the scene, upon which the accused fled. The complainant, Shanker

¶16

CRLA No. 435 of 1985

¶17

¶18

Lal, obtained a written report from one Ram Sajiwan, on the basis of which a case was registered under Sections 452 and 307 IPC.

¶19

To prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:

¶20

P.W.1 – Shanker Lal: He narrated the entire prosecution story, including the motive behind the occurrence. He produced his written report marked as Ext. Ka-1 and also deposed about the injuries caused to Babu Lal.

¶21

P.W.2 – Ram Lakhan: The father of the complainant, he testified regarding the motive and the details of the occurrence.

¶22

P.W.3 – Dr. Vijay Pal: He deposed regarding the post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-2.

¶23

P.W.4 – Ram Arjun (Injured): He stated that the incident occurred at his residence and described the injuries he received from a Kulari and Lathi.

¶24

P.W.5 – Dr. K.B. Sarabhai: He proved the injury reports of Ram Arjun, Ram Lakhan, Nanku, Yudhisthir, and Smt. Jamuna, marked as Ext. Ka-3 to Ka-7.

¶25

P.W.6 – Raja Ram Dubey (Investigating Officer): He testified regarding the investigation, proving the Chik FIR as Ext. Ka-8, and the copy of the G.D. as Ext. Ka-9. He also proved the case diary containing the statement of Babu Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-10, the site plan as Ext. Ka-11, and the recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth as Ext. Ka-12. Further, he proved the site plan of the complainant's house as Ext. Ka-13, the fard of the blood-stained and plain earth as Ext. Ka-14, and the chargesheet as Ext. Ka-20.

¶26

The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming that they had been falsely implicated due to their enmity with Rama Kant Mishra (Advocate) and his brother Kuberpati.

¶27

The learned Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder of Babu Lal against any of the four accused. Accordingly, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. However, the Court held that the charge under Section 323 IPC against Ram Kishore, and the charge under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC against the remaining accused, was fully established.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants no.3 & 4 submits that the incident is

¶29

CRLA No. 435 of 1985

¶30

¶31

dated 24-25.02.1979 and now the appellants no.3 & 4 are ailing and aged above 60 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 appellants no.3 & 4 be reduced to the period already undergone in jail.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶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

After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above 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.

¶37

In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellants no.3 & 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them in jail. Beside, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each under the aforesaid Section, which shall be deposited to the injured/family members of injured. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount of fine within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment before the Court concerned.

¶38

CRLA No. 435 of 1985

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

February 18, 2026 Pravesh Mishra

¶43

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶44

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

Ram Kishore v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishore 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

State of U.P. Vs Ram Nath Tiwari

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Limited Vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Sampat Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar @ Vikki vs State of Up and Another

Kuldeep Sharma vs State of U.P.