Narad Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Orders dated 21.2.1984 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No.5 of 1982, under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Peepeeganj, District Gorakhpur, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶12

i) Under section 324 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year to appellants- Narad Singh, Ram Pratap and Brahmdeo Singh.

¶13

Vide order dated 2.8.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, this appeal stands already abated qua the appellant no.2 namely Ram Pratap. Now this appeal is surviving only with respect to appellant nos.1 and 3 namely Narad Singh and Brahmdeo Singh.

¶14

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶15

The fact of the prosecution case in brief, as stated by the informant P.W.3, Ram Asrey Singh in his statement, is that on the day of occurrence (i.e. 20.7.1979) at about 4.30 P.M. the informant was returning back to his house alongwith Ram Naresh and Bhagwan Das (deceased) after cremating the mother of Laldeo and when they reached near Gaiye Ghat Tola, at the field of one Nakchhed, the accused persons Narad Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and Brahmdeo Singh had come. At that time Narad Singh and Ram Pratap Singh were armed with country made pistols. Narad Singh accused has fired at Ram Asrey-informant, which caused injuries to the right fore-arm. Thereafter accused Ram Pratap Singh has tried to fire at the informant, but the accused Ram Pratap has been overpowered after catching hold by the informant. Again accused Narad has fired with his country made pistol aiming Ram Asrey Singh-informant, but the fire missed. The occurrence was

¶16

CRLA No. 635 of 1984

¶17

2

¶18

witnessed by the witnesses Ram Naresh, Bhagwan Das (deceased) Mohar, Barwari and others, who raised alarm and saved the informant from the clutches of the culprits, who fled away. The informant PW-3 Ram Asrey singh went to his house and dictated a first information' report Exhibit Ka-1 to Shiv Bachan, and thereafter, by taxi the informant went to the Police Station for lodging the report. The Police of the Police Station Peepiganj after registering the case on the basis of the first information report Exhibit Ka-1. prepared chik report Exhibit Ka-3 and the informant was sent to the hospital for medical examination. The informant-injured was the Pradhan of the village and he has distributed the land/amongst the poor persons belonging to the Gaon Samaj. The accused persons have unauthorisedly occupied the land, which has to be distributed. Due to this the accused persons bore enmity with the informant Ram Asrey Singh. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.

¶19

Charge was framed against the accused Narad Singh for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC, while the charge was framed against the accused Ram Pratap Singh and Brahmdeo Singh for the offence punishable under Section 307, rend with section 34 IPC.

¶20

All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them and they have alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this come due to enmity. The accused Ram Pratap Singh has further alleged that Ram Asrey and others have also beaten the accused Ram Pratap Singh and in order to defend the informant present case has been initiated.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no mention in the first information report Exhibit Ka-1, that the accused persons had attacked the injured informant Ram Asrey with intention to kill him. Moreover, none of the four witnesses P.W.1. Mohar, P.W.2.Faujdar, P.W.3. Ram Asrey Singh-informant and P.W.4. Ram Naresh have courage to depose that the accused persons had attacked the informant Ram Asrey Singh with intention to kill him. The P.W.5. Dr. N.S.Shukla, has deposed in the very beginning of his cross-examination that both the injuries of the informant Ram Asrey Singh were on non-vital part and were simple in nature.

¶22

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has stated at the bar that the appellants were in custody for some period. Learned counsel has further submitted that he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone in jail and some fine may be imposed. He points out that the incident had taken place in the year of 1979.

¶23

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

¶24

CRLA No. 635 of 1984

¶25

3

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail and a reasonable amount of fine is imposed upon them.

¶29

In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them in jail. Besides, 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 fine within a period of three months from today in the court concerned.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

January 30, 2026 Dev

¶33

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶34

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

Narad Singh and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narad Singh and Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P.

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Naresh Vs Gopal and 4 Others

Munni Devi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Lakhan and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bilas Dhobi and Another Vs State of U.P.