SUKKARversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1420 of 1983

Sukkar
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Arvind Singh, Sadhana Singh(A.C.),
                                 M.K.Sharma, R.K.Jain
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : A.G.A.

Court No. - 82
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal, has been filed by the accused-appellants
Sukkar, Chauhal, Parmal and Beeja all residents of village Simlana,
Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur against the Judgement and
order of conviction dated 14.06.1983 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions
Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1982 (Stae Vs. Sukkar
and others) Police Station Badagaon, District Saharanpur, whereby
sentencing the appellants to undergo for R.I. of five years for the offence
under Sections 307/34 I.P.C., and six months R.I. for the offence under
Sections 324/34 I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the accused appellants nos.
nos. 1, 2, 4 namely Sukkar, Chauhal and Beeja have died and the instant
appeal as against them have already been abated vide order dated
16.01.2026 passed by co-ordinate Bench of of this court.

3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is being heard as against the appellant
no.3 namely, Parmal.

4. Sri Arvind Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has
contended that he is not disputing the conviction of the accused-appellant
and the findings of fact rendered by the Trial Court and he has confined
his argument regarding sentence only. It was submitted that the incident
took place in the year 1981 and since then a period of 43 years has been
passed. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that
substantial part of sentence, awarded by the court below, has already been
undergone by the accused-appellant and thus, the sentence may be
                                                       CRLA No. 1420 of 1983
                               2


reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned AGA has argued that the conviction of accused-appellant is
based on evidence and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment and order.

6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of record shows that it is a case of assault upon the injuired
Chandrapal, Gayasu and Pool Singh with Bhala (spear) and Balkati with
an intention to cause death any one of them. After adducing of evidence
by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-
appellant under Section 307/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.

8. So far the question of sentence is concerned, it may be observed that
while fixing the punishment for any particular crime, the court should
take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances in which
it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. It is
the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of
offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The
courts must not only keep in view the rights of victim of the crime but
also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 it
was observed that sentence should not be either excessively harsh or
ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court
should bear in mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence should be
based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission
of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion
of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or
whimsically.

9. In Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was
pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is
to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the
manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental
purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the
accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only
created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social
fabric. The purpose of just punishment is that the society may not suffer
                                                       CRLA No. 1420 of 1983
                               3


again by such crime. The principle of proportionality between the crime
committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on
the society as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been expressed in
Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab
vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana,
(2016) 1 SCC 463.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Shyamlal & Ors. reported 2025 Live Law (SC) 333 has observed in
paragraphs nos. 10, 13 and 14 a under:-

     “10. As stated earlier, the conviction of the respondents
     accused has been brought down from Section 302 to second
     part of Section 304 of the IPC. The High Court has noted that
     the incident was of 1st November 1989. The Trial Court
     convicted the respondents-accused on 25th April 1994. The
     appeal against conviction remained pending for twenty-one
     years. It is pointed out that the respondents were on bail during
     the trial and the appeal. That is one circumstance taken into
     consideration by the High Court. The other circumstance
     considered is that when the High Court dealt with the appeal,
     the incident was twenty-eight years old. Four accused were
     approximately seventy years of age, and one was nearly eighty
     years of age, and that is the reason why the respondents have
     been let off on the sentence undergone by the High court, and a
     fine was imposed. While imposing the fine, the High Court
     relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Fatta & Ors.
     v. State of U. P. 1979 SCC(Crl) 629. The judgment, which
     consists of only two paragraphs, reads thus:-

         "In this appeal by special leave, the learned counsel
         for the appellant has pressed the appeal only on the
         question of the applicability of Section 302 read with
         Section 149 IPC to the appellants other than
         Ramakant Rai. It was urged that according to findings
         of the Court below, the occurrence took place in the
         disputed field which was claimed by both the parties.
         According to the prosecution case, the field in
                                               CRLA No. 1420 of 1983
                     4


question was in the possession of the deceased
Janardan and P.W.1 and they had sown Arhar crop
and had come to harvest the same. At that time the
the accused in a body arrived at the scene variously
armed, with a view to dispossess the prosecution
party by force. There was exchange of brickbats and
ultimately one of the accused Ram Sewak, who was
armed with a gun, fired a shot which hit the right eye
of Janardan as a result of which he fell down and died
instantaneously. The appellant Ramakant Rai is said
to have provided a cartridge to Ram Sewak before he
fired the gun. In these circumstances, therefore, the
conclusion is inescapable that Ram Sewak and
Ramakant Rai had undoubtedly the common
intention to cause murder of the deceased. As regards
others, on the materials, we are satisfied that the
occurrence took place over the possession of land
claimed by both the parties. Apart from Ramakant
Rai and Ram Sevak no other person of the Assembly
took part in the assault on the deceased. Although
some of the appellants were armed with pharsa and
spear and one of the appellants with a pistol, but none
of these weapons were used. In the circumstances of
the present case, there can be no doubt that the
appellants had gone armed in order to dispossess the
prosecution party and cause such injury as may be
necessary for achieving that object. But the evidence
does not show that all the appellants shared the
common object of committing the murder of
Janardan. It is true that the mere fact that no overt act
has been attributed to the members of the unlawful
assembly, is not sufficient to disprove the charge
under Section 149 IPC. But this question depends on
the facts of each case. In the instant case, we are
satisfied that at the most the appellants other than
Ram Sewak and Ramakant Rai had merely the
intention to cause an offence under Section 325 IPC
                                                   CRLA No. 1420 of 1983
                         5


    and were, therefore, guilty of offence under Section
    325/149 as also of rioting. The other question that has
    to be determined is as to what sentence should be
    awarded to the appellants. The appellants have served
    only 3 to 4 months and have been on bail throughout.
    It would not be conducive in the interest of justice to
    send them back to jail after a lapse of 10 years. On
    the other hand, if the family of the deceased is
    heavily compensated, that will serve the socio-
    economic purpose which the modern trend of the
    policy of sentencing required. For these reasons,
    therefore, we alter the conviction of the appellants
    except Ramakant Rai from one under Section
    302/149 to Section 325/149 and reduce the sentence
    to the period already served. In lieu of sentence
    remitted, we impose a fine of Rs. 5000 on each of the
    appellants in default to two years' R.I. The entire fine,
    if realised, shall be paid to PW 1, the widow of
    Janardan. The sentence under Section 147 is also
    reduced to the period already undergone.

    2. As regards Ramakant Rai, there is evidence of the
    eye witnesses that he was the person who supplied
    cartridge to Ram Sewak in order to shoot Janardan. In
    these circumstances, Ramakant Rai is convicted
    under Section 302/34 and his sentence of life
    imprisonment is upheld under this section. With this
    modification, the appeal is dismissed. Fine to be paid
    in six months after the fine is paid, the appellants
    shall be discharged from bail bonds.

                                         (emphasis added)”

13. We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal
preferred by the accused. But the fact remains that the medical
evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether injuries
allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the death of
Laxman. Therefore, there is a serious doubt whether even
                                                              CRLA No. 1420 of 1983
                                 6


     Section 304 of the IPC could have been applied, as the medical
     opinion does not support the theory of homicidal death of the
     deceased. That is why it is not possible to interfere with the
     judgment of the High Court directing that the respondents-
     accused should be let off for the offence under Section 304,
     read with Section 149 of the IPC, on the sentence that has been
     undergone. As noted earlier, when the High Court decided the
     appeal in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight years
     old. When we are deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising
     out of a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the incident
     is almost thirty-six years old.

     14. When the judgment of the High Court was delivered, at
     least five accused were above seventy years of age, and one of
     them was of the age of about eighty years. A substantial
     amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by the High
     Court by way of fine. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to
     interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court."

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A.
and after perusing the judgment and order impugned as well as the
averments contained in the present appeal this Court bearing in mind
that in the instant case the incident took place on 29.10.1981 thus, after
incident the period of about 45 years has been passed. The appellant is
now aged about 67 years old, who is on bail during the pendency of
appeal, therefore, this Court thinks appropriate to alter the sentence of the
appellant and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by
him along with fine of 5,000/- upon the appellant.

12. This Court, therefore, directs the appellant to deposit the amount of
fine before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, within a period of
two months from today .

13. A copy of this order along with record of trial Court be transmitted to
the court concerned forthwith.

14. This Court appreciate the assistance rendered by Sri Arvind Singh learned
Amicus Curiae. The State Government is directed to pay Rs.15000/- as
remuneration to Sri Arvind Singh, Advocate at the earliest.
                                                                                            CRLA No. 1420 of 1983
                                                                   7


                                    15. With the aforesaid directions, present appeal is partly allowed.




                                                                                  (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad