Allahabad High Court

SHISHUPAL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 April 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The appellate court reduced the custodial sentence to the period already served while maintaining the convictions.

Summary

The appellants were convicted by a Special Judge under IPC sections 323, 34, 504, 506 and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for assaulting a Chamar victim in 2002. The trial court sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of one to three years and imposed fines. The appellants appealed, not challenging the merits, but seeking reduction of the custodial term to the period already served. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Uthem Rajanna and Neelam Bahal) that allowed sentence reduction where the offence occurred long ago, the High Court modified the sentence to the time already undergone while upholding the conviction and ordering payment of the fine. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, with modification limited to the sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the custodial sentence imposed on the appellants can be reduced to the period already served in jail.
Whether the convictions under the IPC and the SC/ST Act should be upheld despite the sentence modification.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(10)

Subjects

Assault
Scheduled Caste
Atrocities Act
Sentence reduction
Custodial sentence
Conviction upheld
Criminal appeal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1552 of 2024

Shishupal And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shiv Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Orders
dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in
Special Trial No.17 of 2008 (State vs. Shishupal and Others) arising out of
Case Crime No. 1724 of 2007, under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(1)10 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Navabad, District Jhansi,
whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(i) Under sections 323/34 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one
year to appellants alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in case of default in
payment of fine the appellant shall undergo one month additional
imprisonment.

(ii) Under section 504 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two
years to all the appellants alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- each in case of
default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo three months
additional imprisonment.

(iii) Under section 506 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two
years to all the appellants alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in case of
default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo three months
additional imprisonment.
CRLA No. 1552 of 2024
2

(iv) Under Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act - Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of three years alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in case of default
in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo six months additional
imprisonment.

2. Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

3. According to Ext. ka-1, the brief summary of the prosecution case as
stated by the complainant is that the Yadavs of Mairi village- Krishnapal,
Shishupal and Sumit – called him to their house and beat him up, saying "
You bastard, you have imposed the Gangster Act on us and our family
members" . On the morning of October 5, 2002 they beat him, chased him
away and threatened, "You Chamra, if you report this, we will kill you".

Based on the complain Ext. ka-1, a first information report Ext. ka-2 was
registered under Case Crime no. 1724/2007. The disclosure of the case was
recorded in GD diary Ext. ka-4 and after the investigation, the I.O submitted
charge sheet against the accused.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution witness examined oral witnesses
P.W.-1- Pannalal, P.W.-2- Tuslidas Chamar, P.W.-3- H.M. Sher Singh and
P.W.-4- Pramod Kumar Yadav.

5. The documentary evidences produced by the prosecution are: (i).
Complaint (Ext. ka-1) (ii). Chik FIR (Ext. ka-2) (iii). Medical Certificate
(Ext. ka-3) (iv). Case registration GD (Ext. ka-4) (v). Site map (Ext. ka-5)
(vi). Charge sheet (Ext. ka-6).

P.W.-1- Pannalal is the victim who supported the prosecution story stating
that he belonged to Chamar community and the accused belonging to Yadav
community had beaten him accusing Pannalal for putting Gangster charges
on their family. He proved the written report as Ext. ka-1. being made by
him.
CRLA No. 1552 of 2024
3

P.W.-2- Tulsidas Chamar has also supported the prosecution story stating
that while he was going for his work, he saw the accused persons beating
Pannalal with kicks and punches and had given his statement to the Circle
officer.

P.W.-3 H.M Sher Singh stated in his sworn testimony that he was posted at
the University Outpost, Navabad Police station and was on duty as a
Constable supporting the prosecution story and proving Chik FIR as Ext.
ka-2 and GD entry as Ext. ka-3.

P.W.-4 Pramod Kumar Yadav stated that he was posted as Circle officer at
Mauranipur and proved paper No. 10A (Site plan/ map) and Charge sheet
(3A) bearing the signatures of C.O. Dinesh Singh as Ext. ka-5 and Ext. ka-
6 respectively.

6. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein they denied the incident and stated that they have been falsely
implicated due to Parti-bandi and did not provide any evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated at the bar that the appellants
were in custody since 16.11.2023 and during trial they were also not
admitted to bail. 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. He points out that the incident had taken place in the year
of 2002.

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

(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.
CRLA No. 1552 of 2024
4

(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.

8. 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.

9. 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. The appellants are directed
to deposit the entire amount fine as imposed by the learned trial Court within
a period of two months from today before the court concerned. In case of
default in payment of fine the appellants shall undergo the entire sentence as
awarded by the learned trial Court.

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

11. 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.
April 6, 2026
Dev
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…