RAM DASSversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2121 of 1984

Ram Dass
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Alok Kumar Srivastava, Devendra
                                  Swaroop, Rajan Tripathi, Spl. Judge
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : A.G.A.

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

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 28.07.1984 passed by the Special Judge (DAA), Kanpur Dehat
in Sessions Trial No. 315 of 1979, whereby the appellants were convicted
and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 399/402
of the I.P.C. and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 25(1)(a)
of the Arms Act.

2. According to the prosecution, the S.H.O. of Police Station Akbarpur,
Kanpur Dehat received information from a special informant on 28.10.1979
that an armed gang led by Ramdas of Deokali was planning to assemble at
night on the northern side of the bridge over Kharja Nahar to commit
robbery. Acting upon this information, the S.H.O., Shri Lallan Rai, along
with S.I. T.D. Singh, M.A. Siddiqui, R.P. Yadav, Constable Ambika Prasad,
Suresh Singh, Genda Lal, Munni Singh, Ram Prakash Dubey, Ram Prakash
Chaudhary, Jabar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Khemraj, Omprakash, Surendra
Nath, and Ram Shanker proceeded from the police station. On the way, they
were joined by public witnesses, namely Chhote Lal, Rustam Aziz, Saleem,
Sadiq, etc. The entire team reached the canal culvert, inspected the spot, and
divided the police party into three teams.

3. While they were waiting for the miscreants, five individuals arrived from
the northern side and assembled under a tree on the right side of the canal
bank. The police party overheard them discussing that they were armed and
intended to block the road, stop buses and trucks, and loot them. Upon being
challenged by the S.H.O., the miscreants attempted to flee, but the police
                                                        CRLA No. 2121 of 1984
                               2


party and public witnesses surrounded them. Three miscreants, namely Ram
Das, Mewa Lal, and Shree Narain, were apprehended at about 1:00 A.M.,
while the remaining two managed to escape.

4. A search of the arrested persons was conducted on the spot, and country-
made pistols and cartridges were recovered from their possession. The
recovered articles were seized, sealed in separate bundles, and a recovery
memo was prepared on the spot. Based on this, a First Information Report
was registered and General Diary entries were made. The investigation was
conducted by the Investigating Officer, Raghuraj Singh, who visited the
spot, prepared the site plan, recorded statements of witnesses, and, upon
completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 399
and 402 I.P.C. A separate charge-sheet was also submitted in Case Crime
No. 381/1979 under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

5. Charges were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.

6. To prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined
P.W.-1 Shri Lallan Rai (the complainant), P.W.-2 Chhotey Lal (public
witness), and P.W.-3 Khaliq, along with documentary evidence.

7. The learned trial court, after examining the oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted the appellants under Sections 399 and 402
I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, sentencing them to seven years'
rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. and
three years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of
the Arms Act.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the appellant
preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the conviction and sentence
were against the weight of evidence on record, contrary to law, and that the
sentences imposed were too severe.

9. During the pendency of the trial, accused Mewa Lal expired, and the
proceedings against him stood abated. Accordingly, the present appeal
survives only with respect to appellant Ram Das.

10. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not
dispute the findings recorded by the trial court and confined submissions
only to the question of sentence. Learned A.G.A. supported the judgment of
                                                          CRLA No. 2121 of 1984
                                 3


conviction and sentence.

11. A perusal of the record and the oral and documentary evidence indicates
that the police apprehended the accused along with his companions while
they were preparing to commit dacoity and recovered illegal arms from their
possession. On the basis of such recovery and other evidence, the trial court
rightly recorded the conviction under the aforesaid sections.

12. This Court has carefully examined the entire evidence on record and
finds no substantial infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The
prosecution has successfully established the charges against the appellant
Ram Das beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction of the
appellant Ram Das under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(a)
of the Arms Act is hereby affirmed.

13. However, on the question of sentence, it has been brought to the notice
of the Court that the appellant is about 84 years of age; the incident is quite
old, and the appellant has undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for
a prolonged period.

14. It is noteworthy that the appellant has no prior criminal antecedents, nor
has any criminal involvement been reported against him after the present
incident. This indicates that the appellant is not a habitual offender and has
maintained a clean record throughout.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in
appropriate cases, particularly where there is a considerable lapse of time,
absence of criminal antecedents, and the accused has reached an advanced
age, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period
already undergone. Reference may be made to Sutaram vs. State of
Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 250, Shyam Narayan vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2013) 7 SCC 77, and State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC
184.

16. In the present case, considering the advanced age of the appellant (about
84 years), the long passage of time since the incident, and the fact that he has
no criminal history either before or after the occurrence, this Court is of the
view that sending him back to jail at this stage would not serve the ends of
justice.

17. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant Ram Das
                                                                                            CRLA No. 2121 of 1984
                                                                   4


                                    under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, the
                                    sentence awarded to him is modified to the period already undergone.

                                    18. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of modification of the
                                    sentence already undergone.

                                    19. Since the appellant Ram Das is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and
                                    sureties are discharged.

                                    20. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record, if any, be
                                    sent forthwith to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

                                    April 24, 2026
                                    Pravesh Mishra
                                                                               (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




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