Allahabad High Court
HANEEF AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The sentence is reduced to the period already served, given the appellant’s advanced age and the 49‑year gap since the offence, while the conviction stands.
Summary
The case arose from a night-time assault and shooting on 10‑11 June 1977 in Azamgarh, for which seven accused were convicted under IPC sections 147, 307/149 and 323/149 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal, six of the accused died, leaving only appellant Sarda Singh alive to pursue the appeal. Sarda Singh argued that nearly 49 years had elapsed since the incident, he is now 90 years old and has already served only ten days of his sentence, making further imprisonment futile. The State opposed the plea but did not dispute the appellant’s age or the time lapse. The High Court, relying on precedents (Ramesh v. State, Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar v. State, Neelam Bahal v. State) that reduced sentences where the offence was re‑characterised or where the offender’s circumstances warranted, held that the remaining term should be waived. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The judgment was ordered to be transmitted for compliance.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of reducing or altering the sentence of a convicted appellant on account of advanced age and the long lapse of time since the offence.
- Whether the appeal can proceed for the surviving appellant after the death of co‑accused, resulting in abatement of their portions of the appeal.
- The suitability of maintaining convictions under sections 307/149 and 323/149 versus re‑characterising the offence under lesser sections.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 207, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- sentence reduction
- age and health considerations
- IPC 307
- IPC 147
- IPC 323
- abated appeal
- conviction alteration
- delayed justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2325 of 1983
Haneef And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kavita Tomar, P.N. Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 30.09.1983 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in
Session Trial No. 434 of 1977 (State Vs. Haneef and others) arising out of
Crime No. 55 of 1977, under Sections 147, 307/149 and 323/149 IPC, Police
Station Tarwa, District Azamgarh by which the appellants were convicted
and sentenced for the offence under section 147 IPC for a period of 1 year
rigorous imprisonment, under Section 307/149 IPC for a period of 7 years
rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/149 IPC for a period of 1
years rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were to run concurrently.
2. During pendency of this appeal, appellant no.1 Haneef, appellant no. 2
Ishhag, appellant no. 3 Sudama Singh, appellant no. 5 Chandra Bhan Singh,
appellant no. 6 Narsingh Singh and appellant no. 7 Abhimanyu Singh have
died, therefore, appeal on their part stood abated. Appellant no. 4 Sarda
Singh is still alive
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10/11.06.1977 in the night at about
12:00 o'clock Vishwanath Singh was talking with Jyoti Shankar Singh and
others at his door where lantern was lit. Accused persons Nar Singh
equipped with countrymade pistol, Abhimanyu and Haneef equipped with
pistol; Sudama Singh, Sarda Singh, Ishhak, Chandrabhan @ Nanga equipped
with lathi came there. The acused Nar Singh exhorted others to kill
Vishwanath Singh on which all the accused persons with common object
started firing and also assaulted with lathi inflicting injuries on the person of
Vishwanath Singh. The wife of the injured came for rescue who was
prevented by the present appellant Sarda Singh. The F.I.R. was lodged by
CRLA No. 2325 of 1983
2
the informant at the police station concerned. The injuries on the person of
injured were examined at the hospital.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the
place of occurrence and recovered empty cartridges from the place of
occurrence and also collected blood stained & plain soil and lantern. Torch
was also taken into possession. Site plan was prepared and after recording
the statements of informant and other witnesses, he found the case
established against all accused persons and submitted charge sheet.
5. The learned court concerned, took cognizance of the offences and after
complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to
the Court of Sessions for trial.
6. The learned trial court framed the charge against them on the basis of
material on record which was read-over and explained to the appellants.
They did not plead guilty but claimed for trial.
7. In support of its case, prosecution examined, P.W.1 Vishwanath Singh;
P.W.2 Jitendra Shankar Singh; P.W. 3 Prabhakar Singh; P.W. 4 Dr. P.S.
Shukla, P.W.5 Constable Ram Bali Mishra.
8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied the allegations and
testimony as deposed by prosecution witnesses and told to be implicated
falsely in the present case due to enmity. They did not adduce any evidence
in defence.
9. After hearing the arguments for accused/appellants as well as the State,
learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order dated
30.09.1983 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as aforesaid.
10. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal
has been preferred by the appellants but owing to the death of appellant no.1
Haneef, appellant no. 2 Ishhag, appellant no. 3 Sudama Singh, appellant no.
5 Chandra Bhan Singh, appellant no. 6 Narsingh Singh and appellant no. 7
Abhimanyu Singh during pendency of appeal, appeal on their parts was
abated.
11. Heard Mr. Jai Raj Singh, learned counsel for appellant no. 4 Sarda Singh
as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
CRLA No. 2325 of 1983
3
12. Learned counsel for the appellant constrained his argument to the extent
of sentence without going into merit of the case. He argued that the incident
is said to have taken place on 10/11.06.1977 and till now about 49 years
have elapsed and the appellant has also become 90 years old and now
suffering from old age infirmities and is unable to discharge his routine
functions. As per custody certificate, during trial and appeal, he served in jail
for a period of 10 days and at that time he was 47 years old i.e. on
01.10.1983. Since the appellant has become 90 years old, therefore, it will be
of no use to send him to jail to serve out the remaining part of sentence but
request to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the
appellant.
14. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned
counsel for the appellant but could not dispute about the age of the appellant
and time gap from the occurrence till now i.e. 49 years.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of
record the specific role of the appellant, it appears that the incident took
place in the year 1977 and till now 49 years have elapsed. The appellant was
convicted and sentenced on 30.09.1983 and was sent to jail. On 01.10.1983,
he was 47 years old age as per jail record as mentioned in custody
certificate. Now he has become 90 years old and undoubtedly is suffering
from old age infirmities. During trial and appeal, he remained in jail for a
period of 10 days as per custody certificate dated 05.01.2026. His role in the
incident was to prevent the wife of the injured who came in rescue of the
husband. All other accused persons/appellants have already died and appeal
stood abated for them.
16. In the case of Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 S.C. 664 where a
single injury was found in the back of the neck of injured, appellant who was
tried alongwith two others under Section 307/34 IPC and he was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years while two other were
acquitted, appeal was partly allowed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. His
conviction was altered into Section 324 IPC and sentence was reduced to the
period already undergone with fine of Rs. 3000/- which was to be paid to the
complainant as compensation.
17. In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of
CRLA No. 2325 of 1983
4
Gujarat, 1996 AIR 3236, there was an attempt to commit murder with fire
arm and injury was by a pellet that struck the head, Hon'ble the Apex Court
held that Section 307 IPC cannot be held to have been satisfied and
conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC.
18. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand
2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant under Section
307 IPC was converted into Section 326 IPC simplicitor. Incident took place
in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court, reduced the sentence
to the period already undergone by him.
19. In considered opinion of this Court, in view of observation made by
Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, the time gap from the date of
incident till now, present age of the appellant and his specific role, it will be
of no use to send appellant to jail for serving out the remaining period of
sentence, but it will be just to reduce the sentence as already undergone by
him.
20. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.
21. Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for
necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within two
months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
May 5, 2026
Anurag Singh
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…