RAKESH CHANDversusSTATE

                                             Reserved on 24.08.2026
                                             Delivered on 08.09.2026

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2482 of 1986

Rakesh Chandra
                                                      …..Appellant(s)

                               Versus

State
                                                   …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Appellant(s)         : A. Sharma, Arun Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.G.A.


Court No. - 93

                    HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.


1.       Heard Shri Vinod Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Aun

Kumar Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and

Shri Purshottam Maurya, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the

State.

2.       This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant

Rakesh Chandra assailing the judgment and order dated 22.09.1986

passed by Sri Narendra Singh, learned 3rd Additional Sessions

Judge, Etawah, in Sessions Trial No. 373 of 1985 (State vs. Rakesh

Chandra), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
                                  2
                                                CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. No fine

was imposed by the learned trial court.

3.    Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant

Daya Ram (P.W.1) lodged a written report at Police Station

Bakewar on 28.03.1985 at 9.30 p.m. alleging that he, along with his

brother Harnath, was guarding their plot (khatan) and pea (matar)

crop at about 8.30 p.m. on the night in question when the accused

Rakesh Chandra, resident of Kasba Bakewar, along with two

companions, was found removing the pea crop with intent to

commit theft. On being challenged by Harnath as to their identity,

the accused Rakesh abused him and fired a country-made pistol,

causing multiple gunshot injuries to Harnath, who fell down crying.

The appellant's nephew Raj Kumar was also present at the spot. All

of them identified the accused, whereupon the accused and his

companions fled from the spot. On the basis of the said written

report, Case Crime No. 64 of 1985 under Section 307 I.P.C. was

registered at Police Station Bakewar and the injured was sent for

medical examination.

4.    The injured Harnath was medically examined by Dr. B.L.

Sharma, Medical Officer Incharge, Emergency, District Hospital,

Etawah, on 29.03.1985 at 1:50 A.M., who found as many as fifteen

gunshot wounds of entry on the person of the injured, distributed

over the left side of the forehead near the eyebrow, left axilla, left
                                   3
                                                CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

side of chest, right side of abdomen, left side of abdomen, right

upper arm, left forearm (front and back), right thigh, left thigh

(front, two places), and right knee. In the opinion of the doctor, all

the injuries were caused by a firearm and were simple in nature

except injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4, which were kept under observation

with advice for X-ray. The injury report was proved as Ex. Ka-3. On

the basis of the radiological examination, Dr. R.K. Chaudhary,

Radiologist, District Hospital, Etawah, prepared a supplementary

report dated 29.03.1985 (Ex. Ka-8), noting multiple foreign body

shadows on the chest.

5.    During investigation, the Investigating Officer took into

possession the blood-stained kurta of the injured Harnath vide

memo Ex. Ka-2, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the

site-plan (Ex. Ka-4) and, on completion of investigation, submitted

the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-5) under Section 307 I.P.C. against the

accused-appellant on 06.04.1985.

6.    On 19.05.1986, a charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed

against the accused, which was read over and explained to him in

Hindi. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.    In support of its case, the prosecution examined five

witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Daya Ram (complainant), P.W.2 Harnath

(injured), P.W.3 Dr. B.L. Sharma, P.W.4 S.I. B.L. Mauriya

(Investigating Officer) and P.W.5 Dr. R.K. Chaudhary (Radiologist).
                                   4
                                                 CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

The accused, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the

prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication on account of

enmity. He adduced no evidence in defence.

8.    By the impugned judgment dated 22.09.1986, the learned trial

court held that the prosecution had proved its case against the

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court rejected the

defence contentions regarding (i) alleged contradiction between the

testimony of P.W.1 and the site-plan concerning the manner of

storage of the pea crop, holding it to be a minor and immaterial

discrepancy; (ii) the alleged absence of moonlight at the time of

occurrence, holding that the unproved diary produced by the

defence counsel was not an authentic document and that the

unchallenged testimony of P.W.2 regarding moonlight, coupled with

the factor of prior identification by voice, was sufficient to establish

the identity of the appellant; and (iii) the medical opinion that the

injuries on the arm of the injured were the result of another shot,

holding that such circumstance did not create any lacuna in the

prosecution case inasmuch as it was explainable by movement of

the injured at the time of the occurrence. The trial court accordingly

convicted the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and, declining the

plea for benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act on the ground that

the offence was heinous in nature, sentenced him to seven years'

rigorous imprisonment.
                                  5
                                                CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

9.    Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and

sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

10.   In brief the grounds of appeal are that the conviction and

sentence awarded to the appellant are against the weight of

evidence on record and is also bad in law. In any case, the sentence

awarded is too severe.

11.   Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated before this

Court, more or less, the same submissions as were urged before the

trial court. It has been contended that the presence of P.W.1 Daya

Ram at the place of occurrence is doubtful in view of the

contradiction between his version and the site-plan regarding the

manner in which the pea crop was stacked. He further submits that

the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the

presence of moonlight, a fact necessary for identification, and the

trial court erred in discarding the diary produced by the defence.

Furthermore, the medical evidence, particularly the opinion of

P.W.3 that the injuries on the arm of the injured resulted from a shot

fired from close range (six to eight feet), is inconsistent with and

creates a doubt regarding the singular version of firing set up by the

prosecution. He further submits that no motive or previous enmity

between the parties has been established. It is further submitted, in

the alternative, that even if the conviction is to be sustained, the

sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment is excessive, having
                                   6
                                                  CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

regard to the fact that the appellant was a young man at the time of

occurrence, had no previous conviction, and was entitled to the

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or, in any event, to

a substantial reduction in sentence.

12.   Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has

supported the impugned judgment, submitting that it is based on a

correct and careful appreciation of the evidence on record. He

submits that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly, within about an hour of

the occurrence, at a police station situated about one kilometer from

the place of occurrence and that the testimony of the injured eye-

witness P.W.2 Harnath stands fully corroborated by the medical

evidence. He further submits that the minor variance between the

statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the manner of stacking of

the pea crop is wholly immaterial and does not affect the substratum

of the prosecution case. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that

the injured sustained as many as fifteen gunshot injuries, the

sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive,

much less is this a case fit for extension of the benefit of probation.

13.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the record, including the evidence of the witnesses and the

impugned judgment.

14.   On a careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we

find ourselves in agreement with the findings recorded by the
                                  7
                                                CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

learned trial court on the question of guilt. The F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1)

was lodged with promptitude, and the injured was got medically

examined without any unexplained delay, both circumstances

lending assurance to the truthfulness of the prosecution version and

ruling out the possibility of deliberation or false implication. P.W.1

and P.W.2 are natural witnesses, the complainant and the injured

respectively, whose presence at the spot, being their own field,

cannot be doubted merely on account of a minor variance in the

site-plan concerning the manner in which the pea crop was found

stacked. It is well settled that an Investigating Officer preparing a

site-plan is not expected to record every peripheral detail with

mathematical precision, and such minor variance, not touching the

core of the prosecution case, cannot be a ground to discard

otherwise trustworthy ocular testimony. So far as the presence of

moonlight is concerned, the testimony of the injured P.W.2 on this

aspect remained wholly unchallenged in cross-examination, and the

private diary relied upon by the defence, being an unproved

document of doubtful authenticity, was rightly not acted upon by

the trial court. In any event, since the assailant was already known

to the witnesses, identification by voice, as deposed to by P.W.1,

furnishes an independent and adequate basis for identification even

independent of the question of moonlight.
                                   8
                                                 CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

15.   As regards the medical evidence, we find no infirmity in the

approach of the trial court in declining to treat the opinion of P.W.3,

that the injuries on the arm of the injured could be attributable to a

separate shot, as fatal to the prosecution case. The opinion of a

medical witness, though relevant, is not binding upon the Court

trying the case, and where the surrounding circumstances

reasonably explain the said injuries as, for instance, injuries

occasioned by the movement of the arms of the injured while he

attempted to rise and confront the assailant during the course of

continuous and rapid firing, the Court is not obliged to

mechanically accept the expert's opinion over the direct testimony

of the injured eye-witness, which is otherwise cogent, consistent

and corroborated. The appellant, for his part, has neither explained

the injuries sustained by the complainant party nor placed on record

any evidence of prior enmity that would furnish a motive for false

implication of an innocent person in so serious a crime.

16.   Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the prompt

F.I.R., prompt medical examination, and the corroborative and

mutually consistent testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, duly supported

by the medical evidence on record, we are satisfied that the

prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant for the offence

under Section 307 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of

conviction recorded by the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
                                   9
                                                 CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

17.   That takes us to the question of sentence, which requires more

detailed consideration.

18.   We note, at the outset, that although the appellant has been

convicted under Section 307 I.P.C., which provides that the offender

“shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to

fine”, the learned trial court, while awarding substantive

imprisonment, omitted to impose any sentence of fine. The

imposition of fine under Section 307 I.P.C. is not discretionary but

obligatory, the expression “shall also be liable to fine” having been

consistently construed as making the fine component a mandatory

part of the sentence, to be imposed in addition to the substantive

term of imprisonment. The omission of the trial court to impose any

fine is, therefore, not legally correct and requires to be corrected by

this Court in exercise of its appellate powers, more particularly

having regard to the fact that the injured has suffered as many as

fifteen gunshot wounds entailing pain, suffering, hospitalisation and

consequent loss, for which he is entitled to be suitably compensated

out of the fine, in exercise of the power under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

19.   On the question of the quantum of substantive sentence,

learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for extension of the

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or, in the

alternative, for a substantial reduction of sentence, on the ground
                                   10
                                                  CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

that the appellant was a young man without any previous conviction

at the same time further submitted that compensation/fine may be

imposed, if necessary in case period of sentence is reduced. We are

unable to accede to the prayer for probation. The nature and mode

of commission of the offence militate against any such leniency.

The injured sustained as many as fifteen gunshot wounds of entry,

spread over vital and vulnerable parts of the body, including the

region close to the left eye, the chest and the abdomen, apart from

injuries on both arms, both forearms and both thighs. Such a large

number of injuries, inflicted in a single transaction, is indicative not

of a momentary lapse or a single impulsive act but of sustained and

reckless firing continued even as the injured cried out in pain,

disclosing a rash and depraved disregard for human life.

20.   Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the number of

injuries and the manner in which the offence was committed, we

are of the considered opinion that this is not a case in which the

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act can be extended to the

appellant, and the trial court rightly declined the same.

21.   At the same time, we notice that none of the fifteen injuries

proved fatal, that no vital organ was struck causing life-threatening

consequences, that the appellant is stated to be a young man without

any previous conviction, and that a period of over three decades has

since elapsed since the occurrence. Balancing the gravity of the
                                  11
                                                CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

offence and the mode of its commission, on the one hand, against

the mitigating circumstances noticed above, on the other, we are of

the view that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the

substantive sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment awarded

by the trial court is reduced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.

Simultaneously, and for the reasons recorded herein above, we

deem it appropriate to impose a sentence of fine of Rs. 30,000/-

(Rupees thirty thousand only) upon the appellant, in default of

payment of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a

further period of six months. Out of the said amount of fine, if

realised, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only)

shall be paid to the injured Harnath as compensation under Section

357 Cr.P.C., and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five

thousand only) shall be deposited in the State exchequer. It is

clarified that the imposition of the aforesaid fine, particularly when

the substantive sentence has been substantially reduced from seven

years to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, cannot be construed as

enhancement of sentence in any substantial or prejudicial manner.

The overall sentence imposed by this Court, therefore, remains just,

proportionate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence and

the circumstances of the case.

22.   In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of

conviction of the appellant Rakesh Chandra under Section 307 I.P.C.,
                                   12
                                                   CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

as recorded by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, vide

judgment and order dated 22.09.1986 in Sessions Trial No. 373 of

1985, is hereby confirmed. The sentence awarded to the appellant is,

however, modified as under:

(i) The conviction of the appellant, Rakesh Chandra under Section

307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as recorded by the Trial Court

in S.T. No. 319 of 1984, is hereby affirmed.

(ii) The sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to

the appellant is reduced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and

to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and in default

of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further period of

simple imprisonment for six months.

(iii) Out of the fine amount so realised, a sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) shall be paid over to the injured,

Harnath, or, in the event of his having since died, to his legal heirs,

by way of compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The balance

amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be credited to the

State exchequer.

23.   The appellant is on bail. The bails bonds are cancelled and the

sureties stand discharged, if furnished earlier.

24.   Appellant, who is on bail, shall surrender before the court

below within a period of ten days from today, without any fault, to

serve out the remainder of the sentence, failing which the trial court
                                                                   13
                                                                                 CRLA No. - 2482 of 1986

                            shall take coercive actions including non-bailable warrant in order to

                            secure his custody in accordance with law.

                            25.         The appellant shall be entitled to set-off, under Section 428

                            Cr.P.C., for the period, if any, already undergone by him as an

                            undertrial and in pursuance of the sentence awarded by the trial court.

                            26.         The trial court is directed to submit its compliance report

                            within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Further

                            more, the registry is also directed to place the compliance report on

                            record.

                            27.         Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted within a week to the

                            trial court concerned along with trial court record for compliance.

                            28.         The Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to serve a copy of

                            this order within 48 hours by FAX/e-mail to the concerned court

                            through District & Sessions Judge, Etawah for compliance.




                                                                                       (Santosh Rai,J.)

                            September 08, 2026
                            Ankit.




Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad