Allahabad High Court
JAI RAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed; the conviction under Sections 392/412 IPC is upheld but the sentence is reduced to the period already served with a fine of Rs 5,000.
Summary
The appellant was convicted under Sections 392 and 412 IPC for a robbery alleged to have occurred on 28 June 1982, based on recovery of an anklet and identification in a parade. The trial court sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant, now 67, contended that the 44‑year lapse and his advanced age warranted remission of the remaining term. The High Court examined the nature of the offence, the long delay, the appellant’s age and health, and cited precedents where sentences were reduced to time already served with a fine. It upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs 5,000. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Sections 392 and 412 IPC should be upheld
- Whether the sentence can be reduced to the period already served in view of the appellant’s age and the 44‑year lapse
- Whether a monetary fine may be imposed in lieu of the remaining imprisonment
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 207
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 392, 412
Subjects
- robbery
- IPC
- sentence reduction
- age factor
- fine
- criminal appeal
- CrPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2506 of 1984
Jai Ram And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Raj Kumar Kesari (A.C.), Arbind Kumar
Soni, P.Chandra
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 31.08.1984 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in
Session Trial No. 211 of 1982 under Sections 392, 412 I.P.C. by which the
appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 392/412 I.P.C. for a
period of four years rigorous imprisonment.
2. Facts in brief are that on 28.06.1982 in the night at about 2 to 2:30 am
when the informant Ram Sahai was sleeping outside his house and his wife
and other members of her family were sleeping inside the house where
lantern was lit. On cry of his wife he awoke and also made hue and cry then
the villagers with torches came there and at the south-east corner of the
house Baij Nath and Chhakki Lal were seen by them who ran away. The
present appellant was neither caught on the spot nor seen by the villagers but
during the course of investigation, recovery of anklet was shown from his
possession. During the course of identification parade the present appellant
was identified.
3. After investigation of the case charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against
the appellant on the basis of which cognizance of offence was taken by the
learned court concerned and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. case
was committed to the learned court of Session for trial.
4. The learned trial court framed the charge under Sections 392/412 IPC
against the present appellant which was read over and explained to the
appellant but he denied and claimed for trial.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined, P.W. 1, Ram Sahai; P.W.2,
Kusuma; P.W. 3, Ram Prasad; P.W. 4, Umrao; P.W. 5, Irshad Ali; P.W. 6,
R.K. Sikroriya and P.W. 7, Constable Ram Shankar.
CRLA No. 2506 of 1984
2
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of appellants under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations and
also stated the evidence as deposed to be false and implicated him falsely. In
defence D.W. 1, Ram Swaroop, D.W. 2, Jwala Prasad, D.W. 3, Mata Din
were examined.
7. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence the
learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order in question
against the present appellant.
8. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal
has been preferred by the appellant.
9. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
10. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant without going into merit of the
case argued that in this case the incident is said to have taken place on
28.06.1982 and till now 44 years have elapsed. The appellant was about 26
years of age at that time and now he has become more than 67 years old and
is suffering from old age ailments. He has served in jail for some period
during the course of trial and appeal, therefore, it will serve no purpose to
send him jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence but it will be
sufficient to impose fine and sentence be reduced to already undergone by
him.
11. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard.
12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A.
and perusal of record, it transpires that in this case the incident took place on
28.06.1982 in which there was robbery in the house of informant. Recovery
of an anklet was made from the possession of the present appellant and
during test identification parade he was identified by the witnesses. At the
time of alleged incident he was aged about 26 years and now after lapse of
44 years from the date of incident till now he has become aged about 67
years old.
13. 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
CRLA No. 2506 of 1984
3
complainant as compensation.
14. In the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar & Ors vs. State Of
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.
15. 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.
16. In considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the observation
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the time gap
from the date of incident till now, the age of the appellant and the nature of
offence, it will be sufficient to reduce the sentence already undergone by
him in jail and to impose some fine.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded by
learned trial court is reduced to the period of already undergone by him and
also with fine Rs. 5000/- that will be deposited by him before the learned
trial court within a period of 60 days. In case of default, he will serve the
remaining part of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court.
18. Learned Amicus Curiae Sri Raj Kumar Kesari be paid Rs. 25,000/- as
professional fees for the assistance which has been rendered. The Registrar
General to oversee the payment.
19. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the appellant through
C.J.M. concerned within 48 hours.
May 12, 2026
Suraj Srivastav
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SURAJ SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…