Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is partially allowed; the conviction remains but the sentence is reduced to time already served and a fine of Rs 40,000 is imposed as compensation.
Summary
The appellant Surendra Kumar was convicted by a Sessions Judge in 1983 for attempting murder under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, receiving seven years of rigorous imprisonment for shooting an injured person in the eye. He appealed, arguing that the incident occurred 45 years earlier, he is now 68 years old and suffers from age‑related ailments, and that imposing a fine as compensation would be more appropriate than completing the remaining term. The High Court considered precedent cases where convictions under Section 307 were altered to lesser offences (Sections 324 or 326) and sentences reduced, especially where the injury was not fatal and considerable time had elapsed. Relying on these authorities and the appellant's circumstances, the Court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to the period already served and imposing a fine of Rs 40,000 to be paid to the injured party or his survivors, with a default provision for serving the balance of the original term. The order was directed to be communicated to the Sessions Court for compliance.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of reducing a conviction under Section 307 IPC to a lesser offence or altering the sentence on account of the appellant's advanced age and the long lapse of time since the offence.
- Whether a monetary fine can replace the remaining term of rigorous imprisonment in a case of attempted murder.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 207, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 324, 326, 34
Subjects
- attempted murder
- IPC 307
- sentence reduction
- fine compensation
- age factor
- criminal appeal
- conviction alteration
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2748 of 1983
Surendra Kumar And Ors.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhuwan Raj, Harsh Kumar Sharma,
Prashant Kumar Singh, R.C. Singh,
R.C.Sinha, Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material on record.
2. As per report of C.J.M. Prayagraj dated 24.07.2025 appellant no. 2 Sushil
Kumar has died therefore appeal stands abated for appellant no. 2. Appellant
no. 1, Surendra Kumar is still alive.
3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 11.11.1983 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge,
Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 370 of 1981 (State Versus Surendra Kumar
and others) by which the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the
appellant for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section
307/34 I.P.C.
4. Prosecution story in brief is that, on 08.03.1981 at about 11:15 am in
Mohalla, Katra, police station Colonelganj, district Allahabad the appellant
and co-appellant Sushil Kumar made fire with a pistol at the injured
inflicting injury on the eye of the person regarding which an F.I.R. was
lodged at the police station concerned and he was medically examined.
5. After investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned court
concerned against the appellants 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 for trial before the learned court of
Sessions.
6. The learned court of Sessions framed the charges against the appellant and
other co-appellant Sushil Kumar under Section 307/34 I.P.C. which was read
CRLA No. 2748 of 1983
2
over and explained to the appellants but they denied the charges and claimed
for trial.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1, Shyam Ji Jaiswal;
P.W. 2, Dr. Deepak Gupta; P.W. 3, Sri Piyush Kumar, the injured; P.W. 4,
Dr. R.N. Mishra; P.W. 5, Dr. Gupta; P.W. 6, J.D. Katariya, the I.O. and P.W.
7, Gaja Nand Singh.
8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellant were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he has been
implicated falsely on account of previous enmity. In defence no evidence
was adduced on the part of the appellant.
9. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the
learned trial court passed the judgment and order in question while
convicting and sentencing the appellant for the charge under Section 307/34
I.P.C. sentenced him for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment.
10. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal
has been preferred by the appellant.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant without going into merit of the
case, constrained his argument to the extent of sentence only. He argued that
the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1981 when the appellant
was aged about 20 years and till now 45 years have elapsed and now he has
become about 68 years old and is suffering from old age ailments, therefore,
no fruitful purpose will be served to send him jail for serving the remaining
period of sentence instead adequate fine be imposed against the appellant to
be paid to the injured or to his survivors as compensation.
12. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard.
13. On considering the facts and arguments as extended by the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the
incident took place in the year 1981 when the appellant is said who have
made fire on the injured at the exhortation of co-appellant Sushil Kumar who
has already been died and the incident took place in Kaha-Suni between both
the parties. It shows that the incident took place all of a sudden in the heat of
passion between the parties. The appellant was 23 years at the time of his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and now after 45 years gap of time he is
about 68 years old and is suffering from old age ailments.
14. 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
CRLA No. 2748 of 1983
3
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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. As per observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases and the facts of the present case that the incident took place in the year
1981, all of a sudden in the heat of passion between the parties, the time gap
of 45 years from the date of incident and the age of the appellant to be 68
years, it will be of no use to send the appellant to jail for serving the
remaining part of the sentence but it will be adequate and in the interest of
justice to impose fine on the appellant which will be paid either to the
injured or to their survivors as compensation.
18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded
against the appellant Surendra Kumar is reduced to the period already
undergone with fine Rs. 40,000/- which shall be paid as compensation either
to the injured or to his survivors before the concerned court within a period
of 30 days from today. In case of default, he will serve the remaining part of
the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court.
19. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Sessions
Judge concerned for necessary compliance.
20. Trial court record be returned to the concerned court.
May 12, 2026
Suraj Srivastav
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SURAJ SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…