Allahabad High Court
RAM AUTARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL
Holding
The conviction under Section 364 IPC is upheld, but the sentence is reduced to the time already served with a fine of Rs.10,000.
Summary
The appellants were convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping a boy in 1982, based on eyewitness testimony and police investigation. The trial court sentenced Ram Autar to six years' rigorous imprisonment. In the appeal, the counsel argued that the incident occurred 44 years ago, the appellant is 76 years old and has already served three years in custody, and therefore the sentence should be reduced to the time served with a fine. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution evidence reliable, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000, with a provision for additional six months' imprisonment for non‑payment. The appeal was consequently disposed of with the modified order.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Section 364 IPC should be set aside on the basis of alleged procedural or evidential deficiencies.
- Whether the sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment can be reduced in view of the appellant's advanced age, the passage of time since the offence, and the period already served.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 364
Subjects
- kidnapping
- Section 364 IPC
- sentence reduction
- delay in justice
- fine
- criminal appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2829 of 1985
Ram Autar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.P.Dixit
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgement and order dated 15.10.1985 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Etawah in Session Ttrial No.214 of 1984 convicting and
sentencing the appellants under section 364 I.P.C. to undergo six years
rigorous imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case as stated in the written F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1) by
Satya Narain is that the complainant has got his chak at a distance of 50
paces in the west from his house alongwith a tubewell and also a flour
grinding machine and when he alongwith his relatives and cousins started
preparing for cutting and thrashing wheat crop in the night, 9 to 10
miscreants appeared armed with guns, pistols etc. and kidnapped Mahipal
Singh (S/o Pradhan Chotte Lal) on the direction of another man who covered
his face appearing from the side of the village; meanwhile the miscreants left
the place with the kidnapped boy and they were chased by the villagers but
they could not be apprehended.
4. The police prepared the chik report and G.D. report on the basis of F.I.R
and its investigation was entrusted to S.I. Ajab Singh (P.W.-5). Subsequently
he interrogated the witnesses Lakhan Singh, Ram Bharosey and others and
prepared the site plan as Exhibit Ka-4. He also inspected the torches of the
witnesses and prepared the recovery memos as Exhibit Ka-5 to Exhibit Ka-
8. And after concluding the investigation he submitted the chargesheet as
Exhibit Ka-9 and Exhibit Ka-10.
5. Statements of the accused were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they
CRLA No. 2829 of 1985
2
have stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity and village
party-bandi.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined
Chhote Lal ( P.W.1); Satya Narain(P.W. 2); Mahipal Singh(P.W.3); H.C.
Balbir Singh(P.W.4); S.I. Ajab Singh(P.W.5); Kamlesh Kumar(P.W.6) and
Ram Prasad (P.W.7)
P.W.1. Chhote Lal supported the prosecution version and stated that he was
sleeping with his son Satya Narain and others when the miscreants came in
police and civil uniforms and abducted his son Mahipal. He also identified
the miscreants in the District jail.
P.W.2 Satya Narain (S/o Chhote Lal) has also supported the version stated
by his father and confirmed the fact that he had recognised the accused
persons in the District jail; denying the fact that he knew them beforehand.
P.W 3 Mahipal Singh alias Pappu was the person who was kidnapped by
the accused. He supported the prosecution version and stated that the
accused were seen and recognised by him where he was kept in wrongful
confinement with the intention to extract money from his parents.
The learned trial court after examining the evidences adduced found the
accused Sarnam Singh, Sri Pal and Ram Autar guilty for commission of
crime U/s 364 I.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has stated that he does
not want to press the instant appeal on merits and since the incident is said to
have taken place in the year 1982 i.e. 44 years back and the appellant Ram
Autar is ailing and aged about 76 years and he already remained in jail for
about three years as he was not on bail during trial, as such the substantive
period of six years imprisonment may be reduced to payment of fine which
shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence. Learned counsel for the
appellant states that Section 364 I.P.C. provides that whoever is guilty
of kidnapping or abducting of any person with the intent to murder them or
put them in danger of murder. This is a serious, cognizable, and non-bailable
offense punishable by life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for up to
10 years or life imprisonment, along with a mandatory fine. Since the
appellant has not challenged the veracity of the prosecution case and
credibility of prosecution witness, he confined his argument to the quantum
of sentence. In the case where admittedly the incident took place in year
1982, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant into jail to
undergo the sentence as imposed by the trial court.
CRLA No. 2829 of 1985
3
8. In the instant case, maximum lenient view has been taken by the trial
Court, it is apparent that so far as culpability of accused-appellants is
concerned, as noticed above, the testimony of witnesses is clear and cogent
and it has stood test of cross-examination. Their version is consistent with
other evidence on record. No major contradiction or infirmity could be
shown. In view of evidence on record, it is apparent that conviction of
accused-appellant namely Ram Autar is based on evidence and trial court
was justified in convicting him and thus, conviction of accused-appellant is
upheld.
11. The instant appeal, which is related to an occurrence of the year 1982, is
pending since 1985 meaning thereby that the appellant is prosecuting this
case for more than forty years and while prosecuting his case in various
courts, he remained in jail for about three years as he was not on bail during
trial, he also suffered mental agony and financial sufferings. Considering all
these circumstances and the time lag in between, it appears that the justice
would be served if the sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to the
sentence already undergone by the appellant and a fine of Rs.10,000/- is also
imposed on the appellant.
12. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by learned trial
court is reduced to the period already undergone, that is, about three years
subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.
13. The amount of fine shall be paid by the accused-appellant within one
month of his release from jail. If he fails to pay the fine amount within
stipulated time, he shall undergo further six months imprisonment.
14. In view of the above, the judgement and order dated 15.10.1985 stands
modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order along with lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith for communication and its necessary compliance.
January 22, 2026
Dev
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…