Allahabad High Court
MUNNA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000, thereby partially allowing the appeal.
Summary
The appellants Munna, Radhir, Bhanwra and Bhura were convicted under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. While three appellants died during the pendency of the appeal, the case proceeded against Bhura, now about 95 years old, who does not contest the conviction but seeks a reduction of his sentence on the ground that 44 years have elapsed since the offence and he has already served the majority of the term. The Court examined principles of proportionality, the nature of the offence, the age of the accused, and relevant precedents on sentencing. Relying on decisions such as Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP and Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that the sentence should be commuted to the period already served. It ordered the remaining term to be deemed completed and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000, discharging the sureties. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of reducing a sentence to the period already served on account of the accused's advanced age and the long lapse of time since the offence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 302, 304, 307, 325, 34
Subjects
- sentence reduction
- proportionality
- aged accused
- IPC
- appeal
- fine
- rigorous imprisonment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2997 of 1985
Munna And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prem Chandra Dwivedi, Vinod Kumar
Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants namely
Munna, Radhir, Bhanwra and Bhura against the judgment and order of
conviction dated 05.11.1985 passed by the learned VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No.294 of 1984 (State Vs. Munna
and others) Police Station Sainya, District Agra whereby sentencing the
appellants under Section 307/34 I.P.C., to undergo for rigorous
imprisonment of five years R.I.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellants nos. 1, 2 and
3 namely Munna, Radhir, Bhnwra have died and therefore, the instant
appeal as against the appellants nos. 1 and 2 namely Munna and Radhir
have already been abated vide order dated 12.12.2025, whereas the
instant appeal as against the appellant no.3 namely, Bhanwra has also
been abated vide order dated 16.02.2026. Therefore, the instant appeal is
being heard as against the appellant no.4 namely, Bhura.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the
State
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant no.4
namely is now aged about 95 years and he is not disputing the conviction
of the accused-appellant and the findings of fact rendered by the Trial
Court and he has confined his argument regarding sentence only. It was
submitted that the incident took place in the year 1982 and since then a
period of 44 years has been passed. Referring to the facts of the matter, it
was submitted that substantial part of sentence, awarded by the court
CRLA No. 2997 of 1985
2
below, has already been undergone by the accused-appellant and thus, the
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned AGA has argued that the conviction of accused-appellant is
based on evidence and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment and order.
6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
7. So far the question of sentence is concerned, it may be observed that
while fixing the punishment for any particular crime, the court should
take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances in which
it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. It is
the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of
offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The
courts must not only keep in view the rights of victim of the crime but
also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 it
was observed that sentence should not be either excessively harsh or
ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court
should bear in mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence should be
based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission
of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion
of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or
whimsically.
8. In Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was
pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is
to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the
manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental
purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the
accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only
created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social
fabric. The purpose of just punishment is that the society may not suffer
again by such crime. The principle of proportionality between the crime
committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on
the society as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been expressed in
Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs
Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016)
CRLA No. 2997 of 1985
3
1 SCC 463.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Shyamlal & Ors. reported 2025 Live Law (SC) 333 has observed in
paragraphs nos. 10, 13 and 14 a under:-
“10. As stated earlier, the conviction of the respondents accused
has been brought down from Section 302 to second part of
Section 304 of the IPC. The High Court has noted that the
incident was of 1st November 1989. The Trial Court convicted
the respondents-accused on 25th April 1994. The appeal against
conviction remained pending for twenty-one years. It is pointed
out that the respondents were on bail during the trial and the
appeal. That is one circumstance taken into consideration by the
High Court. The other circumstance considered is that when the
High Court dealt with the appeal, the incident was twenty-eight
years old. Four accused were approximately seventy years of
age, and one was nearly eighty years of age, and that is the
reason why the respondents have been let off on the sentence
undergone by the High court, and a fine was imposed. While
imposing the fine, the High Court relied upon a decision of this
Court in the case of Fatta & Ors. v. State of U. P. 1979
SCC(Crl) 629 The judgment, which consists of only two
paragraphs, reads thus:-
"In this appeal by special leave, the learned counsel
for the appellant has pressed the appeal only on the
question of the applicability of Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC to the appellants other than
Ramakant Rai. It was urged that according to findings
of the Court below, the occurrence took place in the
disputed field which was claimed by both the parties.
According to the prosecution case, the field in
question was in the possession of the deceased
Janardan and P.W.1 and they had sown Arhar crop
and had come to harvest the same. At that time the
the accused in a body arrived at the scene variously
armed, with a view to dispossess the prosecution
CRLA No. 2997 of 1985
4
party by force. There was exchange of brickbats and
ultimately one of the accused Ram Sewak, who was
armed with a gun, fired a shot which hit the right eye
of Janardan as a result of which he fell down and died
instantaneously. The appellant Ramakant Rai is said
to have provided a cartridge to Ram Sewak before he
fired the gun. In these circumstances, therefore, the
conclusion is inescapable that Ram Sewak and
Ramakant Rai had undoubtedly the common
intention to cause murder of the deceased. As regards
others, on the materials, we are satisfied that the
occurrence took place over the possession of land
claimed by both the parties. Apart from Ramakant
Rai and Ram Sevak no other person of the Assembly
took part in the assault on the deceased. Although
some of the appellants were armed with pharsa and
spear and one of the appellants with a pistol, but none
of these weapons were used. In the circumstances of
the present case, there can be no doubt that the
appellants had gone armed in order to dispossess the
prosecution party and cause such injury as may be
necessary for achieving that object. But the evidence
does not show that all the appellants shared the
common object of committing the murder of
Janardan. It is true that the mere fact that no overt act
has been attributed to the members of the unlawful
assembly, is not sufficient to disprove the charge
under Section 149 IPC. But this question depends on
the facts of each case. In the instant case, we are
satisfied that at the most the appellants other than
Ram Sewak and Ramakant Rai had merely the
intention to cause an offence under Section 325 IPC
and were, therefore, guilty of offence under Section
325/149 as also of rioting. The other question that has
to be determined is as to what sentence should be
awarded to the appellants. The appellants have served
only 3 to 4 months and have been on bail throughout.
CRLA No. 2997 of 1985
5
It would not be conducive in the interest of justice to
send them back to jail after a lapse of 10 years. On
the other hand, if the family of the deceased is
heavily compensated, that will serve the socio-
economic purpose which the modern trend of the
policy of sentencing required. For these reasons,
therefore, we alter the conviction of the appellants
except Ramakant Rai from one under Section
302/149 to Section 325/149 and reduce the sentence
to the period already served. In lieu of sentence
remitted, we impose a fine of Rs. 5000 on each of the
appellants in default to two years' R.I. The entire fine,
if realised, shall be paid to PW 1, the widow of
Janardan. The sentence under Section 147 is also
reduced to the period already undergone.
2. As regards Ramakant Rai, there is evidence of the
eye witnesses that he was the person who supplied
cartridge to Ram Sewak in order to shoot Janardan. In
these circumstances, Ramakant Rai is convicted
under Section 302/34 and his sentence of life
imprisonment is upheld under this section. With this
modification, the appeal is dismissed. Fine to be paid
in six months after the fine is paid, the appellants
shall be discharged from bail bonds.
(emphasis added)”
13. We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal
preferred by the accused. But the fact remains that the medical
evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether injuries allegedly
inflicted by the respondents caused the death of Laxman.
Therefore, there is a serious doubt whether even Section 304 of
the IPC could have been applied, as the medical opinion does
not support the theory of homicidal death of the deceased. That
is why it is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the
High Court directing that the respondents-accused should be let
off for the offence under Section 304, read with Section 149 of
CRLA No. 2997 of 1985
6
the IPC, on the sentence that has been undergone. As noted
earlier, when the High Court decided the appeal in 2017, the
incident was already twenty-eight years old. When we are
deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising out of a special
leave petition of the year of 2018), the incident is almost thirty-
six years old.
14. When the judgment of the High Court was delivered, at
least five accused were above seventy years of age, and one of
them was of the age of about eighty years. A substantial amount
of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by the High Court by
way of fine. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to interfere
with the impugned judgment of the High Court."
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A.
and after perusing the judgment and order impugned as well as the
averments contained in the present appeal this Court bearing in mind
that in the instant case the incident took place on 19.11.1983 thus, after
incident the period of about 44 years has been passed. The appellant is
now aged about 96 years old, who is on bail during the pendency of
appeal, therefore, this Court thinks appropriate to alter the sentence of the
appellant and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by
him along with fine of 20,000/- upon the appellant.
11. This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to deposit the amount of
fine before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, within a period of
two months from today. Sureties are discharged.
12. A copy of this order along with record of trial Court be transmitted to
the court concerned forthwith.
13. With the aforesaid directions, present appeal is partly allowed.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
May 6, 2026
S.Ali/Sahani
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…