Allahabad High Court
CHATUR BHUJ AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL
Holding
The conviction is upheld, but the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already served and a fine of Rs 1,000 each is imposed.
Summary
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, for assaulting complainant Ram Gopal and his family members, offences punishable under Sections 308 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. One appellant, Chaturbhuj, died during the pendency of the appeal, leading to abatement of his portion of the appeal; the appeal thereafter proceeded only against Radha Charan and Prahlad. The High Court considered whether the custodial sentence should be reduced in view of the elapsed time since the 1999 incident, the appellants' age, and the reformative theory of punishment, relying on Supreme Court precedents. It held that the conviction must stand but the sentence should be modified to the period already served, with a fine of Rs 1,000 each imposed. The fine is to be paid to the victims within three months, failing which the original sentence would be enforced.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of reducing the custodial sentence to time already served under the circumstances of the case
- Whether a fine may be imposed in lieu of completing the original imprisonment term
- The continuance of conviction despite modification of sentence
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-A, 307, 308, 323, 326, 338
Subjects
- assault
- attempt to murder
- sentence modification
- fine
- reformative theory
- conviction upheld
- criminal appeal
- IPC 323
- IPC 308
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3038 of 2002
Chatur Bhuj And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : S.K. Chaturvedi, Shashwat Kishore
Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated
20.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.8, Mathura in
Sessions Trial No.52 of 2001, under Sections 308, 323 of the Indian Penal Code,
Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura, whereby the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
i) Under Section 323 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months to
appellants.
2. Heard Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana,
learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
3. Office vide it's report dated 27.7.2022 has reported that a report has been received
from learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura dated 6.9.2021 (flag 'A') wherein it
has been stated that accused appellant no.1 Chaturbhuj has died on 10.6.2021 at S.N.
Medical College, Agra.
4. In view of the above report, this appeal is disposed of as abated qua the appellant
no.1 Chaturbhuj. Now this appeal is surviving only with respect to appellant nos.2
and 3 namely Radha Charan and Prahlad respectively.
5. The prosecution case as per First Information Report is that :-
On 8.3.1999 when the complainant Ram Gopal S/o Pooran Singh Jatav R/o Village
CRLA No. 3038 of 2002
2
Bheemnagar, Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura, after taking payment from
the shop was going to his home for taking meal, when he reached in front of the house
of accused Chaturbhuj, Radhacharan S/o Deviram, Prahlad S/o Radhacharan, Veer
Bahadur S/o Chaturbhuj, then these persons surrounded the complainant, threw him
on the ground and started beating him with sticks. On raising alarm by the
complainant when his mother namely Smt. Chandravati and wife Smt. Singari Devi
came to save him then they were also beaten by the accused persons by sticks.
Thereafter, many villagers arrived on spot and saved the complainant and witnessed
the incident. In the incident complainant and his family members suffered many
injuries on their persons. A written report Exhibit Ka-12 regarding the incident was
given by the complainant on the same day i.e. on 8.3.1999 at 2:30 P.M. at Police
Station Goverdhan under Section 323 I.P.C. a Non Cognizable Report No.25 was
registered. The matter was investigated by Assistant Sub-Inspector Sri Jagdish Singh.
The complainant and his wife Smt. Singari Devi and his mother Smt. Chandravati
were medically examined on 8.3.1999 at District Hospital, Mathura. The Doctor found
following injuries on their person:-
The complainant Ramgopal suffered following injuries:-
(i). Lacerated wound 1x0.5 cm. scalp deep on the right forehead 5.5 cm. above right
eyebrow. X-ray was advised.
(ii). Lacerated wound on the left side head 2 x 0.5 cm. scalp deep 7 cm. above the ear.
(iii). Lacerated wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm. scalp deep on the left side of head just above the
injury no.2 inside. X-ray was advised.
(iv). Lacerated wound 1x0.5 cm. scalp deep on the left side head 8 cms. Above the
ear. X-ray was advised.
(v). One blue mark 5x2 cm on the middle part of left upper arm.
(vi). One blue mark 8x2 cm on the left elbow and outside the front arm.
(vii). One blue mark 9x2 cm on the lower part of right arm.
CRLA No. 3038 of 2002
3
(viii). On the back and lower back eight blue marks which were 11x2 cms and 4x2
cms in size. X-ray was advised.
(ix). Blue mark 10x2 on the front side of left thigh.
Injuries suffered by Smt. Singari Devi
(i). One lacerated wound 2x0.5 cm scalp deep on the left side of parietal part 10 cms.
above the ear.
(ii). One blue mark 7x3 cms. on the upper part of fight shoulder.
(iii). Complain of pain in the chest. No mark of injury was found.
Injuries suffered by Smt. Chandravati
(i). Lacerated wound 1.5x5 deep upto forehead on the right upper lips red in colour,
blood clotting were present. On cleaning blood ozing.
(ii). One blue mark 6x2 cms. in front of the left upper arm and on the middle part.
(iii). One bluish swelling 2.5x2 cms on the right side of head 4 cms. above the ear.
6. The Investigating Officer after inspecting the site has prepared the site plan Exhibit
Ka-9. The statements of witnesses was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after
investigation the charge sheet Exhibit Ka-10 and Ka-11 under Sections 323 and 308
I.P.C. against the accused Chaturbhuj, Radhacharan and Prahlad was submitted before
the Court. The Investigating Officer alongwith charge sheet has presented Medical
Report Exhibit-Ka-2 and Ka-5, Carbon copy of N.C.R. Exhibit Ka-6, chick report
(Nakal rapat) Exhibit Ka-7 and Ka-8 and written report given by the complainant
Exhibit Ka-12.
7. The prosecution in support of it's case has examined the following witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Ram Gopal; P.W.-2 Dr. Amarnath Goyal; P.W.-3 Smt. Singari Devi; P.W.-4
Smt. Chandravati; P.W.-5 Dr. C.C. Sharma; P.W.-6 Head Constable Ram Veer Singh;
P.W.-7 Head Constable Jagdish Singh.
CRLA No. 3038 of 2002
4
8. After closing the evidence, the statements of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution story and stated that they
have been falsely implicated due to enmity. The accused in defence have produced
D.W.-1 Mukesh Kumar Gupta and D.W.-2 Radha Charan.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated at the bar that the appellants were in
custody for some period. Learned counsel has further submitted that he has to say
nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the custodial punishment
awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone in jail and some
fine may be imposed. He points out that the incident had taken place in the year of
1999.
10. So far as, sentence is concerned it has been held :-
(i) In Uthem Rajanna vs. State of A. P. reported in 2005 (11) Supreme Court Cases
531; accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304-A IPC
alongwith fine, three months under Section 338 IPC. In appeal Hon'ble the Apex
Court has reduced the sentence period already undergone.
(ii) In Neelam Bahal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 2
Supreme Court Cases 229; accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 307
IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Hon'ble the
Apex Court has convicted accused under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence to
period already undergone i.e. almost one year on the ground that the incident
happened in the year 1987 when the accused was of young age of 25 years.
11. After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above mentioned
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the old and
ailing age of the appellants and reformative theory of punishment, I am of the view
that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the
appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail with reasonable
amount of fine is imposed upon them.
12. In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence,
it is directed that the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already
CRLA No. 3038 of 2002
5
undergone by them in jail. Beside, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each
under the aforesaid Section, which shall be deposited to the injured/family members of
injured. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount of fine within a period
of three months from today before the Court concerned. In case of default in payment
of fine as directed above the appellants shall undergo the sentence as awarded by the
learned trial Court.
13. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only
as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained.
14. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned Sessions Judge for its
onward transmission to the court concerned for information and further action in the
matter.
April 10, 2026
Dev
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…