VIDESHIversusSTATE

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3190 of 1985

Videshi
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :     Amaresh Yadava, T. Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :     Dga

Court No. - 93
           HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief for Sri Amaresh Yadava,
learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A.
for the State-respondent.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 23.11.1985 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in
Session Trial No. 374/1985 (State vs. Videshi and others), whereby the
accused persons, including the present appellant Nirthu, were acquitted of
the charges under Sections 147, 148, and 304 read with Section 149 I.P.C.,
but were convicted under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. Instead of
awarding a substantive sentence, the trial court extended the benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released the accused
on probation for a period of one year upon furnishing bonds for maintaining
good conduct.

3. The prosecution case, as set out in the First Information Report lodged by
the first informant Balraj, is that Balraj and Balram are real brothers. They
had a manure pit (ghoor) situated about 50 kattha to the south-east of their
house, over which they claimed possession for the last forty years. On
06.06.1984 at about 8:00 a.m., the daughter of the informant informed him
that the accused persons, namely Videshi, Swadeshi, and their family
members, were digging and filling up the said manure pit. Upon receiving
this information, Balram went to the spot to restrain them and found all the
accused persons present there. Accused Nirthu was armed with a spear,
while others were carrying lathis. Videshi, Swadeshi, and Pardeshi were
filling the pit, while the remaining accused stood there.
                                                          CRLA No. 3190 of 1985
                                2


4. When Balram objected, the accused persons started assaulting him with
lathis. On hearing the alarm, Balraj, Rajai, and Smt. Gudiya arrived at the
scene, but they were also assaulted. It is specifically alleged that Nirthu
inflicted a spear blow on the chest of Balram, causing him to fall down.
Witnesses Johar and Jagbandhu also reached the spot, witnessed the
occurrence, and intervened. The report was scribed by P.W.-2 Dr. Ram
Chandra Chaudhary at the instance of Balraj and was lodged at the police
station, leading to the investigation of the case and submission of the charge-
sheet after investigation.

5. Charges were framed under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149
I.P.C., to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined P.W.-1 Balram; P.W.-2 Balraj (complainant);
P.W.-3 Dr. Ram Chandra Chaudhary; P.W.-4 Johar; and P.W.-5 S.I.
Chandrika Prasad. Documentary evidence, i.e., Ext. Ka-1 to Ka-11, is also
available on record.

7. After hearing the arguments advanced by both parties and considering the
evidence on record, the learned trial court held that although the occurrence
was established, no grievous or life-threatening injury was caused to any
person. It was further held that the intention or knowledge necessary to
constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was not present. Accordingly,
the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148,
and 307/149 I.P.C. However, considering the injuries sustained by the
complainant's side, the trial court convicted the accused persons under
Sections 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has
been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial court erred in believing
the prosecution case and the evidence adduced in support thereof; that the
conviction of the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record; and
that the sentence is excessive.

9. Learned A.G.A. supported the findings of the trial court and the judgment
of conviction and sentence.

10. During the pendency of the appeal, it stood abated qua appellant nos. 1,
2, and 3, namely Videshi, Swadeshi, and Pardeshi. The present appeal now
survives only with respect to appellant no. 4, namely Nirthu.
                                                                                              CRLA No. 3190 of 1985
                                                                    3


                                    11. This Court has considered the entire evidence on record and the findings
                                    recorded by the learned trial court. The conviction of the appellant under
                                    Sections 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. is based on cogent and reliable evidence
                                    and does not call for interference. However, so far as the question of
                                    sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 1984 and more than four
                                    decades have passed. The parties belong to the same village, and the
                                    occurrence arose out of a land dispute. The appellant has no criminal
                                    antecedents. Taking into account that the appellant has no prior criminal
                                    history and that both parties belong to the same family and village, the trial
                                    court rightly extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
                                    Probation of Offenders Act and released him on probation for a period of
                                    one year.

                                    12. It is contended on behalf of the appellant's counsel that the appellant
                                    Nirthu was taken into custody pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued by
                                    this Court and has remained in jail since 17.03.2026.

                                    13. Considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone
                                    incarceration since 17.03.2026 pursuant to the order of this Court, along with
                                    the long lapse of time, the nature of the offence, and the overall facts and
                                    circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice
                                    would be met if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone.

                                    14. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed.

                                    15. The conviction of the appellant Nirthu under Section 324 I.P.C. is
                                    affirmed. However, the sentence is modified, and the appellant Nirthu is
                                    sentenced to the period already undergone. It is directed that the appellant
                                    Nirthu shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

                                    16. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the court concerned as well
                                    as the Jail Superintendent, Azamgarh, for immediate compliance.


                                    April 15, 2026
                                    Pravesh Mishra
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad