Allahabad High Court

JAI SHRI ALIAS DOCTORversusSTATE

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The conviction under Section 396 IPC is upheld, but the custodial sentence is deemed satisfied by the time already served, and a fine of Rs.5,000 is imposed.

Summary

The appellant, convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code for theft during a dacoity in 1980, appealed his five‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence, arguing that he is now 75 years old and has already served almost the entire term. The High Court considered precedents where the Supreme Court reduced sentences to the period already undergone on grounds of age and reformative theory. It held that while the conviction must stand, the custodial punishment could be deemed satisfied by the time already served. Consequently, the court modified the sentence to reflect the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000 to be paid to the victims' families. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, with the conviction maintained and the sentence adjusted.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction under Section 396 IPC can have its custodial sentence reduced to the period already served on account of the appellant's advanced age and the reformative theory of punishment
Whether a fine may be imposed in addition to the modified sentence

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 396

Subjects

theft
sentence reduction
age
reformative theory
fine
criminal appeal
Section 396 IPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 366 of 1983

Jai Shri Alias Doctor
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : B.B. Srivastava, Katyayini, Prashant
Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order
dated 18.12.1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial
No.49 of 1981, under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

i) Under Section 396 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five
years to appellant- Jai Shri.

2. Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

3. The case of the prosecution as stated by the prosecution is that
Harishanker Prasad (P.W.-1) is a resident of village Chandauki (Tiwaripur)
Police Station Badshahpur, District Jaunpur. Towards north of his house
there exists the house of Ganga Prasad. Both these houses facing towards
east, there is a neem tree. In the night between 6/7.10.1980 Harihar Prasad
was sleeping below the neem tree on a cot. A lantern was burning infront of
the house of Harihar Prasad. At about 12 in the night one to ten dacoits
armed with lathi, danda and country made pistol came on the spot, they tied
Harihar Prasad on a cot. Santosh Kumar S/o Harihar Prasad was also
sleeping with him, when his son started weeping then females of the house
opened the main door. The dacoits started looting the house. After looting
the house of Harihar Prasad the dacoits went to the house of Ganga Prasad
and they started beating the females of Ganga Prasad who were sleeping in
front of the door. The ladies raised alarm. Hearing the alarm Ganga Prasad
came out challenging the dacoits. Consequently, one of the dacoit fired on
Ganga Prasad who fell down after receiving the injuries. On the alarm raised
by Harihar Prasad and ladies of the house of the Ganga Prasad, Vidyadhar,
CRLA No. 366 of 1983
2

Shambhoo Nath, Ram Prakash and several others came on the spot
lightening their torch. The dacoits caused injuries to Vidyadhar and
Shambhu Nath. After looting the property the dacoits fled away.

4. Harihar Prasad wrote a report Exhibit-Ka-1 at the house and went to the
police station in the night and lodged a report at 2:30 A.M. on 7.10.1980.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court
towards the communication dated 7.10.2025 by the Superintendent District
Jail, Pratapgarh to point out that pursuant to order dated 5.10.2021 passed by
this Court, the appellant was arrested on 6.10.2023 who was confined in jail
upto 16.10.2025 and has almost completed the entire sentence, which would
be completed on 21.10.2025. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that after arrest of the appellant on 6.10.2023 the sentence of the
appellant was again suspended on 16.10.2025 by coordinate Bench of this
Court and his sentence would be completed on 21.10.2025, meaning thereby
by now only five days sentence of the appellant is remaining. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is dated 6/7.10.1980 and
now the appellant is ailing and aged about 75 years. Thus, it is submitted that
he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the
custodial punishment awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period
already undergone in jail.

6. Similar is the stand of the learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State respondent.

7. So far as, sentence is concerned it has been held that:-

(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.

8. After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above
CRLA No. 366 of 1983
3

mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into
account the old and ailing age of the appellant 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 appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him in jail with reasonable amount of fine is imposed
upon him.

9. In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial
sentence, it is directed that the appellant is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment already undergone by him in jail. Beside, he is sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under the aforesaid Section, which shall be deposited
to the injured/family members of injured. The appellant is directed to deposit
the entire amount of fine within a period of two months from today before
the Court concerned.

10. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of
sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained.

11. 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.

March 25, 2026
Dev
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…