GIRRAJversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 416 of 1987

Girraj
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P.
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                        :   Virendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                       :   A.G.A.

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

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 20.01.1987 passed by the Special Judge, Mathura, in S.T. No. 62
of 1985, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 411 IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment.

2. To briefly state the prosecution case, the complainant's brother, Kundan
Lal, who was employed as a driver by Jagdish Lal, a contractor of Ford
Company, proceeded with Tractor No. 3600 on 25.12.1982 from Faridabad
to Muzaffarpur (Bihar). The complainant, Sukhram, accompanied him up to
Palwal. He got down at the Palwal Bus Stand, where the accused persons,
Ramnath and his son Diwan Singh, joined the deceased as they were
traveling towards Agra. On the following morning, a driver informed the
complainant that the dead body of a driver of a Ford tractor had been found
in the Farah police circle. The dead body was identified as that of the
complainant's brother, Kundan Lal, and a First Information Report was
lodged by the complainant. The police undertook the investigation and, upon
completion, submitted a charge-sheet.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen
witnesses, namely: P.W.-1 Sukhram, P.W.-2 Hari Singh, P.W.-3 Gurucharan
Lal, P.W.-4 Buddho, P.W.-5 Chhitaria, P.W.-6 Jaharia, P.W.-7 Rammurti,
P.W.-8 Jagdish Arora, P.W.-9 Daulat Ram, P.W.-10 Hari Singh, P.W.-11
Constable Vinod Kumar, P.W.-12 SI Ajay Pal Singh, P.W.-13 Dr. Arvind
Kumar, P.W.-14 SI Bhagwat Singh, P.W.-15 Sri Dharmendra Singh, P.W.-
16 SI Vijay Pal Singh, and P.W.-17 SI Rakesh Kumar. Documentary
evidence, Ext. Ka-1 to Ext. Ka-29, has been duly proved by the prosecution
                                                            CRLA No. 416 of 1987
                                 2


witnesses and is available on record.

4. The present appellant, Girraj, was not initially named in the First
Information Report. However, during the course of investigation, certain
documents relating to the tractor and an amount of Rs. 700/- were allegedly
recovered from his possession.

5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied
the charges levelled against him and stated that he had been falsely
implicated in the case and that nothing was recovered from his possession.
In defence, D.W.-1 Mohan Singh was examined.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced by both parties and perusing the
oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial court
found that there was no evidence of murder against the appellant and no
direct or circumstantial evidence linking him to the offence under Section
302 IPC. However, the recovery of registration papers and other relevant
documents relating to Tractor No. 3600 from his possession led to his
conviction under Section 411 IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, at the stage of
arguments, the appellant does not wish to challenge the judgment and order
of conviction under Section 411 IPC, as he has already suffered the agony of
criminal proceedings for about forty years and has recently been taken into
custody pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued against him. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the appellant be
released on bail and that the sentence be modified to the period already
undergone.

8. The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but did not dispute the long
pendency of the appeal, nor the fact that no appeal has been filed by the
State against the acquittal under Section 302 IPC, and that the conviction is
only under Section 411 IPC.

9. The initial question before this Court is whether, in view of the long lapse
of time and the peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to
the appellant deserves to be modified.

10. It is well settled that sentencing must be proportionate and humane,
taking into account delay, age, and surrounding circumstances. The Court
may adopt a lenient approach where the incident is old and the accused has
                                                                                                CRLA No. 416 of 1987
                                                                     3


                                    undergone prolonged proceedings. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
                                    the case, modification of the sentence is justified.

                                    11. The appeal has remained pending for nearly forty years, which is an
                                    exceptional and unexplained delay. The appellant stands convicted only
                                    under Section 411 IPC, which is not a grave offence.

                                    12. A perusal of the record further reveals that the appellant was in custody
                                    from 20.01.1987 to 09.02.1987 and has again been in jail since 20.03.2026.
                                    The appellant has fairly conceded his conviction and has limited his prayer
                                    only to modification of the sentence.

                                    13. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that
                                    the ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified.

                                    14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
                                    appellant is affirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial court is
                                    modified to the period already undergone by the appellant.

                                    15. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other
                                    case. A copy of this judgment along with trial court record, if received, be
                                    transmitted forthwith for necessary compliance.

                                    April 16, 2026
                                    Pravesh Mishra
                                                                                 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




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