Allahabad High Court

NARAD SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 January 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The conviction under sections 307 and 34 IPC is upheld, but the sentence is reduced to the period already served with a fine of Rs.5,000 each.

Summary

The appellants Narad Singh and Brahmdeo Singh were convicted under sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to murder the informant Ram Asrey Singh, who was injured during an altercation in 1979. The trial court sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the evidence established the requisite intent to kill and considered precedents on sentencing reductions. While upholding the conviction, the Court found that the custodial term should be reduced to the period already served, imposing a fine of Rs.5,000 each. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, modifying the sentence but maintaining the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence proved the intention to cause death required for conviction under section 307 IPC.
Whether the conviction under section 34 IPC for common intention is sustainable.
Whether the original sentence should be modified in view of the time already served and relevant Supreme Court precedents.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 324, 34

Subjects

attempt to murder
common intention
section 307 IPC
section 34 IPC
sentence modification
fine
conviction upheld

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 635 of 1984

Narad Singh And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : P.P.Srivastava, Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., Sunil Kumar Tiwari

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

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Orders
dated 21.2.1984 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No.5 of 1982, under Sections 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Peepeeganj, District Gorakhpur,
whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
i) Under section 324 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one
year to appellants- Narad Singh, Ram Pratap and Brahmdeo Singh.
2. Vide order dated 2.8.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, this
appeal stands already abated qua the appellant no.2 namely Ram Pratap.
Now this appeal is surviving only with respect to appellant nos.1 and 3
namely Narad Singh and Brahmdeo Singh.
3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
4. The fact of the prosecution case in brief, as stated by the informant P.W.3,
Ram Asrey Singh in his statement, is that on the day of occurrence (i.e.
20.7.1979) at about 4.30 P.M. the informant was returning back to his house
alongwith Ram Naresh and Bhagwan Das (deceased) after cremating the
mother of Laldeo and when they reached near Gaiye Ghat Tola, at the field
of one Nakchhed, the accused persons Narad Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and
Brahmdeo Singh had come. At that time Narad Singh and Ram Pratap Singh
were armed with country made pistols. Narad Singh accused has fired at
Ram Asrey-informant, which caused injuries to the right fore-arm.
Thereafter accused Ram Pratap Singh has tried to fire at the informant, but
the accused Ram Pratap has been overpowered after catching hold by the
informant. Again accused Narad has fired with his country made pistol
aiming Ram Asrey Singh-informant, but the fire missed. The occurrence was
CRLA No. 635 of 1984
2

witnessed by the witnesses Ram Naresh, Bhagwan Das (deceased) Mohar,
Barwari and others, who raised alarm and saved the informant from the
clutches of the culprits, who fled away. The informant PW-3 Ram Asrey
singh went to his house and dictated a first information' report Exhibit Ka-1
to Shiv Bachan, and thereafter, by taxi the informant went to the Police
Station for lodging the report. The Police of the Police Station Peepiganj
after registering the case on the basis of the first information report Exhibit
Ka-1. prepared chik report Exhibit Ka-3 and the informant was sent to the
hospital for medical examination. The informant-injured was the Pradhan of
the village and he has distributed the land/amongst the poor persons
belonging to the Gaon Samaj. The accused persons have unauthorisedly
occupied the land, which has to be distributed. Due to this the accused
persons bore enmity with the informant Ram Asrey Singh. The Investigating
Officer after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against
the accused persons.
5. Charge was framed against the accused Narad Singh for the offence
punishable under section 307 IPC, while the charge was framed against the
accused Ram Pratap Singh and Brahmdeo Singh for the offence punishable
under Section 307, rend with section 34 IPC.
6. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them and
they have alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this come due to
enmity. The accused Ram Pratap Singh has further alleged that Ram Asrey
and others have also beaten the accused Ram Pratap Singh and in order to
defend the informant present case has been initiated.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no mention in the
first information report Exhibit Ka-1, that the accused persons had attacked
the injured informant Ram Asrey with intention to kill him. Moreover, none
of the four witnesses P.W.1. Mohar, P.W.2.Faujdar, P.W.3. Ram Asrey
Singh-informant and P.W.4. Ram Naresh have courage to depose that the
accused persons had attacked the informant Ram Asrey Singh with intention
to kill him. The P.W.5. Dr. N.S.Shukla, has deposed in the very beginning of
his cross-examination that both the injuries of the informant Ram Asrey
Singh were on non-vital part and were simple in nature.
8. Lastly, 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 1979.
9. So far as, sentence is concerned it has been held that:-
CRLA No. 635 of 1984
3

(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.
10. After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above
mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, 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 and
a reasonable amount of fine is imposed upon them.
11. In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial
sentence, it is directed that the appellants are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment already undergone by them in jail. Besides, they are sentenced
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-each under the aforesaid Section, which shall be
deposited to the injured/family members of injured. The appellants are
directed to deposit the entire fine within a period of three months from today
in the court concerned.
12. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of
sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained.
13. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned Sessions
Judge concerned for its onward transmission to the court concerned for
information and further action in the matter.

January 30, 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…