Allahabad High Court

PEPIL @ POPILversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 9 April 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The conviction and sentence are upheld and the appeal is dismissed as nothing remains for adjudication.

Summary

The appellant Pepil was convicted by the Fast Track Court in Moradabad under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, receiving sentences of two years, seven years and one year respectively along with fines. An appeal was filed challenging the conviction and the appreciation of evidence, but the appellant submitted a custody certificate showing that he had already served the entire term of imprisonment by March 28, 2024 and did not wish to press the appeal on merits. The State also confirmed that the full sentence had been completed. The High Court observed that, given the complete discharge of the sentence and the appellant’s reluctance to contest the merits, there was no useful purpose in re‑examining the evidence. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence, directed the appellant to pay the imposed fine, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal against conviction and sentence can be entertained when the appellant has already completed the entire term of imprisonment.
Whether the conviction can be set aside or the sentence deemed served after full discharge of the term.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 498-A

Subjects

dowry death
cruelty
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
criminal appeal
sentence served
conviction upheld
appeal dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6640 of 2017

Pepil @ Popil
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar,
Atul Kumar Singh, Harish Chandra
Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Rahul Asthana, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order
dated October 23, 2017 passed by learned Additional District & Session
Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Moradabad in Session Trial No.1010 of 2015
arising out of Case Crime No.249 of 2015, (State Vs. Pepil @ Popil) under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station
Pakbada, District Moradabad by which the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as follows:-

Under Section 498-A I.P.C. to undergo two years simple
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in
payment of fine he shall undergo additional imprisonment for a
period of three months.

Under Section 304-B I.P.C. to undergo seven years simple
imprisonment.

Under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo one year
simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- in case of
default in payment of fine the appellant shall undergo three
CRLA No. 6640 of 2017
2

months additional imprisonment.

3. The appeal has been filed, challenging the conviction and sentence of
appellant on various grounds including earliest infirmities in appreciation of
evidence of failure to consider certain material contradiction in the testimony
of witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of custody certificate
dated March 28, 2024 submits that as on March 28, 2024 the appellant has
already undergone Six Years three months and two days and the appellant
was not released on bail by this Court. Thus, by now he has completed his
all the sentences as awarded by learned trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the appeal on
merits as the appellant has already completed his entire sentence and prays
that conviction may be set aside or in the alternative, the sentence may be
deemed to have been undergone.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent on the
strength of custody certificate submits that appellant has completed his entire
sentence awarded to him.

7. I have perused the record and considered the submissions of both parties,
the appeal has been pending for a long time and as per the custody report
dated march 28, 2024 from the concerned jail authority, the appellant has
served all the imprisonment imposed by learned trial court.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case where the entire sentence has
already undergone and considering the nature of offence and the fact the
appellant has already served out his entire sentence, no useful purpose would
be served by entering into a detailed examination of evidence at this stage.

9. Since the appellant has already undergone the full period of sentence
pursuant to order passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, nothing further
survives in this appeal for adjudication as the learned counsel for the
appellant does not wish press on the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, the
conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The
CRLA No. 6640 of 2017
3

appellant is directed to deposit the amount of fine as imposed by the learned
trial Court, if not already deposited, within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. The appeal is dismissed.

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the jail authorities
concerned through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court.

12. A copy of this judgment alongwith the trial court record be transmitted to
the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be
submitted to this Court, at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the
compliance report on record.

April 10, 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…