MOOL CHANDversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     JAIL APPEAL No. - 6900 of 2017

Mool Chand
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : , From Jail, Shivam Agarwal, Vinod
                                   Kumar Sahu
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : 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 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No.6, Bijnor in Sessions Case No.198 of 2017, under Sections
307, 326, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:-

i) Under Section 307 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten
years to appellant alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default in
payment of fine the appellant shall undergo three months additional
imprisonment.

ii) Under Section 326 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten
years to appellant alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default in
payment of fine the appellant shall undergo three months additional
imprisonment.

iii) Under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of two years to appellant.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

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

3. In brief, the prosecution story is that a written complaint was submitted by
                                                           JAPL No. 6900 of 2017
                                 2


the complainant, Ms Reena, at P.S. Najibabad,on August 14, 2016. It stated
that her father, Moolchand, used to frequently beat her mother, Geeta. On
August 13, 2016, at around 9:00 am, her father Moolchand attacked her
mother Geeta with a heavy knife with the intent to kill her. As a result of the
attack, Geeta's face and two fingers of her hand were cut, and she was
covered in blood. Her father said, "You wretch, I will not leave you alive".
The witnesses to this incident were are Amit S/o Surajpal and others. The
complainant expressed a serious threat to her life and lives of her family.

During the investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses,
inspected the site of the incident, prepared the site map, conducted the
medical examination of the injured, and completed other formalities.

3. The prosecution in order to support it's case examined the following
witnesses :

     P.W.1- Ms. Reena ( Complainant)
     P.W.2- Mrs. Geeta Devi (Victim)
     P.W.3- Dr. Sheel Kumar Gautam
     P.W. 4- S.I. Mahesh Chand

4. The Documentary Evidences submitted by the prosecution were as
follows:

     1. Ext. Ka-1- Written complaint(Tehrir)
     2. Ext. Ka-2- Recovery memo of the weapon
     3. Ext. Ka-3- Medical report of Mrs. Geeta
     4. Ext. Ka-4- Site map(Naksha Nazri)
     5. Ext. Ka-5- Chargsheet
     6. Ext. Ka-6- Chik FIR
     7. Ext Ka-7- Copy of the G.D.

5. Subsequently, statements of the accused were recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incident and stated that a false case was
slapped upon him.
                                                         JAPL No. 6900 of 2017
                                 3


P.W.-1 Ms. Reena supported the prosecution version and stated that her
father attacked her mother and the incident was witnessed by other people
too. Due to injuries inflicted on her mother her condition became serious and
the doctor referred her for further treatment.

P.W.-2 Geeta is the mother of the complainant and fully supported the
prosecution version stating that her husband had abused her and threatened
to kill her. She stated that she became unconscious and regained
consciousness at the Samipur Government Hospital.

P.W.-3 Dr. Sheel Kumar Gautam stated in his examination-in-chief that he
conducted the medical examination of Geeta proved as Ext. ka-3 wherein
she sustained the following 8 injuries:

     (i). Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep, on the right cheek,
     which was bleeding and the skin was hanging.
     (ii). Incised wound 4.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep, present on the inner
     side of the left palm, which was bleeding.
     (iii). Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep, present on the left
     palm in the direction of the little finger.
     (iv). Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep, present on the inner
     side of the left forearm at the wrist joint.
     (v). Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm skin deep, present in a linear
     shape on the right forearm, 7 cm below the elbow joint.
     (vi). Multiple incised wounds in an area of 10 cm x 4 cm, bone
     deep, present on the inner part of the right forearm.
     (vii). The little finger of the right hand was severed and
     separated.
     (iix). The right finger of the right hand was severed and was
     hanging by the broken skin.

P.W.-4 S.I Mahesh Chand in his examination confirmed all the investigative
work related to this case and proved the site map as Exr ka-4, the
chargesheet as Ext. ka-5, the chik FIR as Ext. ka-6 and the copy of the G.D.
as Ext. ka-7.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is dated
                                                              JAPL No. 6900 of 2017
                                 4


13.8.2016. During trial the appellant was not admitted to bail, and after
conviction also the appellant was not granted bail by this Court. The
judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial
Court is dated 31.10.2017, which means the appellant by now has undergone
more than nine years in jail.

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

8. 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.

9. After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above
mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into
account the 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.

10. 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. The remaining sentence of
the appellant is converted into fine which is quantified as Rs.5,000/- under
                                                                                             JAPL No. 6900 of 2017
                                                                    5


                                    the aforesaid Sections, 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 three months from today before the Court concerned.

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

                                    12. 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.

                                    February 5, 2026
                                    Dev
                                                                               (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




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