Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 439 (ALL)

TUNCHI @ RAJENDRA YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-02-19

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. 1. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgement and order dated 24.02.1987 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 402 of 1985 (State Vs. Naresh Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.205/1984, Police Station- Fazalganj, District- Kanpur, whereby the appellant- Tunchi @ Rajendra Yadav- has been found guilty for the offence- under Sections 148 and 324 IPC, and given benefit of provisions of Probation of First Offender Act and directed him to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 3 years. So far as the appellant 2 to 6 are concerned, they have also been found guilty and given the same benefit directing them to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 2 years. Trial court further directed all of them to furnish bond for Rs.4000/- each and a personal bond of the like amount. 2. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record of this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after going through the judgement, he is of the view that in so far conviction part of the judgement and order impugned dated 24.02.1987 is concerned, the same is not being assailed and the claim is relinquished. However, on the point of quantum of sentence, he adds that initially instead of sentencing the appellant under various Sections of charge framed against them, the court directed them to keep peace and good behaviour for the aforesaid period and for that purpose asked them to furnish personal bond along with two sureties each for Rs.4000/- before the District Probation Officer, Kanpur. He submits that period prescribed for keep peace and good behaviour ought to have been restricted to one year and the amount for sureties for keeping peace and good behaviour ought to have been reduced to Rs.2000/-. He submits that period prescribed for keep peace and good behaviour ought to have been restricted to one year and the amount for sureties for keeping peace and good behaviour ought to have been reduced to Rs.2000/-. However, he further submitted that in this case appellants have maintained good behaviour and kept peace till now, and no adverse information/report from any corner has been received against them either by the trial court or from the side of the State, which may show that appellants ever acted in violation of the direction and the mandate of the trial court and they were not of good behaviour and they violated term for keeping peace. Learned counsel claims that a mild view ought to have been taken for submission raised by the appellant and benefit of probation ought to have been given to the accused, then the period stipulated and the bond sought for the same, was bit harsh, which ought to have been reduced and confined to the extent of one year and for Rs.2000/-. 4. Though, the conviction part of the impugned judgement and order dated 24.2.1987 has not been assailed and put to question by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would not be in the fitness of things to have a comprehensive repetition of the facts of this case though, the same appear to have been elaborated and considered by the trial Judge in his judgement and order. Certified copy whereof, is available before this Court. Therefore, for proper understanding of the case and in order to adjudicate upon the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be appropriate that relevant facts are taken note of and considered in order to arrive at just conclusion. 5. Perusal and consideration of the judgement of the trial court indicates that the incident took place on 1st June, 1984 around 12.00 noon when all the aforesaid appellants formed illegal assembly and in prosecution of common object fired on Smt. Genda Rani- who is mother of the informant- Chandu Verma- due to which she sustained injury. The incident occurred in the house of the informant- Chandu Verma. 6. After the report was lodged, the investigation ensued and after completing the necessary formalities, the Investigating Officer filed charge- sheet against the appellants. The incident occurred in the house of the informant- Chandu Verma. 6. After the report was lodged, the investigation ensued and after completing the necessary formalities, the Investigating Officer filed charge- sheet against the appellants. The appellant- Tunchi @ Rajendra Yadav- was charged under Sections 307 IPC and the other accused was charged under Sections 307 read with Section 149 IPC, besides being charged under Section 147 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge examined- Chandu Verma P.W.1, who is the son of the injured- Genda Rani. He has lodged the written report, Exhibit Ka-1. Smt. Genda Rani P.W.2 is the injured- witness. S.I. Data Ram Modaria is P.W.3. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He recorded the statement of the injured victim- Genda Rani and also proved the previous investigation conducted by another S.I. B.D. Singh. He, after competing the necessary formalities filed the charge sheet against the appellants. Dr. S.K. Srivastava is P.W.4. He is the doctor witness, who medically examined the injured- Genda Rani and proved the same as Exhibit Ka-8. P.W.5 is the concerned clerk of concerned Hospital where injured- Genda Rani was admitted. He has proved the bed-head-ticket, Exhibit Ka.9. P.W.6 is Om Prakash Bisariya. He is hostile witness. 8. Except as above, no other testimony was adduced, therefore, after closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused denied their involvement in the incident and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. 9. No evidence whatsoever was led by the defence. 10. Consequently, the trial court after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and after evaluating evidence on record found guilty to the appellants for the aforesaid offences and instead of awarding sentence given then benefit of provisions of Probation of First Offender Act and directed them to furnish bond for Rs.4000/- each a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, resultantly the instant appeal has been preferred before this Court. 11. 11. Considering the particular aspect of this case that in this case, judgement and order of conviction was passed on 24.2.1987 and the appellants were required to furnish surety on 12th March, 1987 and this appeal was admitted by this Court on 10th March, 1987 and they were directed to file bond and sureties as ordered by 31st March, 1987. 12. In view of above, the legal position would be that probation period, which was required for keeping peace and good behaviour, stood suffered and exhausted after elapse of two years/three years period next commencing after the delivery of judgement and no adverse circumstance or violation of terms and condition for keeping good behaviour, as directed by the trial court, has been intimated from any corner either to be trial court or to this Court. 13. In view of above, no useful purpose will be served in considering the point of reducing the period prescribed by the trial court for keeping peace and good behaviour from 3 years to 2 years, because time within which the appellants were required to keep peace and be of good behaviour, stood exhausted and suffered. Consequently, the submission so raised for reducing the period for keeping peace, does not carry any force and has become redundant and a gone ease. Moreover, there is neither any particular fact or circumstance as may justify reducing period prescribed in the judgement for keeping peace and good behaviour, nor any such fact or circumstance shown or brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, on that particular point also, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. 14. In the wake of above, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. 15. Copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for information.