Guddu @ Alias Raj Kumar vs The State Of U.P.

Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—This appeal has been filed by the accused-Appellant Guddu alias Raj Kumar against the judgment and order passed by Special Session Judge, Sitapur dated 19.07.1996 in S.T. No. 73/93, u/s 307 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge hold guilty to the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will serve out rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

Appeal already admitted for hearing vide order dated 05.08.1996.

Heard learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant not pressed the appeal on merit and stated that accused-Appellant is in jail, he prayed for taking lenient view in awarding sentence to the him saying that he has already completed almost the term of sentence in jail. He has further stated that accused-Appellant has no previous criminal history. It was further said that accused-Appellant is ready to deposit the amount of fine imposed by the trial court.

Learned AGA has not raised any serious objection, if lenient view is taken in the matter in awarding the sentence in the facts and circumstance of the case.

As per prosecution case on 22.08.1988 at about 9.45 A.M. when the informant was at his shop near Terwa crossing and his brother Radhy Shyam and one Babbu were also there waiting for the bus to go Biswan, accused Guddu armed with country made pistol came there and challenged him saying that he and his brother killed his father so he will not permit them to live and fired shot on them which hit his left hand. Witness present on the spot challenged the accused, but he succeeded in escaping from there. At the time of fleeing from the spot his slipper were left behind. A report was lodged at P.S. concerned by his brother Radhy Shyam. Case was registered against the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 307 IPC. After investigation in the matter, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-Appellant for his trial. The case was committed to the Court of Session.

Accused was charged to face the trial for the offence u/s 307 IPC but he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial.

On behalf of the prosecution, 6 witnesses were examined. PW-1 informant and injured; PW-2 Sadiq Ali eye witness of the occurrence; PW-3 Constable Nanha Lal scribed the chik report and made entry in the G.D.; PW-4 Dr. R.K. Srivastava, Radiologist proved the X-ray report and identified the X-ray Plate; PW-5 S.I. Raghav Ram Misra, investigating officer of the case and PW-6 Dr.

D.P. Mishra who had examined the victim and prepared the injury report.

In his statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused-Appellant had denied the correctness of the prosecution case and evidence and claimed his false implication in this case due to enmity. No evidence in defence was adduced on his behalf.

Learned Session Judge hold guilty to the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, this appeal has been filed.

As earlier said learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant did not press the appeal on merit but only on quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-Appellant. Moreover, on perusal of the judgment and record, I find that learned trial court had rejected all the pleas raised on behalf of the accused-Appellant on which the charge leveled were challenged, with cogent reasons. I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of the conviction recorded by the trial court in the matter.

Learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant submits that alleged occurrence has taken place on 22.08.1988. More than 22 years have passed away. Accused is not habitual offender. In murder case of his father informant and his companion were facing the trial. Injury report available on the record clearly shows that no vital part of the body of the victim was involved and doctor has not found injuries dangerous to the life of the victim. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant that it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that there was intention to kill. Any how learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant not pressed the appeal on merit and simply prayed for taking lenient view in awarding the sentence.

From the report of Jail Authorities in the matter, it is clear that till 25.11.2010, accused-Appellant has already served 3 years, 5 months and 1 day imprisonment. No useful purpose will be served further to keep him in jail. It is said that informant of the case has already been acquitted from the charge of murder of father of the Appellant in the Session trial. Learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant further argued that accused is ready to deposit the amount of fine awarded by the trial court.

Seeing the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and considering that accused-Appellant is in jail since long, his conviction u/s 307 IPC is maintained but sentence awarded is reduced and modified to the period already undergone by the accused-Appellant and to pay fine already awarded by the learned Session Judge. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo sentence of imprisonment for the period already stated in the impugned judgment by the trial court.

Appeal stand disposed of accordingly, Office to inform immediately to the trial court for doing needful in the matter and submit report to this Court.