Jagdish Giri and Others vs State of U.P.

Kant Tripathi, J.—The Appellants Jagdish Giri and 28 Ors. have filed the instant appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.3.1982, passed by Sri K. N. Singh, the then II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 1979 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the Appellants u/s 147, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months to them under Sections 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.

It may be mentioned that the Appellant No. 1 Jagdish Giri, Appellant No. 3 Sahatu, Appellant No. 6 Balchand, Appellant No. 14 Inderdeo, Appellant No. 16 Mahesh, Appellant No. 23 Bhim Nath and Appellant No. 26 Parikha have died. The appeal stood abated against them.

Mr. D. D. Yadav, the learned Counsel for the surviving Appellants did not press the appeal on merit and contended that he would press the appeal only on the question of sentence.

The facts of the case are that on 7.1.1979 at about 7 a.m. all the Appellants came to the land of the informant Rahamatullah and started beating him as well as ladies of his family with lathis. It is also alleged that the Appellant No. 3 Sahatu put the revisionist''s Pilani on fire. On alarm raised by the informant and his family members, the witnesses Kamta Singh, Jamadar Singh and Habaldar Singh arrived and tried to intervene but they were assaulted seriously by the Appellants. The informant lodged the F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1) at the concerned police station, on which basis the police registered the case for investigation and submitted charge-sheet against all the Appellants after conclusion of the investigation.

The informant Rahamatullah was medically examined on 7.1.1979 by P.W. 5 Dr. R. N. Mishra who found one lacerated wound, one contusion and three abrasions on his person. The same doctor examined the injured Kamta Singh and found one lacerated would on his person. The injured Safunisas had sustained two contusion, injured Havaldar Singh had sustained three lacerated wound and one contusion, injured Smt. Jumaratan had sustained one lacerated wound and one contusion, injured Samtuallah had sustained one lacerated wound, injured Lalia had sustained one contusion and injured Jamadar Singh had sustained two lacerated wounds and two abrasions. All these injured were examined by Dr. R. N. Mishra.

It may also be mentioned that from the side of the accused Indra Deo, Balchandra, Bahatoo and Manager had sustained injuries. The accused Indra Deo had sustained three lacerated wounds. Accused Bahatoo had sustained one lacerated wound and one contusion. Accused Manager had sustained one contusion and accused Bal Chandra had sustained two contusion and one abrasion.

The Appellants were charged under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 436, I.P.C. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

During the trial, prosecution examined P.W. 1 Rahamatullah, P.W. 2 Mahesh Prasad and P.W. 3 Sunil Kumar who have given eye-witness account of the occurrence. These witnesses have supported the prosecution story. P.W. 4 S.I. Kapil Dev Mishra was the Investigating Officer. He has given evidence of formal nature. P.W. 5 Dr. R. N. Mishra has proved the injuries sustained by the injured persons detailed above as well as the injuries sustained by the aforesaid accused.

One defence witness (D.W. 1 Jagdish Giri) was examined in support of the defence version.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story so far as the charge under Sections 147 and 323/149, I.P.C. are concerned. The charge u/s 436, I.P.C. was not found proved beyond all reasonable doubts, accordingly the Appellants were acquitted of the charge u/s 436, I.P.C. but the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the charge under Sections 147 and 323, read with Section 149, I.P.C. proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced all the Appellants.

In view of the fact the learned Counsel for the Appellants has not pressed the appeal on merit and has merely pressed the appeal on the point of sentence only. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge requires no interference and it is accordingly approved.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in view of the fact that the occurrence relates to the year of 1979 and since then more than 30 years have elapsed and some of the Appellants have become very old. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sentence of imprisonment be modified and the surviving Appellants be released on probation of good conduct and behaviour.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned A.G.A., I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the surviving Appellants are released on probation of good conduct and behaviour. After a gap of 30 years of the occurrence it is not proper to send the Appellants to jail. It may also be mentioned that the four persons from the side of the accused had also sustained injuries and this circumstances further justifies the release of the surviving Appellants on probation of good conduct and behaviour.

The appeal is dismissed so far as the conviction of the surviving Appellants Bigan, Bhatu, Sudama, Hari, Shioji, Mahangu, Manager, Lalji, Nakchedi, Sudarsan, Ram Awadh, Sadhu, Mudrika, Dudhnath, Babban, Sesh Nath, Ram Awadh, Hansnath, Manbharan, Dudh Nath, Shio Bachan and Jugul under Sections 147 and 323/149, I.P.C. is concerned. The sentences imposed on the Appellants are set aside. Instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, it is directed that the surviving Appellants Bigan, Bhatu, Sudama, Hari, Shioji, Mahangu, Manager, Lalji, Nakchedi, Sudarsan, Ram Awadh, Sadhu, Mudrika, Dudhnath, Babban Sesh Nath, Ram Awadh, Hansnath, Manbharan, Dudh Nath, Shio Bachan and Jugul be released on probation of good conduct and behaviour for a period of one year on their each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia and also subject to the condition these Appellants shall maintain good conduct and behaviour and keep the peace during the period of probation and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period. It is further directed that these Appellants shall remain under the supervision of District Probation Officer, Ballia during the period of probation.