The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Tribhuwan .

2. Having regard to the short controversy, which now remains for decision in this appeal as a result of subsequent events occurring in the case after the incident in question which took place way back in the year 1980, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail except those which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal.

3. Six accused persons, (1) Tribhuwan (2) Sita Ram (3) Ram Suresh (4) Rajendra (5) Ram Vijay and (6) Jogendra were the residents of a village - Seerpatti District Azamgarh (UP). One Ram Lagan (deceased) was also the resident of same village. The houses of accused persons and Ram Lagan were situated in the same cluster and were in the close vicinity of each 2 3 other. All the accused persons, Ram Lagan and his family members were known to each other.

4. On 14.06.1980 around 8.00p.m., Tribhuwan was passing in front of Ram Lagan's house when pet dog of Ram Lagan sitting in front of his house started barking on Tribhuwan, due to which Tribhuwan got infuriated and started hurling filthy abuses to Shobh Nath-son of Ram Lagan, his family members and Ram Lagan, who were sitting on the door steps of their house.

5. This incident, unfortunately, aggravated and led to filthy verbal exchanges between Ram Lagan, Shobh Nath and Tribhuwan. Tribhuwan then went to his house after threatening Ram Lagan and his son that he would come back soon to teach them a lesson. After sometime, Tribhuwan came back along with five persons, namely, Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, Ram Vijay, Rajendra and Jogendra with weapons (Pistol, Farsa, 3 4 Lathi, Spear) in their hands. This incident attracted many persons living in the area and who were passing on the road. The altercation and the attack by the accused persons resulted in causing injuries to Ram Lagan and one Baij Nath (PW-2). Both injured persons were taken to nearby hospital for treatment. After sometime, Ram Lagan succumbed to his injuries in the hospital whereas Baij Nath survived.

7. The Sessions Judge, by his order 22.01.1982, acquitted one accused-Jogendra from all the charges 4 5 whereas convicted remaining five accused and sentenced each of them as under:

8. The five accused, namely, Tribhuwan, Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, Rajendra and Ram Vijay, who suffered conviction and sentence, filed Criminal Appeal No.211/1982 before the High Court. So far as the State is concerned, they did not file any cross appeal against that part of the order of the Sessions Court by which one accused person-Jogendra was acquitted of the charges and other accused persons though convicted for other offences but stood acquitted of the charge of murder. As a consequence, the order of the Sessions Judge so far as the State was concerned, became final.

9. The High Court, by impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the five accused interfered in the sentence and its quantum awarded to each accused persons. The High Court modified the sentence of the five accused as under: -

25. In our considered opinion, the High Court was, therefore, not right in setting aside the entire jail 17 18 sentence of respondent No.1 while upholding his conviction under Section 325 IPC. The High Court, in our view, ought to have either upheld the award of jail sentence of four years awarded by the Sessions Court or reduce the jail sentence to any reasonable term but it had no jurisdiction to fully set aside the jail sentence and substitute it by imposing only fine of Rs.10,000/-.

27. In our considered opinion, having regard to the time consumed in the litigation (37 years) coupled with 18 19 the findings of two Courts below wherein it was held that respondent No.1 did not cause any injury to the deceased and injured Baij Nath (PW-2), we are inclined to uphold respondent No.1’s conviction under Section 325 IPC and award to respondent No.1’s punishment of imprisonment of 40 days with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

29. Respondent No.1, however, claims to have deposited a fine amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the High Court. If that be so then he need not undergo any more jail sentence. However, this fact 19 20 must be verified by the Sessions Court on receipt of this judgment.

30. The appeal thus is allowed in part. The impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated above.

November 06, 2017 20