# Jaiveer & Anr. (In Jail) v. State

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 757
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1542 of 1982
- **Bench:** Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaiveer-anr-in-jail-v-state-45315
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 452, 323/34, 325/34 and 308/34 -
Appeal against conviction.

After considering the rival submissions
made
by
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants,
considering
the
facts
and
circumstance of the case, considering the
age of the accused-appellants, this Court
feels it would not be proper to sent the
accused appellants to jail as the accused
were on bail during trial and no criminal
antecedents have been shown to their
credit and the accused were convicted in
the year 1982 and they have suffered
mental agony of conviction for a long time.
Considering all these facts it would be
appropriate and proper that the accused be
sentenced
with
the
period
already
undergone and the amount of fine be
enhanced. (Para 10)C

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

## Text

2 All. Jaiveer & Anr. Vs. State
757
harassment
meted
out
by
accusedappellant. Of late such offences and crime
against women are on rise. It is well
settled that sentence has to commensurate
with gravity of offence and all attending
facts and circumstances of the case.
Considering all aspects of the matter, it
would
be
appropriate
that
accusedappellant be sentenced to maximum
punishment
ie
10
years
rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.
10,000/ under 306 IPC.

35. In view of aforesaid, conviction
and sentence of accused-appellant Noor
Mohammed under Section 302 IPC is set
aside and he is convicted under Section
306 IPC and sentenced to 10 (ten) years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine of
Rs 10,000/. In default of payment of
fine, accused-appellant has to undergo
three months additional imprisonment.
Accused-appellant Noor Mohammed is
stated in jail, he shall serve out
remaining sentence.

36. Appeal is partly allowed in
above terms.

37. Copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A757

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1542 of 1982

Jaiveer & Anr. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Dhan Prakash, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava,
Sri K.D. Tripathi, Sri Sudhir Agarawal

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 452, 323/34, 325/34 and 308/34 -
Appeal against conviction.

After considering the rival submissions
made
by
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants,
considering
the
facts
and
circumstance of the case, considering the
age of the accused-appellants, this Court
feels it would not be proper to sent the
accused appellants to jail as the accused
were on bail during trial and no criminal
antecedents have been shown to their
credit and the accused were convicted in
the year 1982 and they have suffered
mental agony of conviction for a long time.
Considering all these facts it would be
appropriate and proper that the accused be
sentenced
with
the
period
already
undergone and the amount of fine be
enhanced. (Para 10)C

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J).)

1. This Criminal appeal has been
filed by the appellants against the
judgement and order dated 1.6.1982
passed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge,
Aligarh in S.T. No. 440 of 1980 (State
vs. Jaiveer and another), whereby
sentencing the appellants to undergo
R.I. for a period of two years under
Section 452 I.P.C. for a period of one
year under Section 323/34 I.P.C. for a
period of two years under Section
325/34 I.P.C. under Section 308/34
I.P.C. for a period of three years.

2. All the sentences shall run
concurrently.
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The brief facts of this case are
that in the intervening night between
17/18.5.1980 at about 12:00 or 1:00
a.m. in the night the accused-appellants
entered into the house of the informant
Lajja Ram and belabored him and his
wife Smt. Diropa, as a result of which
both were injured and Lajja Ram
sustained
grievous
injuries.
The
offenders were identified in the light of
burning lamp kept in the varanda of the
house. The alarm was raised by the
inmates of the house. The daughter of
the informant Km. Jaiwanti was also
sleeping by the side of her parents and
upon hearing the alarm some witnesses
were
attracted
then
the
accused
escaped from the spot. The matter was
reported to the police by the informant
at Police Station-Dadon and the case
was registered and investigated by the
police. The informant Lajja Ram and
his wife Smt. Diropa were medically
examined
and
the
X-ray
of
the
informant was also done.

4.

After
completion
of
investigation the Investigating Officer
has submitted charge sheet against the
accused and the cognizance was taken
by the Magistrate and considering that
the case was triable by the Sessions
Judge and it was committed to the
court of session and the session court
charged the accused under Sections
452, 325 and 308 I.P.C. read with
section 34 I.P.C.

5. The prosecution laid the
evidence against the accused and the
court
after
prosecution
evidence
examined the accused under section
313 Cr.P.C. and the accused submitted
that they have been falsely implicated
in the present case due to enmity but
no evidence was laid by the accused in
this regard in their defence.

6. After considering the evidence
available
on
record
the
trial
court
convicted the accused as aforesaid. Being
aggrieved by the conviction judgement
and order this appeal had been filed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel
for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for
the State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that at present both the accused
are more than 75 years of age and they are
suffering from age related ailments. He
next submitted that it was the first offence
of the accused and after conviction the
accused had not indulged in any other
criminal activity. He further submitted that
on the question of legality of sentence he
is not pressing this appeal and only
pressing on the quantum of sentence and
he has prayed for taking lenient view
considering the age of the accused and
their age related ailments.

9. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that
the impugned order is valid and no
interference is required in the impugned
order, hence the appeal be dismissed and
accused be directed to suffer the sentence.

10. After considering the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellants, considering the facts and
circumstance of the case, considering the
age of the accused-appellants, this Court
feels it would not be proper to sent the
accused appellants to jail as the accused
were on bail during trial and no criminal
antecedents have been shown to their
credit and the accused were convicted in
the year 1982 and they have suffered
2 All. Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo Vs. State of U.P.
759
mental agony of conviction for a long
time. Considering all these facts it would
be appropriate and proper that the accused
be sentenced with the period already
undergone and the amount of fine be
enhanced.

11. The accused-appellants are
sentenced to the period already undergone
by them in jail and an amount of fine of
Rs. 5000/- be imposed.

12. Accused-appellants are directed
to deposit the fine of Rs. 5000/- before
learned lower court within three months
from the date of passing of the judgement
out of which Rs. 4000/- shall be paid to the
injured, if he is alive and in case he is
dead, then it would be paid to his legal
heirs and in default of payment of fine
accused-appellants shall further undergo
15 days imprisonment.

13. Appeal is partly allowed in the
above terms.

14. Copy of this order be transmitted
to the concerned lower court forthwith for
compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A759

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR-II, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1668 of 2003

Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant:
Rishad Murtaza, Md Altaf Mansoor, Salik
Ram Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Alok Singh, Arun Kr.
Tripathi,
Ashok
Kumar
Tripathi,
Padamkant Mishra, S.K. Upadhyaya

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code -
Sections 302, 506 - read with Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section
25/27 & 30 of Arms Act- Appeal against
conviction.

The analyzation of evidence available on
record, the impugned judgment and order by
trial court cannot be said to be perverse or
against the evidence available on record. It is
liable to be upheld and it is upheld accordingly.
(Para 56)

The Applicant has been released on 07.12.2019
from
Central
Jail
Naini,
Prayagraj
after
remission of his sentence on the basis of
Government Order. (Para 57)

We have perused the aforesaid government
order. The sentence of appellant has been
remitted by Hon'ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh
under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
His
remaining
period
of
imprisonment/
sentence has been remitted. (Para 58)

Since, none is responding on behalf of
appellant, therefore, the present appeal has
been disposed of accordingly in absence of the
appellant's counsel. (Para 59)

Criminal Appeal disposed of. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,
J. & Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II, J.)

1. The appellant, Krishna Kumar
Pandey @ Babloo, has preferred the
present criminal appeal, assailing the
impugned judgment and order dated
23.09.2003 delivered by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-