Babulal vs State Of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2354 of 1984
Babulal
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kumar Kuldeep Singh, Ramesh
Prasad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., Nand Lal Yadav, Prem
Chandra
With
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2355 of 1984
Ghasitawa @ Ghasita and others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : K.k.singh, Ramesh Prasad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., Nand Lal Yadav, Prem
Chandra
Court No. – 91 AFR
Reserved On 27.10.2026
Delivered On 13.11.2026

2
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the
informant, Sri Shyam Narayan Rai, learned AGA for State and
perused the materials on record including the trial court
records.
2. Both the above-mentioned criminal appeals arise out of
the same judgment and order dated 24.8.1984 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No.451 of
1983, arising out of Case Crime No.12/1983, under Sections
302/34, 323/34 IPC, Police Station Lalauli, District Fatehpur.
Since both the appeals relate to the same occurrence, involve
common questions of fact and law and arise out of the same
judgment, they are being heard and decided together by this
common judgment.
3. Criminal Appeal No.2354 of 1984 has been preferred by
accused-appellant Babulal, whereas Criminal Appeal No.2355
of 1984 has been preferred by accused-appellants Ghasitawa
alias Ghasita, Ramdas and Ramlal. During the pendency of the
appeal, appellant Ghasitawa alias Ghasita died. Consequently,
the appeal, insofar as it relates to the deceased appellant
Ghasitawa alias Ghasita, stands abated under Section 394
Cr.P.C. The present judgment, therefore, concerns the surviving
appellants, namely Babulal, Ramdas and Ramlal.
4. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 24.8.1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No.451 of 1983, arising out of Case
Crime No.12/1983, under Sections 302/34, 323/34 IPC, Police
Station Lalauli, District Fatehpur; whereby they have been
convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment
under Section 325 IPC, sentenced to six months rigorous
imprisonment under Section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to
complainant Chunku, sentenced to six months rigorous

3
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
imprisonment under Section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to
Smt. Tituli. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there was a dispute
between the parties regarding the land in question. On
15.2.1983, at about 10:00 a.m., accused persons started
digging the foundation for construction of a building over the
land claimed by the informant. When the informant and his
family members objected to the same and restrained them
from carrying out such construction, the accused persons
started abusing and threatening them. Thereafter, all the
accused persons, armed with lathis and other hard and blunt
objects, assaulted the informant Chunku, Bhadauwa and Smt.
Tituli, causing injuries to them.
6. During the course of the incident, Bhadauwa sustained
serious injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He was
subsequently taken for medical treatment, but ultimately
succumbed to his injuries. The informant Chunku and Smt.
Tituli also sustained injuries in the same occurrence.
7. On the basis of the written report submitted by the
informant, the first information report was registered promptly,
within a few hours of the occurrence. The injured persons were
also medically examined soon after the incident and their injury
reports were prepared. After investigation, the police submitted
the charge-sheet against the accused persons.
8. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and
charges were framed against the accused persons under
Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. The accused persons denied
the charges and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the
informant and injured witness Chunku, other witnesses of fact,
the medical witnesses and the police personnel connected with
the investigation. The prosecution also produced the relevant
documentary evidence, including the first information report,

4
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
injury reports, post-mortem report and other papers relating to
the investigation. After considering the entire evidence
available on record, the learned trial court convicted the
accused persons under Sections 325 and 323 IPC and
sentenced them to five years imprisonment under Section 325
IPC and six months’ imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. The
accused persons have challenged the aforesaid judgment and
order by filing the present appeals.
10. In brief the grounds of appeals are that the conviction of
the appellants are against the weight of evidence on record,
conviction of the appellants are bad in law and in any case
sentence is too severe.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
accused persons are innocent and have falsely been implicated
due to the previous land dispute between the parties. It is
further submitted that the prosecution witnesses are interested
witnesses and their statements are not reliable. There are
contradictions regarding the manner of assault, the number of
injuries and the individual role assigned to the accused
persons. It is also submitted that one of the prosecution
witnesses has not supported the prosecution case and,
therefore, the prosecution version is not trustworthy.
12. Learned counsel has further submitted that the injuries
sustained by the accused persons have not been properly
explained by the prosecution. It is argued that the occurrence
was a result of a dispute between the parties and the
prosecution has suppressed the actual genesis of the incident.
It is also submitted that the surviving appellants are more than
60 years of age and, therefore, they deserve the benefit of
probation instead of being directed to undergo the remaining
sentence.
13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the judgment
and order passed by the trial court. It is submitted that the FIR

5
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
was promptly lodged, the injured witnesses have supported the
prosecution case and their statements are duly corroborated by
the medical evidence. The involvement of the accused persons
is established from the oral as well as documentary evidence.
There is no good ground to interfere with the conviction and
sentence awarded by the trial court.
14. Learned A.G.A. has also informed the Court that no
appeal or revision seeking enhancement of the conviction or
sentence has been filed by the State or the victim against the
impugned judgment.
15. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the
judgment of the trial court, the oral and documentary evidence
available on record and the other relevant materials.
16. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the occurrence
took place on 15.2.1983 at about 10:00 a.m. The FIR was
lodged promptly, within a few hours of the incident. The broad
and essential facts relating to the commission of the offence,
the manner of assault, the weapons used by the accused
persons and the injuries sustained by the injured persons have
been clearly mentioned in the FIR. The medical examination of
the injured persons was also conducted soon after the incident
and the corresponding injury reports were prepared. In my
considered opinion, the prompt lodging of the FIR and the
immediate medical examination of the injured persons lend
assurance to the prosecution case. There is no unexplained
delay in lodging the FIR which may create any reasonable doubt
regarding the genesis of the occurrence or the participation of
the accused persons.
17. The informant Chunku, who has been examined as P.W.-1,
is himself an injured witness. He has specifically stated that the
occurrence took place on account of a land dispute between the
parties. According to his testimony, when the accused persons

6
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
started digging the foundation for construction of a building
over the land claimed by the informant, they were restrained
from doing so. On this objection, the accused persons started
abusing and threatening the informant and his family members
and thereafter assaulted them with lathis and other hard and
blunt objects.
18. P.W.-1 has clearly described the involvement of the
accused persons in the occurrence. He has stated that the
accused persons jointly participated in the assault and caused
injuries to the informant and the other injured persons. He has
also attributed the participation of accused Babulal in causing
injuries to the injured persons in furtherance of their common
intention. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of
an injured witness ordinarily carries greater evidentiary value
because his presence at the place of occurrence is established
by the injuries sustained by him. Unless there are strong and
convincing reasons to disbelieve such testimony, the same
cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is
related to the deceased or the informant.
19. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.-1 finds support
from the contemporaneous medical evidence. His presence at
the place of occurrence is not doubtful. Nothing material has
been brought on record during his cross-examination to
discredit his testimony regarding the participation of the
accused persons. It is true that when several persons
simultaneously assault three injured persons with lathis and
other hard and blunt objects, it may not always be possible for
an injured witness to give an exact account of the number of
blows inflicted by each accused or to identify with mathematical
precision the particular injury caused by each individual
accused. Such minor variations are natural in the
circumstances of the occurrence and cannot be treated as

7
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
material contradictions so as to discard the entire prosecution
case.
20. I further find that another prosecution witness, namely
P.W.-2 Mangawa, has not fully supported the prosecution
version regarding the actual assault. However, he has stated
that he reached the place of occurrence subsequently. Merely
because this witness has not supported the prosecution case in
its entirety, the reliable testimony of the injured witness P.W.-1
cannot be discarded. The evidence of each witness has to be
assessed independently on its own merits.
21. It is also relevant to examine the testimony of the other
witness of fact, who is related to the accused persons. The
defence has attempted to discredit his testimony on the ground
that he is the uncle of the accused persons and is related to the
informant’s side. However, relationship with either party is not,
by itself, a ground to reject the testimony of a witness. The
Court is required to examine whether the statement is natural,
consistent and supported by the other evidence on record.
22. On examination of his statement, I find that he has also
described the occurrence and the participation of the accused
persons in causing injuries with hard and blunt objects. His
testimony, to the extent it is consistent with the prosecution
version and supported by the medical evidence, provides
further assurance to the prosecution case. I find no sufficient
reason to reject the entire testimony merely on account of his
relationship with the parties.
23. The medical evidence is an important circumstance in the
present case. From the injury reports of the injured persons, it
appears that all the three injured persons sustained injuries on
different parts of their bodies, including the head and face. The
informant Chunku sustained lacerated wounds on the occipital
region of the head and on the left parietal region of the head.
Smt. Tituli also sustained lacerated wound on her nose. The

8
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
deceased Bhadauwa sustained serious injuries on vital parts of
his body, particularly the head and the right temporal region.
24. Following injuries were found on the body of the injured
persons:-
“Injuries of Bhadauwan:-
1. Lacerated wound on the right parietal region of the head
6cmsx1cmx1cm.
2. Contusion on the right temporal region near pinna 3.5cmsx3 cms.
Injuries of Chunku:-
1/2
1. Lacerated wound on the occipital region of the head 1
cmx1/2cmx1/2cm.
2. Lacerated wound on the left parietal region of the head
1cmx1/2cmx1/4cm.
Injuries of Smt. Tituli:-
1. Lacerated wound on the nose 1/2cmx1/4cmx1/4cm”
25. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead
body of Bhadauwan:-
“1. Stitched wound 3” in length over the right side of the
parietal region 4” above the ear and 5” above the right eye
brow placed longitudinally.
1/2
2. Contusion 3”x2 “ over then right temporal region just
in front of the tragus of the right ear.
3. Contusion 1”x1/2” over the left frontal region ½” above
the corner of the left eye.
4. Abrasion 2”x1/2” over the lateral aspect of the left
forearm ½” below the left elbow joint.
Internal examination- there was a depressed fracture in the
right parietal bone. The right temporal bone was also
fractured. The membranes of the brain were lacerated and
perforated. Clotted blood was present on the outer
surface of the membranes. The brain was also lacerated
and clotted blood was present on it. The cause of death was
shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem
injuries.
26. Thus, post-mortem report of deceased Bhadauwa records
four injuries, including one stitiched wound, two contusions on
the head and abrasion on forearm. The medical evidence
further indicates fractures of the temporal and parietal bones.
The injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object.

9
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
27. On comparison of the injury report and the post-mortem
report, I do not find any material contradiction regarding the
nature and number of injuries. The post-mortem examination
was conducted after the death of Bhadauwa, and the findings
recorded therein are consistent with the serious head injuries
described in the prosecution evidence. The fracture of the
temporal and parietal bones is a significant circumstance. It
establishes that considerable force was used while causing
injuries to the deceased. The injuries were not confined to any
ordinary or insignificant part of the body but were caused on
vital parts, particularly the head. The medical evidence,
therefore, substantially corroborates the ocular testimony
regarding the use of hard and blunt objects and the manner in
which the injured persons were assaulted. There is no material
discrepancy between the medical evidence and the basic
prosecution version.
28. It is also relevant to mention that the deceased did not
sustain only one superficial injury. The post-mortem report
records four injuries, including two contusions on the head, and
the underlying bones were fractured. The nature, number and
location of these injuries are relevant circumstances for
appreciating the common intention and knowledge of the
assailants. In my opinion, the evidence relating to the nature
of injuries cannot be considered in isolation. It has to be
examined along with the manner of assault, the weapons used,
the parts of the body targeted and the participation of the
accused persons. The totality of these circumstances
establishes that the assault was serious and was not merely an
accidental consequence of a minor quarrel.
29. There is one more important circumstance which requires
consideration. After completion of the prosecution evidence,
the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In his statement, accused Ghasitawa alias Ghasita stated, in

10
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
substance, that his sons Ramdas and Ramlal had also caused
injuries to Chunku and the deceased, although they had also
inflicted six to seven blows upon him. Similarly, accused
Ramdas stated that the occurrence had taken place in the
manner stated by his father. These statements are relevant
circumstances while considering the defence version and the
presence and participation of the accused persons at the place
of occurrence.
30. It is settled law that the statement of an accused recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and
cannot, by itself, be treated as a substitute for proof of the
prosecution case. However, an admission or an explanation
contained in such a statement may be considered along with
the other evidence on record. In the present case, the
statements of the accused persons lend further support to the
prosecution version regarding the presence and participation of
Ramdas and Ramlal in the occurrence. The prosecution case, in
any event, stands independently established by the testimony
of the injured witness and the medical evidence.
31. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellants
is that the prosecution has not explained the injuries allegedly
sustained by the accused persons. I have considered this
submission. It is true that the existence of injuries on the
accused persons may be a relevant circumstance in a particular
case, particularly where the injuries are serious and their non-
explanation creates doubt regarding the origin or genesis of the
occurrence. However, such a principle cannot be applied
mechanically in every case. In the present case, no material
has been brought on record to establish that the informant or
the injured persons had assaulted the accused persons in the
manner suggested by the defence. No criminal case against the
informant or the injured persons in respect of the alleged
assault upon the accused persons has been shown to have been

11
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
registered. The mere assertion that the accused persons had
also sustained some injuries does not, by itself, demolish the
prosecution case.
32. The prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of
P.W.-1, is consistent regarding the initial dispute, the assault
and the injuries caused to the deceased and the other injured
persons. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution
version. In these circumstances, the plea regarding injuries to
the accused persons does not create any reasonable doubt
regarding their participation in the occurrence. I, therefore, find
no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants
that the prosecution case should be disbelieved on this ground.
33. From the evidence discussed above, it is apparent that
the occurrence arose out of a dispute regarding the land and
the construction of a building. The accused persons came
together and participated in the assault when the informant
and his family members objected to the digging of the
foundation. The nature of the occurrence, the participation of
the accused persons, the use of lathis and other hard and blunt
objects and the injuries caused to three persons establish their
concerted participation in the incident. The acts of the accused
persons have to be appreciated in the light of Section 34 IPC,
which embodies the principle of joint liability for an act done in
furtherance of the common intention of all.
34. The prosecution is not required to establish that each
accused caused a particular injury where the evidence
establishes their participation in the joint assault and the
existence of common intention. The nature of participation and
the circumstances of the occurrence have to be considered as
a whole. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.-1, read with
the medical evidence and the other circumstances, establishes
the participation of the surviving appellants in the occurrence.
I find no material contradiction or inherent improbability which

12
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
may justify interference with the findings recorded by the trial
court in this regard.
35. I have also examined the manner in which the learned
trial court appreciated the evidence and arrived at its
conclusion. The original charge against the accused persons
was under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. However, after
appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court convicted
them under Sections 325 and 323 IPC and awarded five years
imprisonment under Section 325 IPC and six months’
imprisonment under Section 323 IPC.
36. The evidence on record, particularly the post-mortem
report, cannot be treated as evidence of an ordinary assault.
The deceased sustained four injuries including two contusions
on his head, including two contusions, and the temporal and
parietal bones were fractured. The medical evidence
establishes that substantial force was used in causing injuries
to vital parts of the body. The nature and number of blows, the
weapons used, the parts of the body where the injuries were
inflicted and the circumstances in which the assault took place
are relevant factors for determining the nature of the offence.
These circumstances are also relevant for examining whether
the assailants had the requisite knowledge that their acts were
likely to cause death. In my considered opinion, the learned
trial court was required to examine these circumstances with
greater care and in the light of the ingredients of the relevant
provisions of the IPC. The medical evidence and the ocular
testimony required a more complete and proper appraisal,
particularly with regard to the serious injuries sustained by the
deceased. Thus, at least the appellants were required to be
convicted under section 304 IPC. The trial court has committed
material legal error in appraisal of oral and medical evidence.
37. In the case of Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab 1958 SCC
OnLine SC 37 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

13
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
““14. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following
facts before it can bring a case under Section 300 “thirdly”.
15. First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury
is present.
16. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; these are
purely objective investigations.
17. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to
inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not
accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was
intended.
18. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the
enquiry proceeds further and.
19. Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just
described, made up of the three elements set out above, is
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This
part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has
nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
20. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution
(and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout),
the offence is murder under Section 300 “thirdly”. It does not
matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not
matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a
kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two).
It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act
of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to
cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved,
the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question
is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury
is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No
one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and
claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries
of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only
escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduce, that the injury
was accidental or otherwise unintentional.”
38. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Goloo Raikwar
and another (2016) 12 SCC 139 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under:-
“10. … So far as the question of inconsistency between the
medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law
is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally
irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would
have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical
and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have
greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when
medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the
same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of
such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two
is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all
possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the
ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.”

14
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
39. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Goloo Raikwar
and another (2016) 12 SCC 139 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under:-
“8. In State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya [State of A.P. v.
Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382 : 1976 SCC (Cri)
659] , this Court had to deal with a similar situation. In that case,
the accused, 5 in number, beat the victim with sticks on the legs
and arms of the deceased and when hospitalised the deceased
succumbed to his injuries. The medical officer who conducted the
autopsy opined that the cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage resulting from multiple injuries and the said
injuries were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The question arose whether in such
a case when no significant injury had been inflicted on a vital
part of the body, and the weapons used were sticks and the
accused could not be said to have the intention of causing death,
the offence would be “murder” or merely “culpable homicide not
amounting to murder”. This Court answered the question in
these terms : (SCC p. 394, para 39)
“39. … All these acts of the accused were preplanned and
intentional, which, considered objectively in the light of the
medical evidence, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death. The mere fact that the beating was designedly
confined by the assailants to the legs and arms, or that none of
the multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, will not exclude the
application of clause Thirdly of Section 300. The expression
“bodily injury” in clause Thirdly includes also its plural, so that
the clause would cover a case where all the injuries intentionally
caused by the accused are cumulatively sufficient to cause the
death in the ordinary course of nature, even if none of those
injuries individually measures up to such sufficiency. The
sufficiency spoken of in this clause, as already noticed, is the
high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature, and if
such sufficiency exists and death is caused and the injury causing
it is intentional, the case would fall under clause Thirdly of
Section 300. All the conditions which are a prerequisite for the
applicability of this clause have been established and the offence
committed by the accused, in the instant case was ‘murder’.”
40. Upon an overall consideration of the ocular testimony, the
statement of the deceased, the medical evidence and the
attending circumstances, this Court finds that the trial court's
assessment of the nature and gravity of the offence is open to
‘serious doubt’. The extensive injuries sustained by the
deceased, the fractures and the medical opinion regarding the
cause of death required a more searching examination of the
applicability of Sections 302 or 304 IPC. Nevertheless, in the
absence of an appeal for enhancement or for alteration of the
conviction to a graver offence, this Court does not consider it

15
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
appropriate to enhance the punishment or convert the
conviction into one under Section 302 or Section 304 IPC in the
present appeal. The surviving appellant cannot be subjected to
an enhanced conviction or sentence without due regard to the
applicable statutory provisions, the scope of the proceedings
and the safeguards of fair hearing.
41. It is also relevant that the judgment of conviction was
delivered by the then Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, Sri N.K.
Maheshwari on 24.8.1984. More than four decades have
elapsed since the decision of the trial court. Having regard to
the extraordinary passage of time, the nature and scope of the
present appeal, and the absence of any challenge seeking
enhancement, this Court considers that reopening the matter
for the purpose of enhancement would serve no fruitful purpose
at this belated stage. This consideration, however, shall not be
construed as approval of any infirmity in the trial court's
appreciation of the evidence.
42. The manner in which the learned Presiding Officer has
ignored material evidence and failed to undertake a proper,
objective and holistic appreciation of the ocular and medical
evidence reflects a serious dereliction in the discharge of
judicial responsibility. Such perfunctory and erroneous
appraisal of evidence, particularly in a case involving the ‘death’
of a person following grievous injuries including fractures on
parietal and temporal bone, is not merely an error of
appreciation but undermines the very object of criminal
adjudication. A mechanical approach to the evaluation of
material evidence, resulting in findings divorced from the
record, is tantamount to making a mockery of the criminal
justice system and cannot be countenanced in the
administration of justice.
43. However, it is equally important to notice that the present
proceedings are appeals preferred by the accused persons

16
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
against their conviction and sentence. No appeal or revision
seeking enhancement of the conviction or sentence has been
filed by the State or the victim. Learned A.G.A. has also fairly
stated this position before this Court.
44. Therefore, while examining the correctness of the
impugned judgment, this Court cannot, in the present appeals
preferred by the accused persons, proceed to enhance their
conviction or sentence without the requisite proceedings and
compliance with the law governing enhancement. The
observations made herein regarding the nature of the injuries
and the medical evidence are for proper appreciation of the
prosecution case and shall not be treated as an order enhancing
the conviction or sentence of the appellants.
45. Thus, in the light of above circumstances, I further find
that the conviction of the appellants under Sections 325 and
323 IPC is supported by reliable ocular and medical evidence.
The learned trial court has rightly found that the appellants
participated in the assault and caused grievous as well as
simple injuries to the injured persons. No ground has been
made out by the appellants to interfere with the aforesaid
findings.
46. It is also relevant that the learned trial court has already
taken a comparatively lenient view while recording conviction
under Sections 325 and 323 IPC, instead of recording
conviction under the graver charge. In the absence of any
appeal or revision seeking enhancement, this Court is not
required to undertake any enhancement exercise in the present
proceedings. However, the appellants cannot claim any further
reduction in their conviction or sentence when the findings
recorded by the trial court are supported by the evidence on
record.
47. Learned counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted
that the surviving appellants are now more than 60 years of

17
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
age and, therefore, they may be extended the benefit of
probation instead of being required to undergo the remaining
sentence.
48. I have considered this submission. There is no doubt that
the age of an accused, his antecedents, social circumstances
and the possibility of his reformation are relevant
considerations while examining a request for release on
probation. However, the grant of probation is not automatic
merely because an accused has attained an advanced age.
49. In the present case, the occurrence resulted in serious
injuries to three persons, including the death of one person.
The deceased sustained four injuries on vital parts of his body,
particularly the head, and the medical evidence establishes
fractures of the temporal and parietal bones. The informant and
another injured person also sustained injuries. The nature of
the occurrence, the manner of assault, the use of hard and
blunt objects and the consequences of the acts of the accused
persons are relevant circumstances which cannot be ignored.
The request for probation has to be considered in the light of
the entire incident and not merely on the basis of the present
age of the appellants. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the nature of the injuries, the participation of the
appellants and the seriousness of the occurrence, death of one
of injured, I do not find any good or sufficient reason to extend
the benefit of probation to the surviving appellants.
50. On an overall consideration of the entire evidence, I find
that the prosecution has successfully established the
occurrence and the participation of the surviving appellants.
The prompt FIR, the testimony of the injured witness, the
supporting circumstances and the medical evidence form a
consistent chain and establish the prosecution case beyond
reasonable doubt. The minor discrepancies and variations
pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants do not go to

18
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
the root of the prosecution case. The testimony of the injured
witness cannot be discarded on account of such minor
variations, particularly when it is corroborated by the medical
evidence.
51. Except for the legal error committed by the learned
Presiding Officer in the appreciation and evaluation of the
evidence, as discussed hereinabove, I do not find any illegality,
perversity or material error in the findings of the trial court
convicting the surviving appellants under Sections 325 and 323
IPC. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court do
not call for interference in these appeals.
52. Consequently, both the criminal appeals, namely Criminal
Appeal No.2354 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal No.2355 of 1984,
insofar as they relate to the surviving appellants Babulal,
Ramdas and Ramlal, are hereby dismissed.
53. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, under Sections 325 and 323 IPC are
hereby affirmed.
54. The surviving appellants, namely Babulal, Ramdas and
Ramlal, are directed to surrender before the court concerned
within ten days from today to serve out the remaining part of
their sentences.
55. In case they fail to surrender within the aforesaid period,
the court concerned shall take appropriate coercive steps in
accordance with law to secure their presence and execute the
sentence.
56. The period already undergone by the appellants in
custody shall be given due set-off in accordance with Section
428 Cr.P.C., as applicable.
57. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court
record be transmitted to the court concerned within a week for
necessary compliance.

19
CRLA No. - 2354 of 1984
58. The Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to serve a
copy of this order within 48 hours by FAX/e-mail to the
concerned trial court through District & Sessions Judge
concerned for compliance.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
November 13, 2026
RA
Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad