Rajendra Chauhan And Another vs State Of U.P.

AFR
Reserved on 20.03.2026
Delivered on 29.05.2026
Uploaded on 29.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985

Rajendra Chauhan And
Another
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mayank Krishna S Chandel, P.N.
Misra, Ram Niwas Singh, Vinod
Kumar Chandel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., Ram Janam Shahi
Court No. - 71
HON’BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants
and Ms. Seema Shukla, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374
CrPC by accused appellants Rajendra Chauhan and Ram Pyare Lal on
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
05.09.1985 in S.T. No. 201 of 1985 (State Vs. Rajendra Chauhan and
another) wherein the appellants have been convicted for offence under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence each of them for five
years rigorous imprisonment.
1

Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
3. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be expedient to
mention that there is cross version of FIR. The informant of this case
namely Saghir Ahmad has moved an application on 13.10.1992 before
this Court along with an affidavit stating therein that the permission be
granted to compromise the matter. It is mentioned in paragraph nos. 1 to
3 of the affidavit that the appellants have been wrongly convicted under
Section 307 IPC though on the face of it Sections 323, 324, 325 IPC is
attracted. The relevant paragraph are reiterated underneath:-
“1. That the appellants have been wrongly convicted under
Section 307/34 IPC From the facts, evidence and circumstances
of the case, it is Sections 323, 324 and 325 of Indian Penal
Code, which are attracted and made out of the prosecution is at
all believed.
2. That the learned Sessions Judge has observed in his Judgment
that both, the prosecutory and the defence have concealed the
facts leading to the occurrence.
3. That the injured Saghir Ahmad and the appellants Rajendra
and Ram Pyare have to terms. They have compromised. In case
this court accept the compromise the relation between the
parties will become sweet and tension free, leading to future
harmony and peace.”
4. This Court in order dated 22.10.1992 has granted permission and send
the compromise for verification. The order dated 22.10.1992 is reiterated
underneath:-
“Send the compromise for verification to the C.J.M.
Azamgarh. The C.J.M. Azamgarh shall endeavour to get the
compromise verified within six weeks from the date when he
receives the papers sent by this court and he shall transmit the
papers back after verification to this court, without delay. The
office is directed to send the papers to the C.J.M., Azamgarh
within ten days from today.”
5. In pursuance to the aforesaid order the application in original was sent
to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, who in order dated
25.01.1993 has verified compromise. The text of the verified
compromise is reiterated underneath:-
2

Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
"
आज इस सुलहनामे के सत्यापन हेतु श्री सगीर अहमद वादी ने
रूबरू अदालत मजमून सुलहनामा को तस्दीक किकया तथा इनकी
पहचान श्री शाहजहां एडवो ० ने किकया। मजमून सुलहनामा इनको
पढ़कर सुनाया एवं समझाया गया तथा सुलहनामे पर अपने हस्ताक्षर
"
का होना स्वीकार किकया।
6. The verified compromise received to this Court on 18.03.1993 and
since then it is fixed for disposal.
7. The prosecution case in a nutshell as revealed from first information
report dated 24.05.1981 lodged at P.S.- Gambhirpur, Azamgarh by
Saghir Ahmad with the allegation that Iliyas went to the village of the
accused to call Nekchand Lohar of his village and took Saghir Ahmad,
who met him in the way. The accused appellants had apprehended the
informant and took him to the door of Saheb Ali and opened fire at him.
Iliyas has sprinted away, whereas informant suffered gun shot injuries.
8. In the prosecution Saghir Ahmad and Iliyas were produced as PW-1
and PW-2; whereas, Dr. B.Das the Medical Officer has been produced as
PW-3, the Doctor who found injuries on the person of Saghir Ahmad
suffered due to gun shot.
9. It is the contention of learned counsel for appellants that the parties
are of same village. The matter is nearly 45 years old. The parties have
settled their dispute through compromise in the year 1992 and there is no
point in moving with the conviction of the accused appellants, who are
presently senior citizens of nearly 80 years of age, hence, prayed for an
order of modification of sentence that the appellants shall be released on
undergone.
10. Learned AGA, though argued that there is cross fight wherein both
the accused and informant suffered injuries, which establishes the guilt,
but concedes that there is compromise between the parties and the same
is verified.
3

Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
11. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and considered some judgments on the point, which are
dealt with in subsequent paragraphs.
1
12 . In the case of Labh Singh v. State of Haryana , Hon’ble the
Supreme Court has taken the view, while considering the sentence
awarded in the old case of 1985, wherein, all the accused are senior
citizen by then, that no useful purpose would be served in sending the
accused to jail. The relevant paragraph numbers 3 to 6 are reiterated
underneath:
“ 3. According to the impugned judgment passed by
the High Court, Appellant 1 is more than 82 years of
age and Appellants 2 and 3 are 72 and 62 years of age
respectively.
4. This is an incident of 1985. The appellants have
already undergone part of the sentence. Sending them
to jail after a lapse of about 27 years, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, would not be justified.
5. On a consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that
ends of justice would meet if we direct each of the
appellants to pay Rs 1 lakh to the complainant/injured
persons. We direct accordingly. Let the amount be
deposited before the trial court within two weeks from
today and after the amount is deposited, the trial court
shall disburse the amount equally among the injured
persons.
6. Consequently, the sentence of the appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone by them, the
impugned judgment is modified to the aforementioned
extent and the appeal is partly allowed.”
2
13 . In the case of State of U.P. v. Siyaram , Hon’ble the Supreme
Court has considered the old case and propensity to false implication,
took the view to compensate than to further incarceration. The relevant
paragraph number 4 is reiterated underneath:-
“4. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the record. We are not
1 2012 LawSuit (SC) 255
2 2010 LawSuit (SC) 897
4

Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
inclined to interfere in the acquittal of Siyaram for the
reasons recorded by the High Court, as the propensity
to implicate falsely is not uncommon in India. We,
however, do agree with Mr Dash that the reduction in
the sentence in case of Jiya Lal to already undergone
was somewhat inadequate but as the prosecution had
been initiated in the year 1988, we are not inclined to
interfere on the term of imprisonment. We, however,
direct that the fine be increased to Rs 25,000 in all and
in default of payment of fine the appellant Jiya Lal
shall undergo 2 years' RI. The fine will be paid within
three months from now to Banshi Lal, the injured and
if Banshi Lal is not available, to his legal
representatives.”
3
14 . In the case of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet , Hon’ble the
Supreme Court considered the passage of time, as a relevant factor to
consider. The relevant paragraph numbers 4 to 6 are reiterated
underneath:-
“4. The only question that remains is whether the
custodial sentence as was imposed by the trial court
was adequate or not i.e. confinement till rising of the
court.
5. It appears from record that the fine amount has
been deposited and the amount which was directed to
be paid to PW 2 has already been paid.
6. Considering this fact and the long passage of
time, it would be appropriate to restrict the period of
sentence to the period already undergone. The appeals
stand disposed of.”
4
15 . In the case of Manjappa v. State of Karnataka , Hon’ble the
Supreme Court considered the long pendency of case and opined the
adequate punishment would be the period of incarceration already
undergone but enhanced the fine to be paid as compensation. The
relevant paragraph numbers 14 to 16 are reiterated underneath:-
“14. At the same time, however, the fact remains
that the High Court has reduced substantive sentence
to a month and a half. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant has undergone and has remained in custody
for about fifteen days. Moreover, as on today, he is on
bail. Hence, even though we are of the view that in the
3 2009 LawSuit (SC) 795
4 2007 LawSuit (SC) 706
5

Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of
Section 360 read with Section 361 of the Code are not
attracted and Om Prakash [(2001) 10 SCC 477 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 799] does not help the appellant, it would
not be appropriate now to direct the appellant to
surrender and to suffer the remaining sentence for
about a month. The incident is of 1997 and about 10
years have passed.
15. Keeping in view all the facts and
circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be
met, if we order that the substantive sentence which
the appellant has already undergone is held sufficient.
We are also of the view that it would be appropriate if
over and above the amount which the appellant herein
has paid towards fine and also towards compensation
to the injured victim, the appellant is ordered to pay an
additional amount of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand
only), to the complainant by way of compensation.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly
allowed by holding that the sentence already
undergone by the appellant is held sufficient and
adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. It
is, however, ordered that the appellant will pay an
additional amount of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand
only) to the injured complainant within a period of one
month from today over and above the amount of fine
and compensation ordered to be paid by the courts
below.”
5
16 . In the case of Ramesh v. State of U.P. , Hon’ble the Supreme
Court has converted the offence of attempt to murder to the voluntary
causing of grievous hurt in view of single injury and awarded
punishment accordingly. The relevant paragraph numbers 3 and 4 are
reiterated underneath:-
“3. The learned counsel for appellant has assailed
the finding recorded by the High Court and the trial
Judge and has urged that the appellant was implicated
due to enmity. He urged that even though the High
Court held that in the FIR the main part was
specifically assigned to the appellant and one Jagat
Singh but in the evidence it was confined to the
appellant as the relations between the two were
strained. The learned counsel further urged that the
case of the prosecution was that the complainant was
bitten by Jagat Singh and there being no injury of
biting, the High Court committed an error in
5 (1992) 1 SCC 318
6

Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
maintaining the conviction. We are not impressed by
the argument. The learned counsel then urged that the
High Court committed an error in convicting the
appellant under Section 307, Penal Code, 1860. We do
not propose to decide it as a matter of law. But we
agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in
peculiar circumstances of the case it being a case of
single injury in the back of neck the conviction can be
altered to be under Section 324, Penal Code, 1860.
4. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed
in part. The conviction under Section 307/34, IPC is
converted to under Section 324, IPC and the sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone. The
appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs 3000 as fine within
six months which shall be paid to the complainant. In
default of payment he shall serve out the entire
sentence. On deposit of fine the bail bond shall stand
discharged.”
17 . There is judicial discretion attached to reasoned sentencing. In the
6
cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bablu and Abdul Waheed Vs.
7
State of Uttar Pradesh , Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed solemn
duty of the Courts while imposing sentence that the same would be just,
adequate and proportionate to the gravity of offence. Further observed
that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more
harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the
efficacy of system. Considering those principles the trial court rightly
evaluated the role of the sole surviving appellants and adequately
sentenced them on 05.09.1985 with just and adequate punishment. This
Court in appeal has granted bail on 09.09.1985 and since then the
surviving appellants are enlarged on bail. Now the point of concern is
whether it would be rightful decision by appellate court to send the
accused to serve the remaining sentence after elapse of 41 years.
18 . The incident occurred 45 years back. There is nothing on record to
show that the accused appellants were habitual criminals. Sending the
appellants to jail will not serve the purpose of basic principles of the law
6 (2014) 9 SCC 2811
7 (2016) 1 SCC 583
7

Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
of punishment, which in India is not corporeal in nature but reformative
in its form. The intention of legislature in considering the act, conduct
and behaviour of convict for remission also evinces the same principle.
19 . Therefore considering, the dictums of Hon’ble the Supreme Court;
the analogy drawn up from the facts of the case; and involvement of the
appellants, their role in the occurrence vis-a-vis their age at the time of
incident and as on date, this Court is of the view that the judicious and
purposeful punishment would be to modify the punishment as below:-
19.1 . The sentence awarded to Rajendra Chauhan son of Bhanu Pratap
Chauhan and Ram Pyare Lal son of Thakuri r/o Village Mulanapur, P.S.
Rani Ki Sarai (old P.S. Gambhirpur), District- Azamgarh is reduced to
the period already undergone by them in S.T. No. 201 of 1985 (State Vs.
Rajendra Chauhan and another), under Sections 307 read with Section
34 IPC.
20 . The appeal is therefore partly allowed on the point of sentence,
which is modified.
21 . The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties are
discharged.
22 . Record be returned forthwith as per Rules.
(Avnish Saxena, J.)
Date:- 29.05.2026.
Sharad/-
8
Digitally signed by :-
SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad