The Allahabad High Court has dismissed two criminal appeals pending since 1984 and upheld the convictions of three men under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC. The convictions arise from a 1983 assault over a land dispute in Fatehpur district, in which one man died. The Court refused to grant probation to the appellants, who are now over 60, and directed them to surrender within ten days.
Justice Santosh Rai held that the trial court should have convicted the accused at least under Section 304 IPC. However, the Court declined to enhance the conviction, as neither the State nor the victim had sought it.
Background
According to the prosecution, at about 10 a.m. on February 15, 1983, the accused began digging a foundation for a building on land claimed by the informant, Chunku. When Chunku and his family objected, the accused allegedly abused them and then attacked Chunku, Bhadauwa and Smt. Tituli with lathis and other hard and blunt objects. Bhadauwa suffered serious head injuries and later died.
Charges were framed under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. On August 24, 1984, the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, instead convicted the accused under Sections 325 and 323 IPC. He sentenced them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, and to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 for each of the two injured persons. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Babulal filed one appeal; Ghasitawa alias Ghasita, Ramdas and Ramlal filed the other. Ghasitawa died while the appeal was pending, so his appeal abated under Section 394 CrPC.
Arguments
Advocate Ramesh Prasad, appearing for the appellants, argued that they had been falsely implicated because of the land dispute. He said the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and gave contradictory accounts, and that the injuries suffered by the accused had not been explained. He sought probation for the surviving appellants, citing their age.
Additional Government Advocate Shyam Narayan Rai, for the State, supported the conviction. He pointed to the prompt FIR and to the injured witnesses’ testimony, which he said was corroborated by the medical evidence. He also informed the Court that no appeal or revision seeking enhancement had been filed. Advocate Prem Chandra appeared for the informant.
Court’s Findings
The Court held that the prompt FIR and the immediate medical examination “lend assurance to the prosecution case.” It found that Chunku’s testimony as an injured witness was supported by the medical evidence and could not be discarded over minor variations.
The post-mortem recorded four injuries on Bhadauwa, with fractures of the parietal and temporal bones. The Court said this “cannot be treated as evidence of an ordinary assault” and held:
“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.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Goloo Raikwar, the Court said the trial court’s assessment of the gravity of the offence was open to “serious doubt”. It observed that the Presiding Officer’s failure to appraise the evidence properly “reflects a serious dereliction in the discharge of judicial responsibility” and that such a mechanical approach “is tantamount to making a mockery of the criminal justice system and cannot be countenanced in the administration of justice.”
No Enhancement Without State Appeal
Even so, the Court held that it could not enhance the conviction or sentence in appeals filed by the accused, without the requisite proceedings and without complying with the law governing enhancement. Noting that more than four decades had passed, it said reopening the matter for enhancement “would serve no fruitful purpose at this belated stage.” It added that this “shall not be construed as approval of any infirmity in the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence.”
Probation Declined
On the plea for probation, the Court held that “the grant of probation is not automatic merely because an accused has attained an advanced age.” Given the seriousness of the assault, which injured three people and caused one death, it found no sufficient reason to extend probation.
Outcome
The Court dismissed both appeals in respect of the surviving appellants, Babulal, Ramdas and Ramlal, and affirmed their conviction and sentence. It directed them to surrender within ten days to serve the rest of their sentences, failing which the court concerned is to take coercive steps. The period they have already spent in custody will be set off under Section 428 CrPC.
Case Title: Babulal v. State of U.P., connected with Ghasitawa @ Ghasita and Others v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2354 of 1984 with Criminal Appeal No. 2355 of 1984
Bench: Justice Santosh Rai
Date: 13.11.2026
