Ved Ram And Ors vs State

1. Heard Ms. Manju Verma holding brief of Sri R.L.Verma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mohd. Asif, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellants and Sri D.K. Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.4.1985 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1984, whereby the appellant, Ved Ram, was convicted and sentenced to undergo 21/2 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the IPC and appellant, Radhey Shyam, was convicted and sentenced to undergo 21/2 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. It is submitted that the appeal on behalf of Ram Gulam stands abated as of 18.07.2025.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there was a long enmity between Ram Gulam and the complainant, on the fateful day of 24.12.83, the niece of the complainant was playing in the lane which agitated Ram Gulam, it is also submitted that the mother of the complainant asked Ram Gulam to calm down, however, Ram Gulam and Radhey being angry started beating the mother of the complainant with lathi kicks and fists. The injured Ram Naresh lodged a report of this incident on the same day at P.S. Jaitipur.

5. On the next day, at about 9:00 am, the complainant Ram Chandra, his brother injured Ram Naresh along with two other persons were going to the village Sikanderpur to reap the paddy on daily wages when near the sugarcane field of Mulayam Ahir, accused persons Ram Gulam, Ved Ram and Radhey armed with firearms emerged, and Ram Gulam with the intention to kill Ram Naresh fired on him, who received such injuries and fell down. The other peasants working in their fields rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm, however, the accused persons fled from there.

6. The injured Ram Naresh was taken to P.S. Kanth by his brother Ram Chandra, who dictated such incident and the written report was scribed by Master Karim Bux and the FIR was lodged on the same day at about 10:15 am. Further, the injured Ram Naresh was sent to the District Hospital, Shahjahanpur where he was examined and treated by Dr. U.D. Kapoor.

7. The prosecution produced and examined as many as six witnesses to prove its case. All the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Sri Ram Chandra (complainant), PW2 Ram Naresh (injured), PW3 Sirdar, PW4 Dr. U.D. Kapoor, PW5 Sri R.B. Verma, Sub- Inspector, PW6 Shri Bhagwati Prasad Verma; X-Ray Technician, corroborated the prosecution version.

8. The learned trial court after considering all the evidences on record and statements of the witnesses, convicted and sentenced all the accused persons under Section 307 IPC and accused Radhey Shyam convicted under Section 307 read with 34 IPC.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not wish to press on the merits of the case rather pleads on mercy grounds. It is mentioned that the surviving appellants have undergone imprisonment for a period of 2 months out of their total sentence awarded. Further it is submitted that it has been 4 decades to the said occurrence and the appellants are at an advanced age and therefore it would be viable for the Court to uphold the judgment of the trial court and modify the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by them.

10. Learned AGA on the other hand submitted that the nature of injuries indicate an attempt to commit murder. It was further submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses is consistent and credible and the sentence awarded is commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 20.04.1985. As mentioned earlier, the appellants have already undergone a period of 2 months imprisonment of their total sentence. Further, the testimonies of the eye witnesses are credible along with other evidences available on record. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial court.

12. However, keeping the accused appellants in jail after a lapse of nearly 40 years, in consideration of the advanced age of the appellants, the same would be a futile exercise. Therefore, this court is of the view that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to accused appellants of 2 and a half years is hereby modified to the period already undergone by the appellants.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the sentence awarded by the trial court. The sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the appellants. So far as the findings recorded by the learned trial court convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned, the said findings and order of conviction are upheld, and the appeal to that extent is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

14. The Trial Court's record shall be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment.

15. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

16. The remuneration to Mohd. Asif, amicus curiae would be given as per rules, terms of the Court.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 7, 2026

Ujjawal