Vishnu vs State Of U.P.

Govt. Advocate, Azmi Yousuf, Kuldeep Kumar Awasthi, Savita Tiwari, Suresh Chandra Srivastava

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kanaujia, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Sudha Sharma, the learned AGA for the State U.P.

2. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant had challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Sessions Trial No. 307/2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 803/2008, under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Phardhan, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the appellant Vishnu was found guilty under Section 307 and 506 IPC and was sentenced to undergo five years and six rigorous imprisonment along with Rs.500/- as fine. It is recorded in the order of sentence that on behalf of the accused-appellant, it was submitted that he is a poor labourer by profession, there is no other person in his family to take care of the family members and that this was his first offence.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that the appellant- Vishnu came to the door of the complainant's house and started demanding money from her husband. When the complainant's husband declined, the applicant fired a shot with a pistol The complainant's mother-in-law came there hearing the commotion and the bullet hit her in the abdomen. The appellant's son Umesh also came there carrying a pistol and he also fired a shot. Several persons gathered there hearing the sound of gunshots. The accused persons went away while threatening them. The complaint's husband got frightened and ran away. The complainant's mother-in-law was admitted to the District Hospital by one Sarvesh son of Mewalal. The complainant gave this information to the police on the following day i.e. on 21.07.2008, upon which an FIR bearing Case Crime No.803 of 2008 under Sections 307 and 506 IPC was filed against the appellant and his son- Umesh.

4. The complainant was examined as PW-1 and she reiterated the FIR version. She stated that the appellant had demanded money from her husband for consuming liquor. Her husband declined. The appellant fired a shot. The complainant's mother-in-law moved forward and got injured by the gunshot. The appellant's son Umesh also fired a shot which did not hit any person. The complainant took her mother-in-law to the police station along with her husband's elder brother Sarvesh. She gave a complaint to the police and thereafter, she took her mother-in-law to the government hospital and got her treated.

5. The complaint's mother-in-law Smt. Munni Devi was examined as PW-2. She stated that the Appellant was already in an inebriated condition and he was demanding money from her son for consuming liquor. Her son denied it. Both of them started indulgin in some talks. Then the appellant fired a shot which did not hit anyone. Upon hearing the sound of the gunshot, PW-2 reached the spot. The appellant fired the second shot towards her son but as she came in between, the bullet hit her below the belly button. The appellant's son Umesh also reached there and he also fired a shot but it did not hit anyone. Her granddaughter and daughter-in-law took her to Leela Kuwa and thereafter they took her to the hospital. Her daughter-in-law lodged a report in the police station on the following day.

6. The complaint's husband- Shravan Kumar was examined as PW-5 and he reiterated the version of her mother.

7. The Emergency Medical Officer, who had conducted the medico-legal examination of the victim, was examined as PW-3. He stated that the victim had suffered a gunshot injury in her abdomen. The injury could have been fatal.

8. The radiologist was examined as PW-4 and he stated that a bullet was observed in the X-ray examination.

9. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 307 and 506 IPC, and his son Umesh was convicted for the offence under section 506 IPC. The appellant's son- Umesh was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 IPC and the appellant was sentenced to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and pay Rs.500/- as a fine for the offence under Section 307 IPC, and to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the validity of the order of conviction and he confined his submission for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant in custody.

11. the learned A.G.A. has produced a report submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail, Kheri, stating that the appellant has spent 01 month and 01 day in custody.

12. In V.K. Verma v. CBI: (2014) 3 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

7. In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent.

8. The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence. As we have noted above, the FIR was registered by CBI in 1984. The matter came before the Sessions Court only in 1994. The Sessions Court took almost ten years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty amount.

9. In Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1980) 2 SCC 282 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 426] , the commission of offence of theft was committed in 1971 and the judgment of this Court was delivered in 1980. The conviction was under Section 411 IPC. This Court having regard to the purpose of punishment and "the long protracted litigation", reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the convict.

10. In Sharvan Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1985) 3 SCC 658 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 437] , the commission of offence was in 1968 and the judgment was delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litigation process was one of the factors taken into consideration by this Court in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

12. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardiovascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, would it not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction."

(Emphasis added)

13. In K. Pounammal v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1784, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to numerous precedents on the question of reduction of sentence and held that: -

"6. The conviction and sentence have their respective realms. While the conviction would be recorded on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court which would establish the implication of the accused in the offence, the guilty person or the convicted when to be awarded a sentence, a host of factors would operate to govern.

6.1. In determining the final sentence and the nature thereof, variety of factors that would operate would include the intervening time between the commission of offence and the actual award of the sentence, age of the accused, the stress which he or she might have suffered because of passage of time during each case has remained pending and undecided, the family circumstance and such other factors, without becoming exhaustive.

7. The process of sentencing by the courts is guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative. Each school of thought has its own object and purpose to explain awarding of sentence and its utility. Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence. Reformation is something always considered progressive. When there are mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reducing of the sentence. The focus would be on the crime, and not on the criminal. The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity, while selecting the sentence.

8. In light of the above principles guiding the sentencing process, the submission of learned advocate for the appellant could be countenanced that in the case on hand the incident had taken place on 23.09.2002. Since then, more than two decades have passed by. The appellant underwent imprisonment for 31 days. The appellant is a widow lady. It was stated that she is now 75 years of age. The appellant has been staying alone, the husband having died, stated her learned counsel. She belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life negotiating all hardships.

9. The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and who has appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress. In the present-day system of administration of justice, in which proceedings have often go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony.

10. The aspects in the present case as highlighted above that the incident had occurred more than 22 years ago and that the age of the widow appellant is 75 years who stays alone, the Court finds it appropriate that she may not be made to undergo the imprisonment again. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence.

10.1. The sentence awarded to the appellant is accordingly reduced to the actual undergone. At the same time the imposition of fine is required to be increased. The appellant shall be liable to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- over and above originally imposed. The amount of fine shall be paid on or before 10th September, 2025."

(Emphasis added)

14. In the present case, the offence in question was committed on 20.07.2008 i.e. about 18 years ago, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by means of an order dated 02.11.2011 i.e. about 14 years ago, the appellant is not reported to have committed any other offence during this period and his conduct has remained satisfactory. Meanwhile he has attained an advanced age of 70 years. Sending the appellant to jail to serve the remaining sentence after 18 years since commission of the offence, while he is 70 years of age, will not serve any purpose or reformation or deterence. Moreover, it will at this age and stage, it be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the facts mentioned above make out a reason for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by upholding the conviction but by modifying the sentence so as to reduce the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant in custody, i.e. 01 month and 01 day and enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of thirty days from today.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

May 7, 2026

-Amit K-