A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Chhotey Lal) in 1984 challenging his conviction by a Sessions Court in Pilibhit for an assault that took place in October 1982.

The appeal filed by the co-appellant (Roshan Lal) stood abated as he died during the pendency of the proceedings in 2017.

As per the prosecution's case, on October 30, 1982, the first informant (Viqaruddin) and his father (Gayasuddin) had gone to their agricultural field and found the accused persons' cattle grazing on their mustard (laahi) crop.

When they protested, the accused attacked them. Roshan Lal allegedly used a lathi, Chhotey Lal used a spear, and a third co-accused (Lala Ram) allegedly used a spade. The victims sustained simple injuries from blunt and sharp-edged weapons.

In August 1984, the trial court acquitted Lala Ram, giving him the benefit of doubt, but convicted Roshan Lal and Chhotey Lal under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment for the primary offence.

Taking into account the evidence on record, Justice Sanjiv Kumar noted that from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, the prosecution had proved its case that the surviving appellant, along with other accused, assaulted the first informant and his father.

The bench also noted that since it was a sudden fight, without any previous enmity or premeditation and there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the injured.

“The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object as well as sharp edged weapon, therefore, the act of the appellant falls under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC, because all the accused jointly attacked the first informant and his father which goes to show that they shared pre-arranged plan and acted in furtherance of their common intention,” the bench observed.

However, when considering the quantum of punishment, the Court took a compassionate view of the appellant's current physical state and the extraordinary delay in disposal of the appeal.

The Court observed:

“The appellant is currently 92 years old, infirm person and the offence is minor in nature. The appellant has already served about one month in jail, therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if he is sentenced to the term already undergone and served by him in prison”.

Consequently, while confirming Chhotey Lal's conviction under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC, the High Court allowed the appeal in part by modifying his sentence to the time he had already spent in custody.

Case title - Roshanlal and others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444

Click here to read/download Judgment