The Allahabad High Court on Monday upheld the conviction but reduced the jail term of a former police constable in connection with a 1984 attempt-to-murder case from 6 years to 4 years while also directing that the victim be paid Rs. 35,000/- as compensation out of an enhanced fine of Rs. 40,000/- imposed on the convict.

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai modified the sentence considering the 41-year pendency of the appeal without the fault of the convict and the fact that he is now over 60 years old.

However, finding that the evidence on record fully established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, the bench upheld his conviction under Section 307 IPC.

The single judge thus partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by Bux Ullah alias Burey Ali against the 1985 judgment of the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, convicting him for attempt to murder and sentencing him to 6 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of 600.

Case in brief

According to the prosecution's case, the appellant (Bux Ullah), who was then serving as a police constable at Bareilly, left his headquarters without leave or permission and came to his hometown of Bisalpur.

On August 21 1984, the appellant, armed with a knife, attacked his spiritual preceptor (Peer Sayeed Ayub Ali), accusing him of defaming him in connection with a tape recorder theft allegation. The victim was chased as he attempted to flee towards a hospital and was stabbed repeatedly.

The trial court convicted the appellant in September 1985 after relying on the testimony of the injured witness, corroborating eyewitnesses, and the supporting medical evidence. The Trial Court also considered that the FIR was lodged promptly and that the bloodstained knife and police uniform were recovered.

Before the High Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the eyewitnesses being disciples and close associates of the injured are partisan and interested.

It was also pleaded that there existed doubts as to the exact time and place of occurrence on account of the absence of blood marks at the point where the assault is alleged to have first commenced.

Alternatively, it was argued that the sentence imposed is excessive having regard to the appellant's advanced age and the inordinately protracted pendency of the appeal.

High Court's observations

Rejecting the challenge to the conviction on the merits, the Court found no infirmity in the findings of the trial court. Referring to the injured witness, it observed:

"The testimony of the injuredis that of a natural witness who was himself the victim of the assault and his version is fully corroborated by the two independent eyewitnesseswho were present at the spot and whose presence was natural in the circumstances they being companions of the injured on the way to the Mazar We find no material contradiction of any consequence in the statement of the injured which would render his testimony unreliable", the bench observed

The Court further took into account the medical evidence, noting that the victim had suffered 10 incised wounds and 1 scratch injury, including a life-threatening abdominal wound with protrusion of intestines.

It observed

"The sheer number distribution and depth of the injuries are consistent only with a sustained and determined assault of the nature described by the injured and the eyewitnesses involving two distinct episodes of assault at two spots and are wholly inconsistent with the appellants defence of denial", the bench remarked.

The Court added that the recovery of the bloodstained knife and the bloodstained police uniform from the appellant lend further and telling corroboration to the prosecution case.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC. However, on the issue of sentence, the Court found the appellant's present age and the extraordinary delay in disposal of the appeal to be relevant mitigating circumstances.

The Bench observed thus:

"It is well settled that while the gravity of the offence and the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted are weighty considerations in determining the appropriate sentence the advanced age of the accused and inordinate unexplained delay in the conclusion of criminal proceedings for which the accused is not responsible are also relevant and mitigating circumstances that a court exercising appellate jurisdiction is entitled and indeed obliged to take into account while moulding the sentence consistently with the interests of justice".

Against this backdrop, the Court reduced the sentence from 6 years rigorous imprisonment to 4 years.

It simultaneously enhanced the fine to 40000 and directed that 35000 be paid to the injured or, if he had since died, to his legal heirs by way of compensation under Section 357 CrPC.

The appellant, who is on bail, has been directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.

The Court, however, clarified that he shall be entitled to setoff under Section 428 CrPC for the period, if any, already undergone by him as an undertrial and in pursuance of the sentence awarded by the trial court.

Case title - Bux Ullah Alias Burey Ali vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477

Click Here To Read/Downoad Judgment