Allahabad High Court
Shyam Singh And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 1 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:110146
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2217 of 1982
Shyam Singh And Anr.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
R.S. Yadav, Sonu Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.1982, in Sessions Trial No.528 of 1979, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 392 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. Heard Sri Sonu Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The informant Ram Kishor, son of Hemkaran, Resident of Village Kaluwa Police Station- Jawa lodged the FIR on 25.08.1979, stating that he along with Balvir and Bhojraj used to come daily from village Kaluwa Police Station- Jawa to Aligarh for bringing ice. On the date of occurrence at about 4.00 to 4.38 a.m., all three persons proceeded from village Kaluwa towards Aligarh for purchasing ice. Each riding his own bicycle. At about 5.00 a.m., when they reached the turn of the G.T. Road, four miscreants brandishing country-made pistols, intercepted them and snatched away their bicycles.
4. When the miscreants attempted to flee with the bicycles, the informant and his companions chased them, while raising alarm by shouting 'Chor Chor'. Upon hearing the alarm, Ram Kishor, Chetan Swaroop, Rajendra Prasad, Mahendra Pratap, Babu Lal Harijan and Rajpal residents of village Bhartari arrived there carrying lathis. They surrounded three of miscreants near village Bhartari assaulted them with lathis and succeeded in apprehending them along with the looted bicycles. The apprehended persons disclosed their names as Suleman son of Karim Baksh, Shyam Singh son of Malkhan Khatik and Suresh son of Ram Swaroop Vaishya. Thereafter, their fourth accomplice managed to escape along with the bicycles belonging to Balvir.
5. The informant and other villagers stated that they had clearly seen the fleeing miscreant in the light and could identify him if produced before them. It was further stated that Balvir's bicycle had been taken on rent from Khichchoo Baniya.
6. The miscreants were also alleged to have committed theft of bicycles belonging to other villagers. The apprehended accused disclosed the name of their absconding associates as Nabba Aisipala.
7. On the basis of the written report, submitted by the informant, the police registered the FIR and made the necessary General Diary entry. The apprehended accused persons who had been brought to the police station by the informant and the villagers were taken into police custody. Investigation of the case commenced and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons.
8. Charges were framed for offences under Section 392, 397 and 411 I.P.C., accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Prosecution has examined P.W.-1 Ram Kishor, the complainant, P.W.-2 Bhojraj, P.W.-3 Head Constable Tara Singh, P.W.-4 Balvir, P.W.-5 Rajpal, P.W.-6 Chaitanya Swaroop, and P.W.-7 Rajendra Prasad. Documentary evidences are also on record.
10. In their statements, recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused Suresh Singh and Shyam Singh denied having committed the offence. Accused Suresh stated that the police had apprehended from his house and falsely implicated him in the present case and that no bicycle robbery had taken place at his instance.
11. Accused Shyam Singh stated that he used to ply a rikshaw in Aligarh and when he demanded his fare from the Investigating Officer the latter falsely implicated him in the present case.
12. The trial court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record found the accused persons, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment.
13. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court are against the weight of evidence on record. The judgment and order awarding sentence of imprisonment is based on conjunctures and surmises and the sentence awarded is too severe.
14. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the evidence available on record was re-appreciated. From the perusal of the evidence, it is evident that the informant Ram Kishor, P.W.-1 supported the prosecution version and stated that the miscreants had snatched the bicycles after threatening him and his companions with country-made pistols. He further stated that with the help of villagers three miscreants were apprehended at the spot whereas the fourth miscreant fled away with the bicycles of Balvir.
15. When asked before the Court from P.W.-1, to identify the accused persons the witness stated that a considerable period had elapsed and, therefore, he was unable to identify the miscreants. However, he identified his signature on the written report, lodged at the police station, which was proved as Ext. Ka-1. He further stated that the present accused persons Shyam Singh and Suresh were the same persons from whom his and Bhojraj's bicycles had been recovered.
16. P.W.-2 Bhojraj also supported the prosecution case and stated that three miscreants had been apprehended at the spot, whereas the fourth miscreant escaped with Balvir's bicycles. His bicycle was subsequently, returned to him at the police station after completion of necessary formalities. He identified his signatures on the supurdaginama, which was proved as Ext. Ka-2. He further stated that the miscreant who was armed with a country-made pistol had not fired from the weapon, and that the same person had fled away with Balvir's bicycle. He also stated that no weapon was recovered from the miscreants apprehended at the spot. The witness P.W.-2 admitted that the accused persons had been taken to police station Bhartari and handed over to the police authorities there.
17. P.W.-3 Head Constable Tara Singh stated that on 25.08.1979, the informant Ram Kishor came to the police station with a written report, on the basis whereof the first information report, Ext. Ka-3 was registered and the relevant G.D. entries Ext. Ka-4 was prepared. He further stated that the informant had brought three bicycles and three accused persons to the police station, who were thereafter confined in the lock-up. The bicycles were released in favour of Ram Kishor and Bhojraj on supurdagi, and the supurdaginama Ext. Ka-2 was available on record, duly signed by them.
18. P.W.-4 Balvir also deposed that on the date of occurrence, the accused persons present before the Court, namely Shyam Singh and Suresh along with there two associates, had snatched his bicycle. One of their associates fled away with his bicycles, whereas the bicycles belonging to Ram Kishor and Bhojraj were recovered at the spot.
19. P.W.-5 Rajpal stated that on the date of occurrence, near village Bhartari, where the road diverges towards village Kalva three persons raised an alarm that their bicycles had been snatched. He already knew Ram Kishor from before , while the other two persons were also present there. Upon hearing the alarm, he along with other witnesses namely Mahendra, Ram Kishor, Chaitanya Swaroop and several villagers reached the spot and apprehended Suleman and his associates involved in the robbery. The fourth person fled away with a bicycle and could not be apprehended. The stolen bicycles were recovered from the apprehended miscreants and thereafter the informant lodged the report at the police station.
20. P.W.-6 Chaitanya Swaroop also stated that upon hearing the alarm, he reached the place of occurrence and with the assistance of other villagers, apprehended three miscreants at the spot and recovered the stolen bicycles from them. He further stated that the accused persons and the bicycles were taken to the police station and produced there, whereafter, the accused were taken into custody and the bicycles were returned to Ram Kishor and Bhojraj. He also stated that the police personnel had arrived in a truck and bicycles were also transported in the same truck.
21. P.W.-7 Rajendra Prasad also deposed regarding the occurrence and stated that upon hearing cries of 'Chor Chor', he reached the place of occurrence and apprehended the miscreants with the assistance of other villagers. He further stated that the miscreants were fleeing on foot while carrying the bicycles in their hands.
22. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the entire prosecution evidence available on record, it is evident that the accused persons were apprehended at the spot by the informant and the prosecution witnesses while committing robbery of the bicycles and the robbed bicycles were recovered from their possession. The prosecution witness consistently supported the prosecution case in their respective testimonies and duly proved the occurrence.
23. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the use of deadly weapon or violence so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 397 of I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted the accused persons of the said charge. However, the learned trial court found the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C. and convicted them accordingly.
24. At the appellate stage, this Court also finds it relevant to consider that the present appeal has remained pending since the year 1982 and almost 44 years have elapsed since the incident. The accused persons do not have any criminal antecedents and no evidence regarding any previous conviction has been brought on record. The accused persons have faced the agony of criminal proceedings for a considerably long period of time.
25. It has further come on record that after their conviction dated 31.08.1982, the accused persons were granted bail by this Court on 13.09.1982; thus the accused persons remained in jail for approximately 13 days after conviction. They were also detained in jail for some time during trial of the case. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice could be adequately met by sentencing the accused persons to the period already undergone by them in jail along with imposition of fine.
26. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction, recorded by the learned trial court under Section 392 of I.P.C., the sentence awarded by the trial court is modified. The accused persons are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in custody along with a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo 15 days of further imprisonment.
27. The appeal is accordingly, partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
28. Appellants are directed to deposit the amount of fine within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
29. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be transmitted to the learned trial court for compliance.
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) May 1, 2026 P. Pandey