Allahabad HC Modifies Sentence of Senior Citizens After Four Decades in Attempt-to-Murder Case.

The Allahabad High Court reduced the sentence of two octogenarians from five years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, underscoring the reformative approach of Indian criminal law and the effect of a long-standing compromise between the parties.

A single-judge bench of Justice Avnish Saxena adjudicated the appeal filed by the accused, who were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court navigated through a legal journey spanning over 45 years, ultimately deciding that sending the elderly appellants back to jail would serve no useful purpose after nearly four decades since the incident.

Compromise and Long Pendency Influence Judicial Discretion

The Court noted that although the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is generally non-compoundable, the parties had reached a compromise as early as 1992. The informant had filed an affidavit stating that the relations between the parties had become "sweet and tension-free." The High Court had previously directed the verification of this compromise by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, which was confirmed in 1993.

While the Code Of Criminal Procedure governs the procedure, the Court exercised its judicial discretion in sentencing. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The incident occurred 45 years back. There is nothing on record to show that the accused appellants were habitual criminals. Sending the appellants to jail will not serve the purpose of basic principles of the law of punishment, which in India is not corporeal in nature but reformative in its form."

Adopting the Reformative Approach for Elderly Convicts

The Court drew strength from several precedents where the Supreme Court reduced sentences due to the advanced age of the accused and the lapse of time. Relying on Labh Singh v. State of Haryana ( "2012 LawSuit (SC) 255": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 615), the bench observed that sending elderly persons to jail after decades is often not justified. Similarly, the Court referenced State of U.P. v. Siyaram and George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet to highlight that the passage of time is a critical factor in determining the adequacy of a custodial sentence.

Further, the Court balanced the need for proportionate punishment with the reality of the appellants' current age (approximately 80 years). It noted the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bablu and Abdul Waheed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which mandate that sentences must be just and proportionate to the gravity of the offence, while avoiding undue sympathy. In this context, the Court found that the initial sentence was adequate in 1985, but the current circumstances necessitated a modification.

Final Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has the following directions:

"19.1. The sentence awarded to Rajendra Chauhan son of Bhanu Pratap Chauhan and Ram Pyare Lal son of Thakuri r/o Village Mulanapur, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai (old P.S. Gambhirpur), District- Azamgarh is reduced to the period already undergone by them in S.T. No. 201 of 1985 (State Vs. Rajendra Chauhan and another), under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

20. The appeal is therefore partly allowed on the point of sentence, which is modified.

21. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 22. Record be returned forthwith as per Rules."

Background:

The case originated from an FIR lodged on May 24, 1981, at P.S. Gambhirpur, Azamgarh. The prosecution alleged that the appellants apprehended the informant, Saghir Ahmad, and opened fire at him, causing gunshot injuries. The Trial Court, on September 5, 1985, convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

During the pendency of the appeal, a cross-version of the facts was highlighted, and a compromise was verified between the informant and the accused. The appellants argued that as senior citizens of 80 years, they should not be returned to incarceration for a matter that is 45 years old. The Court, while acknowledging the guilt established during the trial, converted the punishment to the period already served, aligning with the reformative justice system.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2360 of 1985
Case Title: Rajendra Chauhan And Another Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mayank Krishna S Chandel, P.N. Misra, Ram Niwas Singh, Vinod Kumar Chandel
For the Respondent(s): A.G.A., Ms. Seema Shukla, Ram Janam Shahi

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 206