DATE: 27.06.2026
COURT: High Court of Allahabad
BENCH: Justice Santosh Rai
FACTS:
The appellant Bux
Ullah alias Burey Ali, a police constable posted at Bareilly, left his
headquarters without permission on 21 August 1984 while wearing his uniform and
went to his hometown Bisalpur. At about 6.45 a.m. that day, the injured Sayeed
Ayub Ali, a religious peer of the appellant, was proceeding to offer prayers at
a Mazar along with his disciples Liyaqat Ali Khan, Israr Hussain and Babu. The
appellant intercepted them in front of Dr Lokesh Chand’s clinic in Mohalla
Habib Ullah Khan Janubi, protested that the injured had defamed him over an
alleged tape-recorder theft, and immediately inflicted multiple knife blows.
When the injured fled toward the hospital along the main road, the appellant
chased him, intercepted him again near the hospital, and inflicted further
knife wounds that caused him to fall. The companions could not apprehend the
appellant, who escaped toward his house.
A written report was
lodged at Bisalpur police station at 7.10 a.m. the same morning. The injured
was medically examined at 7.30 a.m. and found to have ten distinct incised
wounds and one linear scratch distributed over the scalp, face, forearm, chest
and abdomen; one abdominal wound penetrated the cavity with protruding
intestines and mesenteric bleeding, requiring referral for exploratory surgery.
Investigation led to the appellant’s arrest near Mira Kasimpur railway gate
while still in uniform; a blood-stained knife and his blood-stained uniform
were recovered from him. Charge-sheet was filed on 23 August 1984. At trial the
injured and two eye-witnesses consistently described the two successive
assaults; medical evidence corroborated the injuries; and the trial court
convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC, sentencing him to six years’
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 600.
ISSUES:
The principal issues
before the High Court were whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was
sustainable in light of the alleged partisan character and antecedents of the
eye-witnesses, the claimed discrepancies regarding the exact time and place of occurrence
arising from the absence of blood marks at the first spot, the unsubstantiated
plea of unsoundness of mind, and, in the alternative, whether the sentence of
six years’ rigorous imprisonment required reduction having regard to the
appellant’s advanced age and the approximately forty-one-year pendency of the
appeal for which he was not responsible.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court partly
allowed the appeal. It affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code as recorded by the trial court, but reduced the
sentence from six years’ rigorous imprisonment to four years’ rigorous imprisonment
and enhanced the fine to Rs 40,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in
default. Of the fine amount, Rs 35,000 was directed to be paid as compensation
to the injured or his legal heirs under Section 357 CrPC, the balance to the
State. The appellant was ordered to surrender within two weeks to serve the
remaining sentence, with entitlement to set-off under Section 428 CrPC, and
compliance directions were issued to the trial court and registry.
On a re-appreciation
of the entire evidence the Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s
finding of guilt. The testimony of the injured, a natural witness, was fully
corroborated by two independent eye-witnesses whose presence was natural as
companions on the way to the Mazar; no material contradiction of consequence
appeared in their accounts. Suggestions that the witnesses had chequered
antecedents did not, without more, warrant rejection of otherwise cogent and
consistent testimony that received independent and unimpeachable support from
the medical evidence. That evidence disclosed ten distinct incised wounds and
one scratch injury spread across vital parts of the body, several extending to
the fascia and one penetrating the abdominal cavity with intestinal protrusion
and mesenteric bleeding, consistent only with a sustained and determined
assault at two successive spots and wholly inconsistent with a defence of
complete denial. The prompt lodging of the FIR within twenty-five minutes, the
recovery of the blood-stained knife and police uniform from the appellant, and
the site-plan further fortified the prosecution case. Absence of blood marks at
the first spot on a busy public thoroughfare was attributable to movement of
passers-by and vehicles and did not dislodge the ocular evidence. The plea of
unsoundness of mind remained unsupported by any medical or other credible
material and had not been raised at the earliest opportunity, and was therefore
rejected. Consequently the conviction under Section 307 IPC was upheld and
confirmed.
Turning to the quantum
of sentence, the Court noted that the gravity of the offence and the
life-threatening nature of the injuries remained weighty considerations. At the
same time it recognised that the appellant’s present age of over sixty years
and the inordinate, unexplained delay of approximately forty-one years in the
disposal of the appeal, for which no fault lay with him, constituted relevant
mitigating circumstances that an appellate court is obliged to take into
account while moulding the sentence consistently with the interests of justice.
Balancing these factors against the serious injuries inflicted, the Court held
that while the conviction must stand, the original sentence of six years
required suitable modification. The term was accordingly reduced to four years’
rigorous imprisonment with an enhanced fine of Rs 40,000, the bulk of which was
directed to be paid as compensation to the injured or his heirs, thereby
achieving a proportionate response that neither ignored the gravity of the
crime nor disregarded the prolonged pendency and advanced age of the appellant.
ANALYSIS:
The High Court’s
affirmation of the conviction under Section 307 IPC rests on a classic
application of the principles governing appreciation of ocular and medical
evidence in attempt-to-murder cases. The consistent testimony of the injured
and two natural eye-witnesses, the prompt FIR lodged within twenty-five
minutes, the recovery of the blood-stained knife and uniform from the appellant
while still in police attire, and the medical record of ten incised wounds plus
one penetrating abdominal injury with intestinal protrusion together formed an
unbroken chain that left no room for reasonable doubt. Challenges based on the
alleged partisan character or antecedents of the witnesses, the absence of
blood marks on a busy thoroughfare, and an unsubstantiated plea of unsoundness
of mind were correctly rejected as either irrelevant or unsupported by
material. The decision reaffirms that once the prosecution establishes intent
coupled with overt acts capable of causing death, the actual result of the
injuries is secondary, and minor discrepancies or interestedness do not
dismantle an otherwise coherent and medically corroborated narrative.
On the question of
sentence the Court struck a careful balance between the gravity of a
determined, multi-blow assault by a uniformed policeman and the mitigating
realities of the appellant’s advanced age and the extraordinary forty-one-year
pendency of the appeal for which he bore no responsibility. By reducing the
term from six to four years while simultaneously enhancing the fine and
directing substantial compensation to the victim, the Court illustrated the
appellate obligation to mould punishment in the interests of justice without
diluting the deterrent message. The approach underscores that inordinate
systemic delay and the changed personal circumstances of an accused remain
legitimate considerations in sentencing, provided they do not override the need
for a proportionate response to a serious offence that endangered life.
info@adhwaitha.com