ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.01.1986 passed by Sri S. B. Vaish, Addl. Sessions Judge, Karvi District Banda in S.T. No. 12 and 13 of 1985, whereby all the accused -appellant have been convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/ - each, u/s 323/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 -months' RI and fine of Rs. 100/ - and two years' RI and fine of Rs. 200/ - for the offence punishable u/s 325/149 IPC. However, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was given accused -appellant no. 4, as he was aged about 20 -years on the date of incident. The sentences of all other accused -appellants was directed to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine different period of additional imprisonment was awarded.
(2.) ON 30.01.2015 during the course of argument, the Court has passed following order: - "Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda after enquiry has reported that appellants no. 2 and 6 have died, therefore, their appeal abates. It has been further reported by the police as well that pursuant to order to the Court dated 17.10.2014, appellant no. 3 -Narvada is in jail since 6.11.2014 and appellants no. 4 and 5 are in judicial custody since 9.12.2014. Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over the certified copy of the orders dated 6.11.2014 and 9.12.2014 passed by the CJM, Banda, which is taken on record. Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the appellants submits that he does not intend to press this appeal on merit i.e. the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 147, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC is not being challenged. It has been further contended that the incident is dated 6.3.1984 and the appeal is pending since 1986. Therefore, the Court may consider to take lenient view in the matter of sentence. It has been further contended that appellant no. 4 -Nankoo was extended benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by the trial Court."
(3.) IN order to appreciate the argument regarding quantum of sentence, it would be necessary to examine facts of the case and evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the charges. On 6.3.1984 at about 9.45 p.m. Complainant Mohan Lal Dwivedi r/o Amarpur P. S. Raipura District Banda lodged a written report against all the accused -appellants alleging that at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day his brother Shiv Bhawan was assaulted by accused Bhutwa, Narvada, Chandrika, and Nankoo with lathis on the exhortation of accused Nanbud and Gidwa, while he was returning home from the field. On hearing noise, the complainant reached at the spot, but he was also given two lathi blows. They were saved by Nanthu s/o Chhotey Lal Garg. The report was registered at case crime no., 20 -A/84 u/s 147, 323 IPC. Injured Shiv Bhawan was medically examined on 7.3.1984 at 9.00 a.m. and the doctor found four lacerated wounds and three contusions on different parts of his body including head. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet for the offence punishable u/s 147/323 IPC. However, the complaint filed a private complainant for taking cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 307/325/323/147/149 and 506 IPC and the learned Magistrate after enquiry under Chapter XV Cr. P. C. found that prima facie commission of offence punishable u/s 307/325, 323,/147 IPC is made out and hence he committed the complaint case also to the Court of Session, where both the cases were tried together. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence punishable u/s 147, 307/149 and 325/149 IPC.;