PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 04-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 386 : 2023 INSC 791
386
CASE DETAILS
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA
v.
THE STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2710 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Appellant convicted u/s. 307 IPC and 
sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment, whether the sentence 
imposed by the Trial Court and as upheld by the High Court is just and proper.
Sentence/sentencing – Trial Court convicted A-2 (appellant) u/s. 
307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment 
– Conviction and order of sentence of appellant conﬁ rmed by the High 
Court – Limited question before the Supreme Court regarding the 
quantum of sentence:
Held: It is a well-established principle that while imposing sentence, 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into 
consideration – 39 years have passed since the date of oﬀ ence and both the 
other accused persons have come to be acquitted – It is a matter of record 
that there was old enmity between the complainant and A1 relating to the 
piece of land where the oﬀ ence came to be committed, while pertinently, 
the appellant (A2) is the nephew of A1 – There are no criminal antecedents 
of the appellant that have been brought on record – Further, from the 
record, it cannot be said that the appellant acted in a premeditated manner 
– Therefore, in the interest of justice and in consideration of the above 
mentioned mitigating factors, this Court reduces the sentence imposed on 
the appellant-accused from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years of 
rigorous imprisonment. [Paras 21, 22, 23]
387
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 20 : [1973] 2 SCR 
541 – followed.
Mohammad Giassudin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287 : 
[1978] 1 SCR 153; Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 
6 SCC 466 : [2014 (4 ) SCR 1012 – relied on.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 537 : [2012] 
7 SCR 359; Purushottam Dashrath Borate & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 
(2015) 6 SCC 652 : [2015] 5 SCR 1112; Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh & Ors. 
(2016) 16 SCC 441 : [2015] 10 SCR 61; Vetrivel v. State represented by its 
Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 73; Paneer 
Selvam v. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2023 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.2710 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2019 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No.679 of 1987.
Appearances:
Vinod Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Dhirendra Kumar, 
Bijender Singh, Ms. Jyoti Tiwary, Mrs. Sanno Kumar, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Garvesh Kabra, Shantanu Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL J. 
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order 
dated 19.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF U.P.
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
in Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 1987, which conﬁ rmed the judgment and 
order dated 03.03.1987 passed by IInd Addl. District & Sessions Judge 
Varanasi (hereinafter “Trial Court”) vide which the present appellant, 
Pramod Kumar Mishra was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal 
Code (hereinafter “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous 
imprisonment. Co-accused Jawahar and Suresh were acquitted by the Trial 
Court.
3. This Court vide order dated 10.02.2023, had issued notice, limited 
to the question of sentence awarded to the appellant. Therefore, the question 
which arises before this Court is whether the sentence imposed by the Trial 
Court and as upheld by the High Court is just and proper?
4. The prosecution case emerging from the record, also as set out 
by the Courts below, is that on 12.08.1984, Kapil Deo Misir (hereafter 
“PW1”) was returning to his house at about 6:00 AM when he saw Pramod 
Kumar Mishra and other co-accused persons, destroying crops of arhar and 
junhari in his ﬁ eld. Seeing this, PW1 intervened, which led to all of these 
accused persons attacking him, armed with weapons i.e. lathis and ballam. 
This attack resulted in PW1 suﬀ ering injuries and becoming unconscious. 
Thereafter, FIR Case Crime No.67 of 1984 under Section 307 of IPC came 
to be registered on the same day at 7:30 AM by PW1 against
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.