REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 792 OF 2003
STATE OF U.P.
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
SIYA RAM & ANR.
.. RESPONDENT(S)
O
RDER
Three persons were sent for trial for an offence
punishable under Section 307 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC.
Net Ram was acquitted by the Trial Court and on an appeal
taken by the other two accused Siyaram and Jiya Lal, the
conviction of Jiya Lal was maintained whereas Siyaram was
acquitted on the ground that no injury had been caused by
the shot allegedly fired by him. While dealing with Jiya
Lal's case the High Court further observed:
“However, appeal by the appellant Jiya Lal is
dismissed. The conviction order against him is also
maintained. Looking however to the facts and circumstances
that the occurrence had taken place as back as in the year
1988 and the appellant Jiya Lal has now become an aged
person and there is nothing on record to show that he is
either habitual offender or previous convict, he also
deserves lenient view.
Considering all facts and circumstances of the case
as well as age, character and other antecedents of the
appellant Jiya Lal, I find that it will meet the ends of
justice if the sentence awarded to the appellant Jiya Lal
is modified and reduced.”
The High Court accordingly reduced the sentence to
that already undergone but imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-
and in default of payment of fine R.I. for a period of 2
years.
This appeal has been filed at the instance of the
State of Uttar Pradesh. It has been contended by Mr.
Ratnakar Das, the learned senior counsel for the State
that the finding of the High Court acquitting Siyaram was
not justified as he had been tried for the offence under
Sec.307/34 and merely because the shot fired by him had not
hit the intended victim, was not a valid ground for
acquittal. In so far as Jiya Lal is concerned Mr. Das has
submitted that the sentence had been drastically reduced
which was not justified in the circumstances.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the record. We are not inclined to
interfere in the acquittal of Siya Ram for the reasons
recorded by the High Court, as the propensity to implicate
falsely is not uncommon in India. We however do agree with
Mr. Das that the reduction in the sentence in case of Jiya
Lal to already undergone was somewhat inadequate but as
prosecution had been initiated in the year 1988, we are not
inclined to interfere on the term of imprisonment. We,
however, direct that the fine be increased to Rs.25,000/-
in all and in default of payment of fine the appellant Jiya
Lal shall undergo 2 years R.I. The fine will be paid
within three months from now to Banshi Lal, the injured and
if Banshi Lal is not available, to his legal
representatives.
The appeal is accordingly partly allowed in the
above terms.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
.................J.
(C.K. PRASAD)
New Delhi,
August 5, 2010.