State Of U.P vs Siya Ram & Anr

O R D E R

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."

-2-

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/-

-3- 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.