IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CRIMINAL APPEAL No.402 of 2009           (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.5194 of 2008)

Salig Ram Sharma .....Appellant(s)

    Versus

State of M.P. .....Respondent(s)

                            O R D E R        Leave granted.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  4th  

October, 2007 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur.  By  

the impugned order the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant for  

offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal  

Code as also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of  two years,  

awarded by the Trial Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the  appellant that the prosecution  

has failed to explain the delay in lodging of FIR and there are discrepancies in the  

evidence of the prosecution witnesses, whose testimony has been relied upon by  

the Courts below.  It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the  

case, against the appellant and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted.  Learned  

counsel also stated that the appellant has already undergone more than one year  

of sentence.  It is pleaded

...2/-

:2:

that a lenient  view may be taken.  Learned counsel for the State on the other

hand, supported the decisions of the lower courts.

Having gone through the evidence on record, we are of the view that  

there is no ground to set aside the conviction of the appellant.  However,  bearing  

in mind the circumstances under which the incident had taken place, we are of  

the view that the interest of justice would be subserved if,  while sustaining the  

conviction of the appellant, the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already  

undergone.  We order  accordingly.   

Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.  

The appellant shall be released forthwith unless he is required to be in custody in  

connection with any other case.

....................J.        [ D.K. JAIN ]   

                                ....................J.                                                 [  R.M.  

LODHA ]        NEW DELHI,      FEBRUARY 27, 2009.