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  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.