1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIN

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1022     OF 2010       [Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.5432 of 2009]

 HARI RAM                                          Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                              Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

order dated 27th  April, 2009, passed by the Uttarakhand High  

Court in Crl.Appeal No.376 of 2004, dismissing the same and  

confirming the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2004,  

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions  

Trial No.106 of 2001, convicting the appellant under Section  

324 IPC and sentencing him to two year's rigorous imprisonment  

and fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to  

undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment.

2

3. Having  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  respective  

parties and having considered the facts involved, what emerges  

is that an  incident  had taken place on 31st December, 2000,  

at about 9.30 p.m. at Hotel Connaught Castle involving PW15,  

Manoj Chhabra, who was being chased by a mob.  At the request  

of Manoj Chhabra's wife, the appellant, along with some other  

employees of the Hotel, brought Manoj Chhabra into the Hotel,  

but the incident continued and in order to prevent the mob  

from attacking Manoj Chhabra, the appellant is said to have  

fired from his gun.   The appellant incidentally was a Gun-man  

of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakrata, Mussoorie.

4. Having regard to the nature of the incident and the  

circumstances in which the firing  took place, we are of the  

view that the quantum of sentence, as imposed on the appellant  

may be reduced, while maintaining the order of conviction.

5. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part and while  

maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 324  

IPC,  we  reduce  the  sentence  from  two  years  to  one  year's  

rigorous imprisonment.

3

6. As far as the fine is concerned, we do not see any  

reason to interfere with the same.  

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

..................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

..................J. (T.S. THAKUR)

..................J. (C.K. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI, May 06, 2010.