Krishan alias Budh Ram vs State of Haryana

Rajan Gupta, J.—The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25th April, 2000 and order of sentence dated 28th April, 2000, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of the offence u/s 307 IPC and 25 of Arms Act. He was accordingly convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and further R.I. for six month u/s 25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. He has submitted that the appellant is a poor person and only bread winner of his family.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the appellant is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.

Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus:

On 8th August, 1997 on receiving a ruqa from Civil Hospital, Hisar, ASI Dharampal went there and recorded statement of Mange Ram who stated that on 8th August, 1997 at about 6.00 A.M., he alongwith his brother Hanuman was going to ease himself and when they reached near temple of Mai Rani, Naresh met them. When they were talking with him, Budh Ram alias Krishan (appellant herein) came there and inflicted a Daranti blow which was snatched by him and thereafter he threw the same away. Co-accused Lal Chand also came there armed with a pistol and the appellant took the pistol from Lal Chand and fired a shot upon the head of the complainant. The pellets hit his eyes and face, due to which complainant became unconscious. Hanuman and Naresh ran away from the spot on hearing the gun shot and his maternal uncle Bihari Lal got him admitted in the hospital. The appellant fired the shot with intention to kill the complainant. Since people gathered there after hearing the gunshot, so the appellant ran away from the spot. There was a dispute between the complainant and Lal Chand about 7/8 months back and he alongwith Hanuman and Naresh were challaned which was the motive behind the occurrence. On this statement, FIR was recorded. Accused/appellant was arrested. The pistol was recovered from the appellant regarding which separate FIR No.915 dated 15.8.1997 was registered. Accused Lal Chand was placed in column No.2. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was submitted in the court.

Finding a prima facie case, the appellant was charged u/s 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and co-accused Lal Chand was charged u/s 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, the accused did not examine any witness.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the charge u/s 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as already indicated above. However, co-accused Lal Chand was acquitted by the learned trial court.

On a perusal of the judgment and record of the court below, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the appellant guilty of the charge framed against him. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act is, thus, affirmed.

Even counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant is a poor person and sole bread winner of his family and has already faced the agony of protracted trial for many years.

As per the custody certificates which is already on record, appellant Krishan alias Budh Ram has undergone about three years of his substantive sentence. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly.

The fine, if not deposited already, be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the appellant shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated herein above, the appeal stands dismissed.