State of Uttar Pradesh v. Siya Ram and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2010-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The Supreme Court upheld Siyaram’s acquittal, agreeing with the High Court’s reasons that the evidence did not justify overturning the acquittal. It did not disturb the term of imprisonment for Jiya Lal, but it increased the fine to Rs. 25,000 in total and directed that, on default of payment, RI for two years be served; the fine was to be paid within three months.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondents

Siya Ram
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ratnakar Dash
• Manoj Dwivedi
• Gunnam Venkateswara G Rao

Counsels for Respondents

• S.R. Singh
• H. Tyagi
• Avnish Singh
• Abhisth Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Uttar Pradesh (appellant) challenged two aspects of a Allahabad High Court decision: acquittal of Siyaram and the lenient reduction of Jiya Lal’s sentence in a case arising from an offence under IPC sections 307 read with 34, involving an incident in 1988. Net Ram was acquitted at trial; Siyaram and Jiya Lal were convicted on appeal, but the High Court dismissed Siyaram’s appeal (upholding his acquittal) and reduced Jiya Lal’s sentence to the period already undergone while imposing a Rs. 10,000 fine and RI for two years in default. The State argued that Siyaram’s acquittal was unsustainable since he faced the 307/34 charge and the absence of injury did not automatically negate liability; it urged that Jiya Lal’s sentence was unduly curtailed given the long pendency. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel, declined to interfere with Siyaram’s acquittal, citing the propensity to false implicate as a reason to sustain the High Court’s view. It acknowledged that the reduction of Jiya Lal’s sentence to the already served period was somewhat inadequate but refrained from altering the imprisonment term due to the prosecution’s initiation in 1988. However, it directed that the fine against Jiya Lal be raised to Rs. 25,000 in total, with RI of two years in default, and ordered payment within three months. The appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 307 and Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Propensity to implicate falsely

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contended that Siyaram’s acquittal was not justified since he was charged under IPC 307 read with 34, and the absence of injury to the victim was not a valid ground for acquittal. It also submitted that Jiya Lal’s sentence reduction to the period already undergone was unwarranted; despite the long-pended case since 1988, the term of imprisonment should not be interfered with, and the fine should be increased."

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Siyaram’s acquittal was properly founded on the evidence and High Court’s reasoning; they contended that the sentence reduction for Jiya Lal appropriately reflected his age and lack of previous convictions, and that leniency was warranted under the circumstances."},

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

(2010] 9 S.C.R. 687 ## STATE OF U.P. A _v._ SIYA RAM & ANR. (Criminal appeal No. 792 of 2003) ## AUGUST 5, 2010 B **[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]** _Penal Code, 1860:_ c - _s.307134 Conviction by trial court of two out of three_ - _accused High Court acquitting one of the appellants before it and reducing the sentence of the other to the period already undergone and imposing_ a _fine of Rs. 10, 0001-_ - _Appeal by State against acquittal as also against reduction of the_ 0 _sentence_ - _HELD: The Court is not inclined to interfere with the acquittal order, keeping in view the propensity to false_ - _implications However, reduction in the sentence of the convict is not approved, though keeping in view the fact that prosecution had been initiated in 1988, the term of imprisonment is not interfered with_ - _But, in the facts and_ E _circumstances of the case, the fine is increased to Rs. 25, 0001_ - - _Appeal against acquittal._ CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2003. F From the Judgment & Order dated 26.09.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad bench at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1990. Ratnakar Dash, Manoj Dwivedi, Gunnam Venkateswara G Rao for the Appellant. S.R. Singh, H. Tyagi, Avnish Singh, Abhisth Kumar for the Respondents. H 687 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A The following order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** Three persons were sent for trial for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. Net Ram was B 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 th~t no injury had been caused by the shot allegedly fired by hini.While dealing with Jiya Lal's case the High Court further C 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 D 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 E 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." The High Court accordingly reduced the sentence to that F 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 G 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 H which was not justified in the circumstances. STATE OF U.P. _v._ SIVA RAM & ANR. 689 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and A 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 B 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/- in all and in default of payment of fine the appellant Jiya Lal shall undergo 2 years R.I. The fine c 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. R.P. Appeal partly allowed.