- (1.) SURYA Prasad, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order pass ed by the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad dated 16-7-79 in Sessions Trial No. 428 of 1978 State v. Salim Ali convicting and sentenc ing the appellant under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 I. P. C. to three years Rigorous Imprisonment and four years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant has advanced his arguments on the point of sentence only and has urged that the sentence be reduced to that already undergone by the accused and that reason able sum of money be ordered to be paid by the appellant to each of the injured as compensation. He has placed reliance upon the case Kundan Singh-appellant v. State of Punjab respondent reported in AIR 1982 SC 62 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed; "we are of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly in view of the fact that P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 were in the courtyard of their house when the appellant fired gun shots and he could not, therefore, have intended to injure them, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I. P. C. was not justified. We think that the conviction of the appellant could be maintained only under Section 324 I. P. C. since P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 received simple injuries, we accordingly allow the appeal and alter the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 324 of the I. P. C. for causing simple injuries to P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 and since the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for about 16 months, we direct that the sentence imposed on the appellant be reduced to that already undergone by him and he may be set at liberty forthwith. " The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant accus ed of the offence under Section 336 read with Section 149 I. P. C. but convicted him under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149. I. P. C. and sentenced him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment and four years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively vide his impugned judgment and order dated 16-7-79 as mentioned above. The incident took place as long as back 29-3-78. The Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 3-7-79. He was then aged about 30 years. Now he must have been nearly 42 years of age. With the lapse of time the liability and responsibility of the appellant must have increased towards the members of his family. Time is the most important factor for the heeling up of the wound. The gravity of the incident might have been forgotten by the injured Sant Lal and Ashok Kumar as well. All are interested in maintaining peace and communal harmony. There is, however, exception in any sphere of life. The incident is an outcome of communal frenzy. The appellant-accused was not involved in any Criminal case in the past, He belongs to a family of an erstwhile Nawab. He had been in jail for a certain period in connection with this very incident.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the facts and circumstances of the present case are distin guishable from those of the case of Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view, yet the interest of justice would be met if the appellant's conviction is maintain ed, if the sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him and if a sum of Rs. 5000 (Five Thousand) is paid by him to the injured Sant Lal and Ashok Kumar each as compensation. Accordingly I direct that the sentence imposed on him, be reduced to that already undergone by him subject, however, to the deposit of Rs. 5000/. as compensation to Sant Lal and Ashok Kumar each in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from this date. The sum of Rs. 5000 will be paid to Sant Lal and Ashok Kumar each as compensation on such deposit. In default to comply with this condition the appeal shall stand dismissed and the appellant would be called upon to serve the sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions judge vids his impugned Judgment and order dated 25-2-91. Appeal dismissed. .;