Supreme Court of India

Hari Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 May, 2010

Supreme Court of India
Hari Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 May, 2010
Author: ………………J.
Bench: Altamas Kabir, T.S. Thakur, C.K. Prasad
                                                 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.