Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   156     OF 2014     [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7833 of 2013]

Dilbagh Singh … Appellant (s)   

Versus

State of Uttaranchal … Respondent (s) (Now State of Uttarakhand)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:   

Leave granted.  

2. The appellant  was convicted  under  Section 307  read with  

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to  

as  ‘IPC’)  and  sentenced  to  three  years  and  six  months  

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of  

fine, for rigorous imprisonment for another one month by the  

Fast  Track  Court,  Haldwani,  Uttarakhand  as  per  Judgment  

and Order dated 29.09.2001. The appeal  therefrom at  the  

instance of the appellant  herein was dismissed as per  the  

Judgment dated 06.04.2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand  

at Nainital and, hence, the appeal.  

1

NON-REPORTABLE

Page 2

3. The incident relates back to 04.11.1993. While the informant  

Trilok Singh along with his sister  were doing work in their  

agriculture field in  their  village Rampura Kazi  under  Police  

Station Bazpur, the appellant armed with country-made pistol  

along with his brother Makkhan Singh who carried a country-

made gun opened fire at them. The informant Trilok Singh  

suffered bullet injuries on the hand, shoulder and stomach,  

the  sister  suffered  only  minor  abrasions  which  were  later  

certified by the Doctor to have been caused not by gun shot.  

During the course of the trial under Section 307 read with  

Section 34  IPC,  appellant’s  brother  and the  main  accused  

Makkhan Singh died. On the basis of evidence tendered by  

the injured witnesses as PWs 1 and 2, and PW3 - another eye-

witness who came to the scene for rescue, the appellant was  

convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and  

sentenced as stated above. The appellant was not successful  

before the High Court.  

4. This  Court  on  06.09.2013,  issued  notice  limited  to  the  

quantum of sentence.  

5. Having  special  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  bullet  injuries  

suffered  by PW1 are  not  from the  pistol  of  the  appellant,  

having  regard  to  the  fact  that  PW2 has  not  suffered  any  2

Page 3

bullet  injury  and  that  she  suffered  only  minor  abrasions  

caused on account of fall while running, having regard to the  

fact that the incident is of the year 1993, having regard to  

the fact that  the evidence tendered before the Trial  Court  

was after eight years, and, thus, having regard to the weak  

evidence  on  the  latter  part  of  Section  34  IPC  on  the  

participation in commission of the offence, we are of the view  

that  the  proper  sentence  on  the  appellant  would  be  two  

years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and the  

default sentence of additional one month as the same would  

meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly.

6. Appeal is allowed as above.  

                                                   ……………………………….….. …………J.

            (SUDHANSU JYOTI  

MUKHOPADHAYA)

                                                    ……….………...…….. ……………………J.

      (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; January 17, 2014.  

3