IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 333 of 1999 Date of Decision: 3.8.2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Raj Kumar and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State has been filed for enhancement of sentence. All the accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court for having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Raj Kumar, Ram Swarup, Pawan Kumar, Surinder Kumar, Gian Chand and Prem Chand have also been convicted under Section 323 IPC. Accused Siri Ram, Ram Swarup, Surinder Kumar, Gian Chand, Prem Chand and Ashok Kumar have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of 2 payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. Accused Pawan Kumar has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused Raj Kumar has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. As far as offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, accused Raj Kumar and Pawan Kumar were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and the other accused Ram Swarup, Surinder Kumar, Gian Chand and Prem Chand were released after due admonition. 2. To say the least, the sentence imposed is not at all commensurate with the offence especially when we are dealing with the offence under Section 307 IPC. If persons are convicted of attempt to murder, they cannot be let off in the manner as has been done by the learned trial Court. Having said so, we cannot ignore the fact that the incident in question took place more than 16 and ½ years back on 5.11.1993 and the sentence was imposed on 1.9.1998. After almost 17 years of the offence having been committed, we are of the considered 3 view that we cannot enhance the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused. We are also not oblivious to the fact that this occurrence occurred at the spur of moment on account of some ‘road rage’ when both sides called their friends and then a free fight took place. 3. Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts, we maintain the substantive sentence imposed on the accused by the learned trial Court. However, we feel that interest of justice will be met if the fine is enhanced by Rs.5000/- in each case. Resultantly, accused Siri Ram, Ram Swarup, Surinder Kumar, Gian Chand, Prem Chand and Ashok Kumar shall pay fine of Rs.5,500/- and in default of payment of fine shall undergo imprisonment for the period of three months. Accused Pawan Kumar in addition to undergoing imprisonment for one month shall pay fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall undergo imprisonment for the period of three months. Accused Raj Kumar in addition to undergoing imprisonment for six months shall pay fine of Rs.7000/- and in default of payment of fine shall undergo imprisonment for three months. In case the fine as imposed by the trial Court has been paid by the accused 4 the same shall be adjusted from the amount of fine payable as above. 4. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 3rd August, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ) ™ Judge.