LAL BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. List has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the applicants to press this revision.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the complainant and learned AG. A and have gone through the relevant papers: "3. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 21-9-84 passed by the Special Judge, Varanasi whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1984 has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 100 of 1982 have been affirmed. 4. From the record it appears that there is no recital in the F. I. R. that the applicant Vijai was armed with a knife and had inflicted knife injury. It is mentioned only in the F. I. R. that the complainant was beaten by lathi, danda and brick bats. The clerk constable recorded the F. I. R. as N. C. R. on the dictation of the complainant. The come appellant not to allow his cattle to graze in the field of PW-1. This fortifies our belief that the assault on the deceased was made during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation. In this fact situation, we are of the opinion that Exception-4 to Section 300, IPC is clearly attracted to the case of the appellant and the offence of which the appellant can be said to be guilty would squarely fall under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. The trial court, under the circumstances, was justified in convicting him for the said offence and the High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in interfering with it and that too without dispelling any of the reasons given by the trial court. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302, IPC cannot be sustained and we accordingly set it aside and instead convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. 5. We, however, find that the sentence of two years RI, and fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC, as recorded by the trial court, was grossly inadequate and unreasonable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion proper sentence in the case would be for the appellant to suffer RI for a period of six years, besides payment of Rs. 1,000 as fine for the offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI four months. 6. The appeal, therefore, succeeds to the extent indicated above and is disposed of. Order accordingly. .