and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2.Aggrieved by the order of conviction the appellant is before us in the present appeal by way of special leave.
3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4.We find that the Special Judge had rendered a somewhat confused judgment acquitting the appellant without discussing the ocular evidence and the documents on record. The High Court has on the contrary discussed the evidence denovo as the Special Judge had not done his job properly and on consideration of the evidence, has reversed the judgment of the Special Judge.
5.We are in this situation not inclined to interfere in the appellant's conviction. However, keeping in view the fact that the incident had happened in the year 1985 and the litigation has gone on for more than 25 years and in the light of the judgment of this Court in Dharam Vir v. State of U.P. reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 100, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by the appellant.
6.Bail bonds stand discharged.
7.The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI AUGUST 18, 2010.