The court has the discretion to modify the sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant along with four other accused persons, Parmeshwari, Hans Raj, Subhash Chand and Som Nath, was tried and, while the other accused persons were acquitted by the trial court, he was convicted under Section 304-B of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Against the order of acquittal, no appeal was preferred by the State but the complainant filed a revision application before the High Court. The appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the revision application as well as the appeal.

Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that the High Court was quite justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the matter and no interference by this Court is called for.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, alternatively, submitted that, in any view of the matter, the trial court was not justified in awarding the extreme penalty of life imprisonment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant is reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed in part and, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.