1. The accused respondents were convicted by the trial court under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC but on appeal the High Court set aside the conviction of all the respondents excepting the respondent aside the conviction of all the respondents excepting the respondent Ramanuj Singh holding that there was no convincing or reliable evidence on which it could be said that they had actually participated in the assault. So far as respondent Ramanuj Singh is concerned the High Court agreed with the trial court that there was cogent and reliable evidence to establish that he had struck Sita Ram Singh (PW 7) with a 'bhala'in the stomach, but by a curious process of reasoning it has reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years passed by the trial court to imprisonment for the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months

2. SLP No. 1895 has been filed by the State against this Judgment. The other application being SLP No. 1825 has been preferred by one of the injured persons. Special leave granted

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on the record the High Court has given benefit of doubt to the respondents excepting Ramanuj Singh, and we do not consider it a fit case for grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of acquittal. However, we are satisfied that it is difficult to support the reasoning of the High Court for reducing the sentence of Ramanuj Singh. It is the duty of a court to pass an appropriate sentence having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case keeping in view the seriousness or otherwise of the offence. We accordingly allow the appeals partly, and set aside the se

ntence passed by the High Court against the respondent Ramanuj Singh and direct the High Court to impose appropriate sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the offence after hearing the parties.