JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr. PC. is directed against the judgment dated 4th of January 2000, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, whereby appellate Hariman was convicted under Section 304 Part III PC and sentenced to undergo seven year rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine three month simple imprisonment. 2. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in detail as Mr. Naqvi frankly concedes that the conviction of the appellant is not assailable. Suffice it to say, Hariman and two others were challaned by the police for the murder of one Dhamoli (60 years). In the F.i.R. Ex.P. 10, it was stated that the accused Hariman had stabbed in the stomach of father of Kailash causing his death. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against three persons. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Dr. Satyanarain Sharma, RW. 2 Abdul Latif, RW. 3 Babu Lal, RW. 4 Dharam Singh, RW. 5 Babu Lal s/o Pyare Lal, PW. 6 Kaila Sahai, P.W. 7 Bodya, RW. 8 Raghunath RW. 9 Saturi, RW. 10 Son Bai, RW. 11 Inder Singh, RW. 12 Gainda Lal Yadav, PW. 13 Ramkesh, PW. 14 Mukesh, RW. 15 Amar Lal, RW. 16 Ram Gopal, and RW. 17 Ram Dayal. Accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.RC. denied accusation. Accused Hariman entered into the witness box and pleaded the right of private defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that Dhamoli had met homicidal death. He further held that the accused was the person who had caused the death of Hariman by causing knife injury in his abdomen. 3. I have gone through the evidence produced in the case. There is clear evidence against the accused appellant in the statement of Kailash P.W. 6 and Dhjaram Singh RW. 4. There is nothing in the statements of these witnesses to disbelieve them. The evidence of eye witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. S.N. Sharma RW. 1 who performed autopsy on the body of Dhamoli. The trial Court has thus rightly held that the accused was the person who had caused injuries to Dhamoli. 4. The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II I.RC., in view of the facts which have appeared on record the conviction is well merited. S.N. Sharma RW. 1 who performed autopsy on the body of Dhamoli. The trial Court has thus rightly held that the accused was the person who had caused injuries to Dhamoli. 4. The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II I.RC., in view of the facts which have appeared on record the conviction is well merited. 5. Mr. Naqvi sumits that at the time of the occurrence, the accused was below 21 years of age and he had no repeated the blows. He prays for leniency in the sentence. 6. Keeping in view the young age of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court shall meet the ends of justice. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is maintained. The sentence is reduced to a period of five years R.l. and the amount of fine imposed by the trial court. *******