Jagtar Singh vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellant and a few others were accused in a case u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC. During the investigation of the said case, the appellant was arrested and suffered a disclosure statement on 23.8.1987 that he had kept concealed a .12 bore pistol and two empty cartridges under a Neem tree near the tubewell in his fields and he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the said statement, the appellant got recovered the pistol and the cartridges, which were taken into possession by the police. The appellant did not produce any licence for keeping in his possession .12 bore pistol. Accordingly, FIR No. 174 dated 23.8.1987 u/s 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him at Police Station Baragudha.

Vide impugned judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa convicted the appellant u/s 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, the substantive sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon him u/s 302 IPC by the trial Court vide judgment and order of the even date.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of his client. However, he has submitted that the appellant remained in jail as an under trial for five months. He was again taken into custody on 11.5.1989 upon his conviction and sentence by the trial Court and remained in jail as a convict upto November 1989 when he was released on bail in the main case u/s 302 IPC. As such the appellant has already undergone a period of about eleven months out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him in the present case. It has also been submitted that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about twenty three years and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars for undergoing his remaining sentence.

Learned State counsel has submitted that as the appellant was found in possession of an illicit weapon, he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo imprisonment for one year. However, he has produced the custody certificate, as per which the appellant remained in jail as an under trial for four months and twenty nine days.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars, once again, for undergoing remainder of his sentence. Ends of justice would be best met if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him.

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant u/s 25 of the Arms Act is maintained, his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him whereas the sentence of fine alongwith its default clause is maintained.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.