Kirpal Singh vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—Under challenge, in this Criminal Revision, is the judgment dated 7.7.2008 passed by Shri J.S. Chohan, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby he partly accepted the appeal and acquitted the petitioner u/s 411 IPC but he maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner u/s 25 of the Arms Act.

Vide judgment/order dated 7.2.2005, delivered by Ms. Dimple B.J. Sharma, the then, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 411 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 411 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 10.9.1999, a police party headed by HC Beant Singh was present at crossing of Hindu Mal Kot in connection with patrol, duty. Then, three persons came there from the side of Hindu Mal Kot on their respective vehicles. On seeing the police party, they felt apprehensive and HC Beant Singh, on the directions of ASI Bhupinder Singh, apprehended them with the help of his other police officials by following them on Government Canter. HC Beant Singh along with other police officials apprehended the petitioner. On enquiry, he disclosed that the Moped, which he was driving was stolen property. On his personal search, one country made Pistol of.12 bore was also recovered from the left pocket of the pants which he was wearing. On opening the Pistol, one.12 bore live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner and he could not'' produce any licence. A separate parcel was prepared. It was taken into police possession.

A ruqqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which the present case was registered against the petitioner.

Investigation, in the case, was conducted and after completion of same, the petitioner was challenged.

The petitioner was charge-sheeted accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 HC Surinder Singh, PW-2 Constable Rachhpal Singh, PW-3 HC Beant Singh and PW-4 Subhash Chander.

The accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., denied the material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence.

The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

After the conclusion of trial, accused/petitioner was convicted and sentenced and his appeal was partly allowed, as noticed earlier.

Feeling aggrieved against his conviction u/s 25 of the Arms Act, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner very candidly did not contest the conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is confirmed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has three children and there is no one to look after his family. He has further contended that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of more than 5 months out of total sentence of one year and keeping in view all these circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the one already undergone by him.

The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 7.7.2008 and since then he is languishing in the jail. As per custody certificate, produced on the file, the petitioner has already undergone total sentence of 4 months and 25 days as on 23.10.2008. Now, he has already undergone incarceration for more than 5 months out of total sentence of one year. Moreover, the petitioner has been undergoing the vagaries of this criminal prosecution for the last more than 9 years and he must have suffered physically and economically as also anxiety, during all these years. After more than 9 years, in ordering the petitioner to serve his full incarceration cannot be with the spirit of law. Keeping all these factors in view, I feel that the ends of justice will be fully met by slashing the sentence imposed upon the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine is maintained.

This Criminal Revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

A copy of this be sent to the learned trial Court for strict compliance.