IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.309 of 2011
NILESH KUMAR @ NILESH SINGH,S/O- SRI GOPAL SINGH, R/O-
BARO RAMPUR, P.S.- GARHARA, (BARAUNI), DISTRICT-
BEGUSARAI.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
3 08.04.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only.
Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the
State.
Heard. With the consent of the parties, the
application is being finally disposed of at this stage.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 11.2.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-II, Begusarai on Cr. Appeal No. 130/2010 whereby
the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned
Trial Court in Tr. No. 472/2010 has been affirmed with
modification in sentence.
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was
dotted and arrested by the police personnel on 18.8.2009.
On search, he was found possessed with one country made
pistol and one .315 bore live cartridges. Accordingly, he was
put on trial wherein 04 prosecution witnesses were
examined besides exhibiting different documents. On a
consideration of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court
found him guilty under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms
Act and sentenced to under R.I. for 03 years with fine
having default clause under each head/count. Aggrieved
2
over the said judgment and order of conviction, he preferred
appeal which was dismissed with modification in sentence.
Instead of R.I. for 03 years with fine under each head, he
was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months
under each head/count having default clause.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has remained in custody since 18.8.2009. It is
submitted that the trial consumed more than a year.
Thereafter the appeal remained pending for 02 years.
Fighting criminal litigation for these years have telling effects
on the mental and economical condition of a litigant. It is
submitted that the petitioner is fairly young person and
earning member for his whole family. Petitioner deserves a
lesser quantum of sentence.
Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that
there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two
Courts below which do not require interference on merit. It is
contended that from the Trial Court judgment, it appears that
petitioner has some criminal history.
Having considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner
had to fight criminal litigation for more than a year. His
appeal remained pending for close to 02 years. Petitioner,
therefore, had to suffer the ordeals/rigours of trial. It further
appears from the submissions advanced before the Trial
3
Court that he is an earning member of the family. Having
regard to all these facts appearing from record, this Court is
satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence than what has
been imposed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the
cause of justice.
Accordingly, while upholding the conviction
recorded by learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by the
learned Lower Appellate Court, the sentence awarded under
Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(i) of the Arms Act is reduced to
R.I. for 16 months under each head/count. Other
part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain
intact/unaltered.
With this modification in sentence, the
application is dismissed.
Let the order be communicated through fax on
depositing appropriate fee by the petitioner.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J)
pkj