IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.705 of 2010
LAXMAN THAKUR
...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
...OPPOSITE PARTY
For the petitioner : Mr. Anshuman &
: Mrs. Rita Kumari Upadhyaya
For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyaya,APP
-----
02. 04.10.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence only.
Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of
the State.
Heard. With the consent of the parties, this
application is now being disposed of.
In view of submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner, facts in detail need not be set out which led to filing
of the present case. On 07.04.2004, the police on getting
confidential information reached the house of the petitioner. He
was seen escaping therefrom. A chase was offered and he was
captivated. On search being conducted of the room occupied by
the petitioner, one country-made pistol was found kept beneath
the pillow. Further search found two country-made pistols kept
concealed beneath the wooden almirah. He was accordingly
charge-sheeted and put on trial. 11 P.Ws. were examined.
Several exts. as well as materials exts. were also produced. On
a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court by
judgment and order dated 28.03.2006 passed in Tr. No.1347/06
observed as under:
“Accused was present at the time of search
2
and seizure and in presence of P.W.4 and
P.W.5 seizure list was prepared and copy of
same was furnished to accused and accused
has never denied his signature on seizure list
and he only took defence that some other
person may have planted the Arms at the P.O.
but he has been kept mum about his bed at
chowki and recovery of M.Ext.1. After carefully
scrutinizing the materials/evidence available on
record I find the persecution has been able to
bring home the charges levelled against the
accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubts”
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the
petitioner preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal No.15/06.
Learned appellate court in the light of the grounds disclosed in
the memo of appeal, considered the same and re-scanned the
evidence on record and thereby concurred with the finding(s)
recorded by learned trial court. Accordingly, his conviction
under section 25(1-B) a and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentence
to undergo R.I. for three years with fine having default clause
were maintained.
Counsel for the petitioner, referring to judgment of
learned trial court, submits that at the time of conviction he was
found close to 55 years. It is also contended that learned trial
court did not find any criminal antecedent and/or past conviction
against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is now
aged about 60 years. It is next contended that he had to fight the
criminal litigation for over two years and thereby suffer
excruciating circumstances which is/are a shade of punishment.
It is thus contended that the petitioner deserves a lessor
punishment for proven charge(s).
3
Counsel for the State, however, supported the two
impugned judgments. It is contended that learned trial court has
found that P.Ws.4 and 5 have admitted their signatures on the
seizure memo (Ext.1), a copy whereof was duly furnished under
the L.T.I./signature to the petitioner-accused. It is the contention
of learned APP that finding(s) of guilt recorded by the two
courts below cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of
the parties. Definitely, the petitioner was 55 years of age at the
time of conviction. He must be 60 years of age by now. Learned
trial court records that there is no past conviction. In that view of
the matter, a lessor punishment, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, would subserve the cause of justice
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction
recorded by learned trial court and duly affirmed by learned
lower appellate court, this Court reduces the sentence of R.I.
for three years under section 25(1-B) and 26(1) of the arms Act
to R.I. for two and half years under each count. Other
part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact.
With this modification in sentence, the application is
dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr