IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.55 of 2011
PRAMOD YADAV ALIAS VINOD YADAV S/O- RAM PRASAD YADAV,
R/O- VILLAGE KHEERADIH, P.S.- PARBATTA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
For the petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP
2 20.01.2011
Heard both sides.
Rule confined to question of sentence.
Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State.
With the consent of parties, the application is being
disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Petitioner was put on trial vide Tr. No. 1598 of 2010
for the charge(s) punishable under Sections 25(1-B)A and 26(i)
of the Arms Act in respect of an occurrence that was committed
on 17.11.1998. As per the prosecution case, petitioner was
found possessed with one country made pistol and few
cartridges. The Trial Court by judgment and order dated
6.10.2010 found him guilty under both the charges and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half
years and two years under Sections 25(1-B)A and 26(i) of the
Arms Act respectively. He was also fined under both the heads
with default clause.
Aggrieved over by the said judgment of conviction,
he preferred Criminal Appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 38/2010.
Learned Appellate Court reappraised the evidence on record
and concluded that based on the materials on record,
conviction under Section 26(i) of the Arms Act was not
-2-
sustainable. Accordingly, conviction recorded by the Trial Court
under Section 26(i) was set aside. So far as conviction and
sentence recorded under Section 25(1-B)A is concerned,
learned Appellate Court did not interfere therewith. Accordingly,
the appeal was allowed in part. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order, the present revision application has been
preferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial in the present case consumed more than 12 years. For all
these years, he had to undergo the rigours of trial. Fighting
criminal litigation for a long time has telling effects on the
mental, economical and physical condition of a litigant.
Referring to the judgment of the Trial Court, it is submitted that
no past conviction was found and recorded. Learned counsel
points out from the Trial Court judgment that a submission was
advanced in the said Court that petitioner is the sole bread
earner in the family. It is thus submitted that considering the
aforesaid facts appearing from record, petitioner deserves a
lesser sentence.
Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that
there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two
Courts below. So far as conviction under Section 25(1-B)A
is/are concerned, this Court may not interfere with those
findings. With regard to the delay in concluding the trial, learned
A.P.P. concedes that the trial in the present case consumed
-3-
more than 12 years.
Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on
record including two judgments, this much is evident that the
trial of the petitioner consumed more than 12 years. Petitioner
must have undergone several excruciating circumstances for all
these years. It is further seen from the Trial Court judgment that
no previous conviction was found and recorded. It is also
gathered from the Trial Court’s judgment that a submission was
advanced before the said Court that the petitioner is the sole
bread earner in the family. Petitioner must be fairly aged. Trial
Court, while convicting him recorded his age as 45 years. In
view of these facts appearing from record, I am satisfied that a
lenient view, in so far as sentence for the proven charge is
concerned, shall sub-serve the cause of justice.
Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded
under Section 25(1-B)A, the sentence awarded therein is
reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years .
Other part/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain in
tact/untouched.
With this modification in sentence, the application is
dismissed.
pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)