1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 08.09.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Ist, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 353, 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 353 of the I.P.C., further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 414 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act with default stipulation. The appellant has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-under Section 26 of the Arms Act with default stipulation and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 07.11.2004, at about 15:00 hours, the informant went to Sinjo Chowk along with police force in course of investigation of Kuru P.S. Case No. 75 of 2004, where he got secret information that criminal namely, Sahjan Ansari is in his house in village – Sinjo along with his companion Md. Soyeb and both were wanted in so many criminal cases and then they surrounded the house of the accused Sahjan Ansari and raided his house, upon which, accused Sahjan Ansari fired from a country made revolver on the police personnel and try to flee away by jumping the boundary wall of his house towards South in a paddy field, but the police personnel chased him and caught him. In the meantime, several villagers assembled and from his possession, one loaded sixer revolver was recovered and on opening the revolver, three live cartridges of bore .38 was found loaded in the revolver and one empty cartridges of .38 bore was also found in the revolver. The accused did not show any paper with regard to the seized revolver and upon which, seizure list was prepared thereon with regard to seized revolver and cartridges. It is further alleged that on interrogation, accused has confessed his guilt and also the fact that one stolen motorcycle was kept in a maize field by him and at the instance of the accused, one Yamaha Crux Motor Cycle was recovered from the maize filed. Seizure list was also prepared with regard to the seizure of the motorcycle. It is further alleged that on the confession of the accused, the house of the co-accused Soyeb was raided and on search, three country made pocket bomb was also recovered from the house of the accused, Md. Soyeb, which was kept in a hand bag under a chouki and seizure list was prepared in presence of the villagers.

4. On the basis of self-statement of information, FIR being Kuru P.S. Case No. 97 of 2004 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 307, 414, 353 of the I.P.C., Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act.

5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 307, 414, 353 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the charges were framed under the aforesaid offences, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, several documentary evidences were also adduced.

7. The case of defence is that appellant is an innocent person and nothing has been recovered from his possession and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

8. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 353, 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced as stated above, which has assailed in this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant, without touching the merit of the case, has submitted that the appellant has already in custody for about four years, out of five years R.I. imposed upon him. It is further submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2004 and the appellant has undergone agony of trial for almost two decades and has been sufficiently punished for his guilt. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him.

10. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits.

11. It appears that the first information was lodged in the year 2004 for the offence under Sections 307, 414, 353 of the I.P.C., Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and charged for the offence under Sections 307, 414, 353 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 of the Arms Act, but the learned trial after proper appreciation of the evidence has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 353, 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27 of the Arms Act and acquitted him for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The appellant has suffered agony of trial for more than two decades. It further appears that out of maximum period of sentence of five years, the appellant has undergone custody of almost four years. It further appears that it is the first offence of the appellant.

12. Therefore, on merits, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, antecedent and character and also in view of the fact that considerable period has elapsed from the date of occurrence and appellant has also remained in custody for almost four years, out of five years sentence, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone instead of imprisonment of five years as awarded by the learned trial court.

13. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

14. The appellant is on bail. As such, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also discharged

15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.