Pappu Pohap Singh v. State of Rajasthan). The appellate court partly allowed

: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 01/08/2025

1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted the report dated 29.07.2025 sent by the S.H.O. Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur.

3. As per the report, sole petitioner is alive. Report is taken on record.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, revision petition is heard today.

5. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Pappu @ Pohap Singh against Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2006 (Pappu @ Pohap Singh vs. State of Rajasthan). The appellate court partly allowed [2025:RJ-JP:29503] (2 of 6) [CRLR-141/2007] appeal filed by accused-petitioner qua order of sentence dated

22.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 3, Bharatpur, modified sentence of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to one and a half years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment but dismissed appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 22.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 3, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Regular Case No. 109/1999, whereby accused-petitioner was sentenced for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to undergo three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment.

6. Facts of the case in short are that on 08.06.1999, on the basis of a secret information, Shri Ashok Chouhan (P.W. 1), the then S.H.O. Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur reached at Ekran Mod, where the accused-petitioner was seen standing in the light of the jeep, from whom one 12 Bore country made pistol with two live cartridges was recovered. On the basis of said recovery, F.I.R. No. 105/1999 was registered for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The trial court framed charge and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated [2025:RJ-JP:29503] (3 of 6) [CRLR-141/2007]

22.10.1999 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.1999, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 22.01.2007 dismissing the appeal and affirming judgment of conviction but modified order of sentence passed by the trial court as stated above. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

9. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1999 i.e. more than 26 years ago; accused-petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 51 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 26 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of almost ten months and thus, completed more than half of the substantive sentence awarded to him; there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment [2025:RJ-JP:29503] (4 of 6) [CRLR-141/2007] awarded to the accused-petitioner by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

10. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.152 of 1993) decided on 15.07.2005.

11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court as modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

12. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case.

13. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

14. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was 25 years old at the time of incident, has already suffered agony of protracted trial, [2025:RJ-JP:29503] (5 of 6) [CRLR-141/2007] spanning over a period of more than 26 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record.

15. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

16. After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, the petitioner and his entire family will suffer a lot, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. [2025:RJ-JP:29503] (6 of 6) [CRLR-141/2007]

17. Consequently, the judgments dated 22.01.2007 and

22.10.2019 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act awarded to the accused- petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court, is further modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

18. The revision petitions stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence.

19. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. INDER/13 (BHUWAN GOYAL),J