RAJBIRversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 447 of 1995

Rajbir
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Prayogendra Pal Singh,             Sanjay
                                 Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : .../Govt. Advocate, G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated
28.02.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Session
Trial No.142 of 1988, Police Station- Babugarh, District- Ghaziabad,
convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 411 I.P.C.
2. Heard Sri Prayogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Rakesh Kumar
Sharma, resident of Alipur, Mugalpur, Police Station- Babugarh, District-
Ghaziabad, lodged an FIR alleging that certain miscreants had committed
theft of articles from his tubewell. When they attempted to escape with
stolen articles, the informant along with other villagers reached the spot.
It is alleged that the miscreants fired with intention to kill, though no
injury was caused. In response, one of the villagers also fired from his
licensed firearm. During the course of the incident, one accused namely
the present appellant Rajbir was apprehended at the spot along with a
stolen starter while two others accused person managed to escape.
4. On the basis of written report, the FIR was lodged and investigation
was conducted and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted.
5. Charges were framed for offences under Section 379, 411 and 307/ 34
I.P.C., the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution has examined P.W.-1 the complainant Rakesh Kumar
Sharma, P.W.-2 Sardar Singh and P.W.-3 Anand Swaroop Sharma.
7. Documentary evidences, Ext. Ka-1 to Ext. Ka-11 is available on record
                                                         CRLA No. 447 of 1995
                               2

and was duly proved by the prosecution witnesses. The trial court after
considering the oral and documentary evidences on record returned a
finding of guilt and convicted the appellant for offence under Section 411
I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment.
However, the trial court acquitted the accused for other offences under
Section 379 and 307 I.P.C.
8. Aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present
appeal has been preferred.
9. At the time of argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant did not dispute the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial
court and confined the arguments to the question of sentence only. It is
submitted that the accused has already undergone incarceration after
conviction from 28.02.1995 to 23.03.1995. The incident is more than
three decades old. The appellant has faced the agony of criminal
proceedings for a prolong period. No other criminal antecedent has been
brought on record. The ends of justice would be met if the sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone.
10. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal but does not dispute the long
lapse of time.
11. This Court has carefully examined the record. The conviction of the
appellant under Section 411 I.P.C. is based on recovery of stolen starter
from his possession. He does not suffer from any perversity and deserves
to be affirmed.
12. The only question that arises for consideration is regarding the
quantum of sentence. It is undisputed that the occurrence took place about
30 years ago. The accused remained in custody for a short period of 23
days. Post conviction, the appeal remained pending for inordinately long
period. There is no material indicating misuse of liberty of bail during
pendency of the appeal.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a prolonged
lapse of time and long pendency of criminal proceedings are relevant
considerations for reduction of sentence. Passage of time is a significant
factor in modifying the sentence. Sentencing must be proportionate and it
should balance deterrence with reformative considerations.
14. Considering the nature of offence, long lapse of time and the absence
of criminal antecedents of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that
                                                                                            CRLA No. 447 of 1995
                                                                   3

                                    the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period
                                    already undergone. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
                                    15. The conviction of the appellant under Section 411 I.P.C. is affirmed,
                                    however, the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified to the period
                                    already undergone.
                                    16. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
                                    discharged.
                                    17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be
                                    transmitted to the learned trial court for necessary compliance.


                                                                              (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
                                    April 17, 2026
                                    P. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad