Conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPC upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

On 4 October 2010, the T.I. of GRP, Gadarwara, allegedly received secret information that certain persons were assembling to plan a dacoity in the Kashi Train. A police party proceeded to the spot, where the appellant and co-accused allegedly surrendered and were arrested.

A charge-sheet was filed, and after committal, the appellant was tried in ST No. 241/2010 by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur.

The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100 for each offence, with default sentences of three months’ simple imprisonment.

In appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction on merits but sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, stated to be one year, eleven months, and twenty-nine days.

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC was legally sustainable on the evidence and record.

Whether, having regard to the period already undergone and the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

The Court applied Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC, which criminalise preparation to commit dacoity and assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity, respectively.

It exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 415 of the B.N.S.S., to examine the sustainability of the conviction and the propriety of the sentence.

The Court reiterated that, even where an appellant does not challenge conviction on merits, the appellate court may independently examine the record to satisfy itself that the conviction is legally sustainable.

Although the appellant confined his submissions to reduction of sentence, the Court independently perused the evidence and record to assess the conviction.

It found that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and that no ground existed to interfere with the findings of guilt under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.

On sentencing, the Court considered that the appellant had already undergone one year, eleven months, and twenty-nine days of imprisonment and had been facing the proceedings since 2010.

It concluded that the ends of justice would be met by limiting the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone.

The appellant’s conviction under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC was affirmed, but the custodial sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

As the appellant was on bail, his bail bond was discharged.

The modified order was directed to be communicated to the Trial Court for compliance.