P&H HC Upholds Four Men’s Convictions For Truck-Crew Abduction And Dacoity, Cuts Sentences To Time Served After 24 Years

The appeals arose from a common judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2005 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2005.

The prosecution case was that, on 19.10.2002, a truck driver and conductor were intercepted, abducted, confined, and later abandoned; the truck’s cargo was subsequently recovered in part from the appellants.

The appellants were convicted under Sections 341, 364, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the principal sentences being ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 364 and 395 and eight years under Section 412, all to run concurrently.

At the appeal hearing, the appellants confined their challenge to sentence and did not pursue a challenge to conviction.

They sought reduction to the periods already served, relying on the time elapsed since the offence, their time in custody, and other mitigating circumstances.

The convictions were for offences under Sections 341, 364, 395 and 412 IPC.

In considering sentence, the Court treated the absence of a prescribed minimum sentence for the offences in question as relevant and considered the nature and circumstances of the case, the appellants’ periods in custody, the passage of time, their age, and their post-offence conduct.

No precedent or specific statutory provision governing the Court’s appellate sentencing power was cited in the judgment.

The Court reviewed the trial record and found the prosecution evidence consistent and sufficient to sustain the convictions; it therefore saw no basis to interfere with the trial Court’s findings.

On sentence, it considered that approximately 24 years had elapsed since the incident, the appellants had undergone between two years, nine months and twelve days and four years and eighteen days in custody, they had no criminal history at the time of the offence, and they had not been prosecuted for further criminal activity in the preceding years.

The Court also considered their ages and the absence of a prescribed minimum sentence, and concluded that the sentences imposed were harsh in the circumstances.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.