Sentence Reduced to Period Undergone Considering Prolonged Custody and Advanced Age Despite Sustained Conviction

The prosecution alleged that on February 22, 2010, the police received secret information regarding criminals assembled at a closed Gur Mill in Laxmipur.

Upon arrival, the miscreants opened indiscriminate fire on the police party, which was retaliated.

While others fled, the appellant, Jai Chand Yadav, was apprehended at the spot. A search of his person yielded a 9mm pistol, a country-made .303 bore pistol, live and used cartridges, and mobile phones.

He was charged and subsequently convicted by the Trial Court on March 30, 2016, for attempt to murder and obstructing public servants under the IPC, along with various offenses under the Arms Act.

The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of a lack of independent witnesses and the absence of injuries to the police party.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 353 of the IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26(1), and 27 of the Arms Act was sustainable despite the testimony being comprised entirely of police officials.

2. Whether the sentence imposed ought to be modified considering the age of the appellant and the time elapsed since the incident.

The court applied Section 307 of the IPC regarding attempt to murder and Section 353 of the IPC concerning assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty.

It further applied Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26(1), and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, which relate to the illegal possession, concealment, and use of prohibited arms and ammunition.

The court adhered to the evidentiary principle that the testimony of police officials is reliable and can form the basis of a conviction if found to be consistent and trustworthy, even in the absence of independent witnesses.

The Court scrutinized the depositions of fifteen prosecution witnesses, noting that P.W.2 (the informant) and other raiding party members (P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.11) provided consistent accounts of the firing incident and the appellant's apprehension.

The recovery of arms was corroborated by P.W.14 (Investigating Officer) and P.W.15 (Ballistic Expert), who confirmed that the seized firearms were functional.

The Court rejected the defense’s contention that the lack of independent witnesses or physical injury to the police invalidated the case, holding that the testimonies were completely trustworthy and the guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the Court took a sympathetic view on the quantum of punishment, noting the incident occurred in 2010, the appellant is now over 60 years old, and he had already served over 6 years and 7 months in custody.

The appellant was ordered to be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. The appeal was disposed of with the conviction upheld but the sentence modified.