SENTENCE REDUCED TO PERIOD UNDERGONE DUE TO PROLONGED TRIAL AGONY AND SUBSTANTIAL CUSTODY COMPLETION.

On November 7, 2004, acting on secret information, police raided the house of the appellant, Sahjan Ansari, in Village Sinjo. The appellant fired a country-made revolver at the police and attempted to flee but was apprehended

A loaded .38 bore revolver with three live cartridges and one empty cartridge was recovered from his person

Following a confession, the police recovered a stolen Yamaha motorcycle from a maize field and three pocket bombs from the house of a co-accused

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on September 5, 2008, for offenses under the IPC and Arms Act and sentenced to a maximum of five years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this conviction through a criminal appeal, specifically seeking a reduction in sentence based on time already served

1. Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court under the IPC and Arms Act were legally sustainable

2. Whether the substantive sentence of the appellant should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, given the lapse of two decades since the occurrence

The Court applied Section 353 of the IPC concerning assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty and Section 414 of the IPC regarding assisting in concealment of stolen property

It further applied Section 25(1-B)(a) for possession of unlicensed firearms, Section 26 for secret contraventions, and Section 27 for the use of arms or ammunition of the Arms Act

The court balanced these penal provisions against the principle of proportionality in sentencing, considering the "agony of trial" and the accused's character and antecedents

The Court evaluated the trial record and the evidence of 14 prosecution witnesses

While the appellant did not contest the merits of the conviction during the appeal, the Court independently reviewed the evidence and found the conviction under Sections 353 and 414 IPC, and Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Arms Act, to be well-founded

However, in analyzing the quantum of sentence, the Court noted that the incident occurred in 2004 and the appellant had been subjected to legal proceedings for over 20 years

The Court observed that the appellant had already served approximately four years of his five-year sentence and that this was his first offense

Consequently, the Court determined that the ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence to the period already served rather than requiring further incarceration

The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bonds and sureties. Order: Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence