Substantive sentence reduced to period undergone for first-time Arms Act offender with satisfactory custodial conduct.

The appellant preferred this jail appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2024 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No. 239/2023, whereby he was convicted under Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and default stipulation.

The prosecution case was that on 03.02.2023, a dispute arose at a wedding at Ganesh Garden involving the appellant, Tilli Yadav, and Manu Yadav; on 05.02.2023 at about 1:30 PM, the three accused reached the complainant's house, abused his mother, and the appellant, instigated by the co-accused, fired a .315 bore country-made pistol at the complainant with intent to kill; the bullet struck the door as the complainant shut it, and further shots were fired before the accused fled while issuing death threats.

Crime No. 70/2023 was registered at Gwalior for offences under Sections 294, 307, 506 and 34 IPC; during investigation, the appellant's confession led to recovery of the concealed weapon, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were added; upon charge-sheet, the trial Court convicted the appellant solely under the Arms Act.

At the appellate stage, listed for suspension of sentence (I.A. No. 12735/2026), the matter was heard finally by consent of both counsel.

The appellant expressly declined to assail the conviction and confined the appeal to the quantum of sentence, pleading that he had faced prosecution for almost three years, had undergone actual custody of about 1 year, 2 months and 13 days, had deposited the fine, and had not misused liberty.

The State opposed any reduction, submitting the sentence was commensurate with the offence.

1. Whether, while maintaining the conviction under Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, the substantive sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment ought to be reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant.

2. Whether, in balancing the equities, the fine imposed by the trial Court ought to be enhanced and directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Section 357 CrPC as the statutory basis for directing that the enhanced fine be disbursed to the complainant as compensation.

The discretionary principle that an appellate court may modify the quantum of sentence by weighing mitigating circumstances—namely, the period of custody already undergone, the length of the prosecution, the offender being a first-time offender of middle age with no criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in custody, and non-misuse of liberty—against the gravity of the offence, with enhancement of fine as a balancing measure.

Since the appellant abandoned the challenge to his conviction, the Court confined its scrutiny to the adequacy of the sentence.

Applying the mitigating-circumstances framework to the facts, the Court noted that the incident dated back to 2023 and the appellant had endured the rigors of criminal prosecution for almost three years; that he had already suffered incarceration of about 1 year, 2 months and 13 days—a substantial fraction of the two-year sentence—during investigation, trial and post-conviction; and that he was a middle-aged, first-time offender with no criminal antecedents on record and satisfactory custodial conduct.

Weighing these factors against the nature of the offence, the Court concluded that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, provided the fine was enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,500/- to balance the equities.

The fine was enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,500/-, to be deposited within two months from the date of the order, failing which the appellant would suffer the sentence originally imposed by the trial Court; upon deposit, the enhanced amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 CrPC. As the appellant was in custody, the Court directed his release forthwith, provided his detention was not required in any other case.