Substantive sentence reduced to six years considering mitigating circumstances and substantial incarceration.

On the intervening night of 24–25 May 2021, complainant Shivkumar, a GRP constable, was allegedly surrounded by five persons near the old bridge at Khandwa, who forcibly took his wallet, cash and mobile phone; one assailant allegedly pointed a country-made pistol at him. The accused persons were subsequently apprehended, and weapons and the complainant’s belongings were allegedly recovered from them. An FIR was registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the appellant was tried in Sessions Trial No. 114/2021

The Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, convicted the appellant under Section 395 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act by judgment dated 15 September 2025. He was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 395 IPC, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500 under the Arms Act, with default stipulations

The appellant filed the present appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Before the High Court, he confined the challenge to the quantum of sentence, did not dispute the conviction, and relied on his having undergone approximately five years and three-and-a-half months of imprisonment, absence of criminal antecedents, and non-habitual status

Whether the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant should be reduced in light of the period already undergone, absence of criminal antecedents, and other mitigating circumstances?

Whether the conviction under Section 395 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act required interference when the appellant expressly confined his appeal to sentencing?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The conviction arose under Section 395 IPC, which penalises dacoity, and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, relating to unlawful possession or carrying of a firearm or ammunition.

In determining sentence, the Court applied the principles of proportionality and reformative sentencing, taking into account mitigating circumstances such as the accused’s period of incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents, and whether he was a habitual offender

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The High Court found that the appellant had expressly limited the appeal to the quantum of sentence and, consequently, did not undertake a fresh reconsideration of the conviction. It held that the conviction was based on proper appreciation of the evidence and disclosed no ground for interference

However, while assessing punishment, the Court considered that the appellant had already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment and that there was no material indicating prior criminal antecedents or habitual offending. Applying proportionality and reformative sentencing principles, the Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the ten-year substantive sentence to six years’ rigorous imprisonment

The fines and the remaining findings of the Trial Court were left undisturbed.

The appellant’s convictions under Section 395 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act were maintained. The substantive sentence was reduced from ten years’ rigorous imprisonment to six years’ rigorous imprisonment, while the fines and other findings of the Trial Court remained unchanged

The appellant was directed to be released upon completion of the modified six-year sentence, if not required in any other case