CRIMINAL APPEAL No.98 of 1998(SJ) *** Against the judgment dated 9.3.1998 and order of conviction dated 10.3.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1996/ 19 of 1997 by Sri Harendra Kishore Verma, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. *** NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, son of Sri Sahdevan Singh, resident of village- Checharahi, P.O. Checharahi, P.S. Obra, District- Aurangabad. … Appellant Versus The State of Bihar … Respondents *** For the appellant : Mr. Amresh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) For the State : Mr. S. N. Prasad, A. P. P. *** P R E S E N T Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Prakash *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 27 of the Arms Act. However, no separate sentence was passed under section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution case is that on 25.08.1994 at 2.45 PM certain miscreants were crossing on motor cycle, who were generally firing and when the motor cycle fell down one of the persons i.e. the appellant was apprehended with fire arms. He had allegedly also fired at the deceased Shanker Prasad due to which he later died in the same transaction. 3. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the appellant on 21.11.94 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1-B), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and thereafter he faced the trial and was convicted as aforesaid. - 2 - 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated in this case and, in fact, he was arrested by the police from the Bus Stand where he had gone to purchase medicines for his wife. 5. The prosecution on its behalf examined thirteen witnesses and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the present appellant. 6. Out of the 13 prosecution witnesses, three witnesses were declared hostile, two were tendered, whereas, three witnesses are on the point of apprehension of the appellant with fire arms. One witness is formal in nature who had examined the arms and ammunitions. 7. P.W.1 Dilip Sah, who is on the point of apprehension of the appellant, did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. P.w.2 Pramod Kumar Gupta also on the same point did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.10 Santosh Sah is also on the point of occurrence but did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 Md. Ishaque, who is also the witnesses of the area, is tendered. So, the total sum is that none of the witnesses of the area where the occurrence took place supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. P.W.6 and 7, namely, Prem Sagar Singh and Valmiki Singh are the main witnesses on the point of apprehension of the appellant and have supported the factum of apprehension of the appellant and the recovery thereupon. However, there are minor contradictions which do not per se go to the root of the prosecution case. 9. While considering the defence of the appellant, this court noticed that three witnesses were examined to support the factum that in fact, the appellant was standing at the Bus Stop when suddenly the police came and started searching - 3 - the persons standing there and upon finding Rs. 25/- from the person of the appellant, he was taken away by the police and then charged in the present case. 10. In the present case, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 1994 and already the appellant has suffered the agony of trial for fifteen years and the sentence passed against him under section 25(1-B) and section 27 of the Arms Act appears to be exceedingly excessive in view of the fact that section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act prescribes sentence not less than one year but which may extend to three years and under section 27 of the Arms Act, maximum sentence is seven years and minimum sentence is three years. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this court is of the view that since the appellant has remained in custody for four years, the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence as stated above. 13. Let a copy of the first and last page of the judgment be handed over to the Amicus Curiae to enable him to receive his remuneration from the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 7th October, 2009. NAFR / JA/-