Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 337 (UTT)

Vishal @ Vicky v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-09-09

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/IV FTC Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 29 of 2003) under Section 25 of Arms Act, whereby the appellant was convicted for two years and six months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an FIR has been lodged by the informant alleging therein that on 25.01.2003 at about 17:15 hours, the informant received information through telephone by S.I. namely, Chandan Singh Chauhan that three persons were in the Centro Car No. DL 7CC 2454 and when the police persons tried to stop them near the bridge of Mohamadpur; they did not stop the car; the accused persons fired upon them with the intention to kill them and went towards Manglore through car. Then, the informant at about 17:15 hours along with other police officials went from Maal Greh and when they reached Manglore, Gangnahar bridge then from the east of Gangahar Patri Centro Car No. DL 7CC 2454 was passed and when the informant tried to stop them, then the persons were fired upon the police officials with the intention to kill them. Thereafter, they followed the car and at about 17:30 hours, they caught one accused, namely, Vishal @ Vicky and from his possession, they recovered one pistol China made, one Khokha and five live catridge were recovered. After that, the informant along with police officials followed the other two persons and during the search, the accused persons were again fired upon the police party and in reply, the police officials also fired and thereafter, they found that one accused person had died and other accused person fled away from the spot and from the dead person, the police recovered one pistol, five Khokha catridge, two live catridge and one pistol blank magazine were recovered. 3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act and acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 4. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act and acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press this criminal appeal on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is maintained. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the occurrence relates back to year 2003. He also submits that the appellant has been convicted for two years six month and in default of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo one month additional imprisonment and he has already served two years eight months eight days in the jail. 6. Learned State Counsel admits the fact that the appellant has already served two years eight months eight days in the jail. 7. Since the appellant has already served two years eight months eight days imprisonment in the jail, and the learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the appellant, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant. In view of the fact that the sentence awarded to the appellant has already been served, the appellant shall be set free, if he is not wanted in any other cases. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 9. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned.