Uttam Singh Vs. State of Bihar and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
indian penal code, 1860, section 363(a)(1) - offence thereunder--conviction and sentence--trial court convicted the accused under section 363(a)(1) and sentenced him to three years of simple imprisonment--appellate court changed the conviction to be under section 363 of ipc and ordered sentence for one year--accused facing trial more than 8 years and now 80 years old--held, considering the age of accused, sentence would be reduced to the period undergone in custody. - prabhat kumar sinha, j.1. earned counsel for the petitioner has argued only on the sentence of the petitioner.2. in this case first information report was lodged on 17.5.1992 and as submitted the accused was arrested on 7.6.1992. the learned trial court delivered the judgment on 27.6.1996 and the learned appellate court decided cr. appeal no. 161 of 1996 on 23.3.1998. the learned trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced him under section 363(a)(1) of the indian penal code sentencing him to three years of the simple imprisonment whereas the learned appellate court changed the conviction to be under section 363 of the indian penal code and ordered sentence for one year.3. earned counsel has argued that this petitioner has been facing the case for more than 8 years and he is now about 80 years old.4. from the judgment of the learned lower court, it will appear that age of the petitioner was assessed to be 75 years as in june 1996. as per that the petitioner is nearing the age of 80 years. in view of the long years at in proceeding and in view of the old age of the petitioner, i am of the opinion that the reduction in the sentence is called for.5. earned counsel submits that at the investigation stage the petitioner was arrested on 7.6.1992 and was released on bail on 30.7.1992. thereafter, when the appeal was decided, the petitioner again surrendered on 22.7.1998 and was released on bail under orders of this court on 24.8.1998, submitting that therefore, the petitioner has already undergone custody in connection with this case for 88 days, almost three months.6. it is also pointed out that the boy, who was servant of the informant, alleged to have been kidnapped by the petitioner, who earlier was employed under the informant himself, fled away from custody after some days and was also a witness in the case.7. in view of all the aforesaid circumstances taken together, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of this petitioner is reduced to the period undergone in custody.8. in view of this, while maintaining the conviction under section 363 of the indian penal code, this court orders reduction in sentence to the period undergone in custody.9. with the aforesaid modification in sentence, this application is dismissed.

Judgment:

Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Earned Counsel for the petitioner has argued only on the sentence of the petitioner.

2. In this case First Information Report was lodged on 17.5.1992 and as submitted the accused was arrested on 7.6.1992. The learned trial Court delivered the judgment on 27.6.1996 and the learned appellate Court decided Cr. Appeal No. 161 of 1996 on 23.3.1998. The learned trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced him under Section 363(A)(1) of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to three years of the simple imprisonment whereas the learned appellate Court changed the conviction to be under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered sentence for one year.

3. Earned Counsel has argued that this petitioner has been facing the case for more than 8 years and he is now about 80 years old.

4. From the judgment of the learned lower Court, it will appear that age of the petitioner was assessed to be 75 years as in June 1996. As per that the petitioner is nearing the age of 80 years. In view of the long years at in proceeding and in view of the old age of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the reduction in the sentence is called for.

5. Earned Counsel submits that at the investigation stage the petitioner was arrested on 7.6.1992 and was released on bail on 30.7.1992. Thereafter, when the appeal was decided, the petitioner again surrendered on 22.7.1998 and was released on bail under orders of this Court on 24.8.1998, submitting that therefore, the petitioner has already undergone custody in connection with this case for 88 days, almost three months.

6. It is also pointed out that the boy, who was servant of the informant, alleged to have been kidnapped by the petitioner, who earlier was employed under the informant himself, fled away from custody after some days and was also a witness in the case.

7. In view of all the aforesaid circumstances taken together, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of this petitioner is reduced to the period undergone in custody.

8. In view of this, while maintaining the conviction under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court orders reduction in sentence to the period undergone in custody.

9. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, this application is dismissed.