Rajbir Vs State of U.P.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No.142 of 1988, Police Station- Babugarh, District- Ghaziabad, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 411 I.P.C.

¶10

Heard Sri Prayogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, resident of Alipur, Mugalpur, Police Station- Babugarh, DistrictGhaziabad, lodged an FIR alleging that certain miscreants had committed theft of articles from his tubewell. When they attempted to escape with stolen articles, the informant along with other villagers reached the spot. It is alleged that the miscreants fired with intention to kill, though no injury was caused. In response, one of the villagers also fired from his licensed firearm. During the course of the incident, one accused namely the present appellant Rajbir was apprehended at the spot along with a stolen starter while two others accused person managed to escape.

¶12

On the basis of written report, the FIR was lodged and investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.

¶13

Charges were framed for offences under Section 379, 411 and 307/ 34 I.P.C., the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶14

The prosecution has examined P.W.-1 the complainant Rakesh Kumar Sharma, P.W.-2 Sardar Singh and P.W.-3 Anand Swaroop Sharma.

¶15

Documentary evidences, Ext. Ka-1 to Ext. Ka-11 is available on record

¶16

CRLA No. 447 of 1995

¶17

2

¶18

and was duly proved by the prosecution witnesses. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidences on record returned a finding of guilt and convicted the appellant for offence under Section 411 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment. However, the trial court acquitted the accused for other offences under Section 379 and 307 I.P.C.

¶19

Aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶20

At the time of argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not dispute the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court and confined the arguments to the question of sentence only. It is submitted that the accused has already undergone incarceration after conviction from 28.02.1995 to 23.03.1995. The incident is more than three decades old. The appellant has faced the agony of criminal proceedings for a prolong period. No other criminal antecedent has been brought on record. The ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal but does not dispute the long lapse of time.

¶22

This Court has carefully examined the record. The conviction of the appellant under Section 411 I.P.C. is based on recovery of stolen starter from his possession. He does not suffer from any perversity and deserves to be affirmed.

¶23

The only question that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of sentence. It is undisputed that the occurrence took place about 30 years ago. The accused remained in custody for a short period of 23 days. Post conviction, the appeal remained pending for inordinately long period. There is no material indicating misuse of liberty of bail during pendency of the appeal.

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a prolonged lapse of time and long pendency of criminal proceedings are relevant considerations for reduction of sentence. Passage of time is a significant factor in modifying the sentence. Sentencing must be proportionate and it should balance deterrence with reformative considerations.

¶25

Considering the nature of offence, long lapse of time and the absence of criminal antecedents of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that

¶26

CRLA No. 447 of 1995

¶27

3

¶28

the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed .

¶29

The conviction of the appellant under Section 411 I.P.C. is affirmed, however, the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified to the period already undergone.

¶30

The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

¶31

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be transmitted to the learned trial court for necessary compliance.

¶32

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

¶33

April 17, 2026

¶34

P. Pandey

¶35

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajbir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girraj Vs State of U.P.

Mukhtyar Ahmad Vs Union of India

Suraj Bhan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Prashant @ Pinta Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.