HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2121 of 1984 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.07.1984 passed by the Special Judge (DAA), Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 315 of 1979, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 399/402 of the I.P.C. and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 2. According to the prosecution, the S.H.O. of Police Station Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat received information from a special informant on 28.10.1979 that an armed gang led by Ramdas of Deokali was planning to assemble at night on the northern side of the bridge over Kharja Nahar to commit robbery. Acting upon this information, the S.H.O., Shri Lallan Rai, along with S.I. T.D. Singh, M.A. Siddiqui, R.P. Yadav, Constable Ambika Prasad, Suresh Singh, Genda Lal, Munni Singh, Ram Prakash Dubey, Ram Prakash Chaudhary, Jabar Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Khemraj, Omprakash, Surendra Nath, and Ram Shanker proceeded from the police station. On the way, they were joined by public witnesses, namely Chhote Lal, Rustam Aziz, Saleem, Sadiq, etc. The entire team reached the canal culvert, inspected the spot, and divided the police party into three teams. 3. While they were waiting for the miscreants, five individuals arrived from the northern side and assembled under a tree on the right side of the canal bank. The police party overheard them discussing that they were armed and intended to block the road, stop buses and trucks, and loot them. Upon being challenged by the S.H.O., the miscreants attempted to flee, but the police Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Alok Kumar Srivastava, Devendra Swaroop, Rajan Tripathi, Spl. Judge Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Ram Dass .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) party and public witnesses surrounded them. Three miscreants, namely Ram Das, Mewa Lal, and Shree Narain, were apprehended at about 1:00 A.M., while the remaining two managed to escape. 4. A search of the arrested persons was conducted on the spot, and country- made pistols and cartridges were recovered from their possession. The recovered articles were seized, sealed in separate bundles, and a recovery memo was prepared on the spot. Based on this, a First Information Report was registered and General Diary entries were made. The investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, Raghuraj Singh, who visited the spot, prepared the site plan, recorded statements of witnesses, and, upon completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. A separate charge-sheet was also submitted in Case Crime No. 381/1979 under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 5. Charges were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined P.W.-1 Shri Lallan Rai (the complainant), P.W.-2 Chhotey Lal (public witness), and P.W.-3 Khaliq, along with documentary evidence. 7. The learned trial court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellants under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, sentencing them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. and three years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the appellant preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the conviction and sentence were against the weight of evidence on record, contrary to law, and that the sentences imposed were too severe. 9. During the pendency of the trial, accused Mewa Lal expired, and the proceedings against him stood abated. Accordingly, the present appeal survives only with respect to appellant Ram Das. 10. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the findings recorded by the trial court and confined submissions only to the question of sentence. Learned A.G.A. supported the judgment of CRLA No. 2121 of 1984 2 conviction and sentence. 11. A perusal of the record and the oral and documentary evidence indicates that the police apprehended the accused along with his companions while they were preparing to commit dacoity and recovered illegal arms from their possession. On the basis of such recovery and other evidence, the trial court rightly recorded the conviction under the aforesaid sections. 12. This Court has carefully examined the entire evidence on record and finds no substantial infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The prosecution has successfully established the charges against the appellant Ram Das beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant Ram Das under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act is hereby affirmed. 13. However, on the question of sentence, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant is about 84 years of age; the incident is quite old, and the appellant has undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for a prolonged period. 14. It is noteworthy that the appellant has no prior criminal antecedents, nor has any criminal involvement been reported against him after the present incident. This indicates that the appellant is not a habitual offender and has maintained a clean record throughout. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in appropriate cases, particularly where there is a considerable lapse of time, absence of criminal antecedents, and the accused has reached an advanced age, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. Reference may be made to Sutaram vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 250, Shyam Narayan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77, and State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 184. 16. In the present case, considering the advanced age of the appellant (about 84 years), the long passage of time since the incident, and the fact that he has no criminal history either before or after the occurrence, this Court is of the view that sending him back to jail at this stage would not serve the ends of justice. 17. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant Ram Das CRLA No. 2121 of 1984 3 under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the period already undergone. 18. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of modification of the sentence already undergone. 19. Since the appellant Ram Das is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record, if any, be sent forthwith to the court concerned for necessary compliance. April 24, 2026 Pravesh Mishra CRLA No. 2121 of 1984 4 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad