In an appeal filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against a judgment of conviction dated 08-09-2025 and order of sentence dated 09-09-2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Surya Pratap Singh partly allowed the appeal and modified the quantum of sentence to the extent that the appellants were directed to be released on probation for a year.
An FIR was lodged at the instance of a Sub-Inspector for offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The SI reported that, on receiving secret information, he constituted three raiding parties and cordoned off an abandoned area in the agricultural fields of a village, where five young persons armed with deadly weapons had gathered and were making preparations to commit dacoity. He claimed that he overheard their conversation, alarmed them and asked them to surrender, and that they attempted to escape but were apprehended.
Upon search, a country-made pistol with a live cartridge, a spring-actuated knife, iron rods, and a wooden stick were recovered. After investigation and filing of the final report under Section 173 CrPC, the appellants and the co-accused persons were sent for trial. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 25 of the Arms Act only and acquitted the co-accused. By the sentence order, the trial court sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/-, with a further one month of rigorous imprisonment in default. Hence, the present appeal.
The appellants initially contended that the conviction was perverse, based on assumptions, presumptions, conjectures and surmises, and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. During arguments, however, the appellants stated that they were not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction and challenged the order on quantum of sentence only. It was argued that the incident took place in 2002, that the appellants had faced the agony of litigation for more than 23½ years, that they had not been prosecuted for any other offence before or after the incident, and that they were first offenders entitled to probation or admonition.
The State argued that the one-year sentence was already on the lower side, that the offence was serious, and that probation could not be granted because a minimum sentence had been prescribed.
The Court held that there was no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the conviction of appellants for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Hence, regarding the judgment of conviction, the appeal was dismissed.
Regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court considered that the incident was more than 23½ years old, that the appellants had faced a protracted trial for that period, that they were first offenders, and that they had no criminal history and had not been prosecuted for any offence in that time. Referring to Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar (1972) 2 SCC 633, and Chellammal and Another v. State 2025 SCC Online SC 870, the Court noted that the for an offence punishable under Section 25, the minimum sentence is imprisonment for seven years and the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that a minimum sentence of seven years barred probation, finding it not in consonance with law. It pointed to Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2021 SC 555, where probation was granted for an offence under Section 397 IPC, which also carries a minimum sentence, and to another decision of the Rajasthan High Court where probation was granted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and the benefit was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Court found that ends of justice would be better served if the benefit of probation is accorded to the appellants and they are released on probation of good conduct. Hence, the Court partly allowed the appeal with regard to the order on quantum of sentence and modified the sentence so that the appellants are released on probation for one year on furnishing requisite bonds before the trial Court. The appellants were directed to undertake to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for that period. The Court directed that, in case of default with regard to the terms and conditions of probation, the appellants would receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so.
