##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:47003]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1558/2024 CNR: RJHC010774392024 | URN: CRLAS / 4280U / 2024 Ramswaroop S/o Sh. Prahlad Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bani Ka Bas, Ps Dudhwakhara, Dist. Churu, Raj.

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Priyanka Borana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

REPORTABLE 28/09/2026

1. This Court has received a communication dated 20.05.2026 from the learned Trial Court informing that the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence awarded to him, including the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine, pursuant to the judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.27/2015.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record.

3. The record reveals that the appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 450/149, 452/149, 395/149, 397/149, 398/149, 435/149, 307/149 and 120-B/149 of the Indian Penal Code, besides Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the aforesaid charges against the appellant and, consequently, acquitted him of all such offences. The appellant was, however, held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, has fairly submitted that the appellant does not assail the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and that his grievance in the present appeal is confined to the sentence awarded to him.

5. Although the finding of conviction has not been specifically challenged, this Court has independently examined the record so as to satisfy itself regarding the correctness and sustainability of the finding of guilt. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence undertaken by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or material infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

5.1. It is also noteworthy that the appellant was originally charged with a number of serious offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Arms Act, but the prosecution failed to establish those charges during trial. Consequently, the appellant came to be acquitted of all the said offences and his conviction ultimately remained confined to the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

5.2. On an overall consideration of the evidence and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the conviction recorded against the appellant.

The finding of guilt, therefore, deserves to be affirmed.

5.3. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is affirmed.

6. The question of sentence, however, requires separate consideration. It is apparent from the impugned judgment that the appellant was duly heard on the question of sentence. The learned Trial Court itself noticed that the appellant had no previous conviction and that the present case constituted his first offence. There is also nothing on record to indicate that he had any criminal antecedent. It further appears that the appellant remained subjected to the criminal proceedings for nearly nine years.

6.1. A prayer was made before the learned Trial Court for extending the benefit of probation. The said prayer, however, came to be declined without recording any specific reason for such refusal.

6.2. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid aspect assumes significance. The exercise of sentencing jurisdiction is distinct from the determination of guilt. Once a person is found guilty, the Court is required to consider not mere