1 / 4 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 334 of 2016 1. Rajesh Yadav S/o Jaggu Yadav Aged About 28 Years 2. Manoj Vaisya S/o Damodar Vaisya Aged About 24 Years, 3. Mahendra Vaisya S/o Vijay Vaisya Aged About 24 Years Caste Mahar, All are R/o Village Chindwada Junapara, Thana Darbha, Civil And Revenue District: Bastar (Jagdalpur) Chhattisgarh ... Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station: Darbha, Civil and Revenue District: Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 19.02.2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2016, by the Sessions SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.02.20 17:01:35 +0530 2 / 4 Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.), whereby judgment dated 13.01.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1391 of 2014 wherein, the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 392 of IPC RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- to each applicants, in default, additional RI for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.12.2013, in the early morning at about 05:00 am, the complainant namely Pannalal Tavri was going towards Padamgiri, Thana: Malkangiri, Orrisa, on his way he was stopped by 4 persons, and an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- and gold chain was looted from him. Thereafter the matter was reported. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, offence under Section 392 were registered against the applicants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar, Jagaldalpur (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted & sentenced the applicants as mentioned in Para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in separate criminal appeals, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.02.2016, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 3 / 4 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicants and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant No. 1 has remained in jail from 02.07.2014 to 13.01.2015 and 27.02.2016 to 12.08.2016 i.e. for 1 year 11 months 26 days, applicant No. 2 and 3 have remained in jail from 29.07.2014 to 13.01.2016 and 27.02.2016 to 12.08.2016 i.e. for 1 year 11 months, and they are facing the lis since August 2014, i.e. for more than 11 years and the fine amount has already been deposited by them. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, contents of FIR (Ex.P/10) and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct fact of finding. 9. As regards sentence part, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone for 1 year 11 months, they are facing the lis since August 2014 i.e. for more than 10 years, I am of the view that 4 / 4 the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Consequently, the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh