1 2025:CGHC:12161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 1028 of 2016 • Radhelal @ Pintu Dhruv, S/o Devsingh Dhruv, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Gajaiepuri, Post Office & Police Station Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 11/03/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.14/2014 arising out of judgment dated 23.08.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 435/2012. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the present applicant under Section 457 of the IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.12 16:43:26 +0530 2 default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, on 19.06.2012 when the complainant, namely, Roshan Puri Goswami (PW-1) was sleeping in his house at night along with his family members, applicant entered in his kirana shop by breaking the door with intention of committing theft of the grocery items. Upon hearing the sound, the complainant woke up and caught hold the applicant. On the basis of the above background, the complainant lodged the report (Ex.P-1) against the applicant before the police station – Gariyaband, District – Gariaband (C.G.). Thereafter, the applicant was arrested. After investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the concerned Court. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment and vide judgment dated 26.10.2016, the Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that on the date of incident, the applicant was a young boy, he has remained in jail for 16 days i.e. from 20.06.2012 to 22.06.2012 and from 26.10.2016 to 08.11.2016, he has no criminal antecedents, and he is facing the lis since, June, 2012, i.e. for more 3 than 12 years. She further submits that fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel 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 facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Roshanpuri Goswami (PW-1), Salik Ram (PW-2) supported with the statements of other witnesses, and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that on the date of incident, the applicant was a young boy, he has remained in jail for 16 days, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since, June, 2012, i.e. for more than 12 years, further the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail and the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him while keeping intact the fine amount and default sentence thereof. 4 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his 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 Prakash