1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 837 of 2016 Brijesh Rao @ Babu Rao S/o M. Nageshwar Rao, aged about 22 years, R/o Housing Board Colony Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35/2015 by the Sessions Judge, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.), arising out of the judgment dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.08/2014 convicting the present applicant Brijesh Rao for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- and PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.11 16:10:05 +0530 2 in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month. The learned Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the present applicant. Hence, this revision. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 21.12.2011 at about 10:30 PM, complainant Kanta Prasad (PW-01) and Sunil Acharya (PW-02) came on their motorcycle and parked the motorcycle in front of Chetak Bar Bus Stand, at that time, the applicant/accused came there from behind, pushed the motorcycle and snatched his (complainant) gold chain and pendent from his neck and fled away from the spot. On the basis of the above background, FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged and during course of investigation, the applicant/accused was arrested. Thereafter, the statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. The accused/applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned JMFC, Bastar Place Jagdapur vide judgment dated 27.08.2015, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The learned Appellate Court, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the present applicant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further 3 submits that the applicant has remained in jail for one year and three months, he is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for more than 13 years. He further submits that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was a young boy aged about 22 years. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. 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 supports the impugned judgment and submits that after considering every aspect of the matter, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, which warrants no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of the complainant Kamta Prasad Awasthi (P.W.1), Sunil Acharya (P.W.2) and D.S. Sahu (P.W.4) supported with the 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 further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for about one year and three months, he is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for more than 13 years, and 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 again, therefore, ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the 4 conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine sentence and default sentence awarded by both the Courts shall remain in tact. 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 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash