1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 400 of 2016 • Ashish Kumar Sahu, S/o Omprakash Sahu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai -03, Tehsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh, --- Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Purani Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRR No. 445 of 2016 • Nikunj Ramesh Sadhwani S/o Ramesh Sadhwani, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chabdi Chowk Kamthi, Nagpur, Maharashtra, ---Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S.- Purani Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani and Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi (Legal-Aid), Advocates For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board 03/03/2025 1. This present revisions filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.04 17:01:37 +0530 2 06.04.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.34/2016, whereby the present applicants have been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for two years each and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Somin Chandrakar (PW-1) on the date of incident i.e. 11.03.2014 at about 18:40 pm stepped out of her and at that time one white coloured vehicle Activa, in which the driver along with two other pillion riders came and snatched a gold chain weighing approximately 18 grams valued at Rs.45,000/- from her neck and thereafter, fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant Somin Chandrakar (PW-01) reported the matter to the Police Station, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex-P1) was registered. During investigation, the applicants and co-accused persons were arrested. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai - 3, (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicants for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for two years each and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. The said judgment of JMFC was challenged by the present applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide 3 judgment dated 06.04.2016, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that they does not want to press these revisions on conviction part of the applicants, but confines their argument to the sentence part only, which according to them, is on higher side. They further submit that applicants have remained in jail for one year, three months and twelve days i.e. from 06.04.2016 to 04.05.2016 and from 08.10.2014 to 20.01.2016, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing lis since October, 2014, i.e. more than 11 years and further, at the time of incident, they were young persons. They also submit that the fine amount has already been deposited with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revisions and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of complainant Somin Chandrakar (PW-1), Pratap Singh (PW-4), Sriram Sinha (PW-6), Mirza Irfan Beg (PW-9) and Rajesh Tiwari, Head Constable (PW-11) and the other evidence and material 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 a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that applicants have undergone jail sentence for a period of one year three months and 4 twelve days, they are facing the lis since October, 2014 i.e. for more than eleven years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and further, at the time of incident, they were very young and fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if 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 Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds 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