1 2025:CGHC:766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 978 of 2015 Suraj Kumar @ Chhaila S/o Ram Kailash Basor Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Manendragarh, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Korea, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ...Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 125/2011, whereby it has afÏrmed the order passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manendragarh, District- Korea in Criminal Case No. 21/2011, by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.07 14:30:19 +0530 2 which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as under: Conviction under Section : Sentence Under Section 457 of Indian Penal Code : 01 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. Under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code 01 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days each applicant (Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Shanti Shanker Das lodged a report to the out pos Khongapani, in which it was alleged that in the intervening night of 25/26.01.2010 when he was sleeping alongwith his family members in the house and when wakeup in the night he saw that the door was locked from the outside, some however he manages to come outside and saw that some unknown person committed theft in his house. The police of Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.) registered the offence under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown person and after completion of the trial, the police of Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.) filed the charge sheet before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, 3 District - Korea (C.G.). The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) framed the charges under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant and other accused person and after scrutinizing the evidence and material available on record, the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) convicted the applicant, particular of which given above in the cause title. Thereafter the applicant preferred an appeal before the court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) who upheld the order passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.). Hence, this criminal revision. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant do not challenge their conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that the sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant have already undergone about 04 months and 22 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. She further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non- applicant/State would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the revisionists as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2011 and thereafter more than 12 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone about 04 months and 22 days of jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as they have already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine 5 to further undergo S.I. for 20 days under Section 457 of IPC, and R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 20 days under Section 380 of IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 04 months and 22 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to 1,500/- for the offence under Section 457 of IPC and from Rs. 1,000/- to 1,500/- for the offence under Section 380 of IPC in addition to the fine amount already awarded by the trial Court. The enhanced fine amount of Rs. 3,000/-, shall be deposited by the applicant, within a period of one month from today before the trial Court concerned, and the same shall be paid by the trial Court to the Children observation Home, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.), failing which they shall undergo the sentence as has been awarded by the learned appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. 8. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 9. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti