1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 546 of 2016 1 - Phoolchand S/o Surajlal Pardhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Govind S/o Ishwari Pardhi Aged About 25 Years R/o Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Shri Vimalesh Bajpai, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Shri R.N.Pusty, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 22/03/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.178/2015 whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and convicted the applicants under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced them to RI for two years and fine of Rs.100/- each while setting aside the judgment dated 03.10.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2137/2015 convicting the applicants under Sections 457 & 380/34 IPC and sentencing them to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.50/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further RI for seven days with direction to run the sentences concurrently. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.24 13:45:48 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.10.2013 at 4.00 am, complainant Kutubuddin lodged a report at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur stating therein that in village Mandhar near Stationpara, while he was sleeping along with his family members, at 1:30 at midnight some unknown persons committed theft of golden and silver ornaments worth Rs.1,30,000/-. After registration of the crime, the stolen property were recovered from the applicants on the basis of their memorandum statement during investigation. During identification proceedings, the complainant identified them as stolen articles. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC Court. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicants under Section 457 & 380/34 IPC and sentenced them to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.50/- and in default thereof, to undergo further RI for seven days with direction to run the sentences concurrently, however, in the appeal preferred by the applicants, the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.11.2015 acquitted the applicants under Section 457 & 380 IPC and convicted and sentenced the applicants with lesser offence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants and confines his argument on sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that out of maximum jail sentence of 2 years, the applicants were in jail for one year three months and twenty six days i.e. from 19.01.2015 to 03.10.2015 and again from 07.11.2015 to 21.06.2016, there are no criminal antecedents against them and they are facing the lis since 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. 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 revision and supported the impugned judgment. 3 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. As regards conviction of the applicants, considering the statement of the complainant Kutubuddin (PW-1) supported by other witnesses, i.e., P.W.2 Jubeda Begum, P.W.4 Pitamber, Kotwar and P.W.6 Ramswarup, Head Constable and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding and does not call for interference. 9. Regarding sentence of the applicants, further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicants have remained in custody for one year three months and twenty six days, there are no criminal antecedents against them and they are facing the lis since 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years, I am of the view that 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 revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned Section 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 Anjani