1 2025:CGHC:760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 923 of 2014 Roshan Ali @ Sonu S/o Late Shaukat Ali Aged About 22 Years R/o Nayapara Road, Rahmaniya Chowk, P.S. Gole Bazar, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Police Station House OfÏce Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. A.H. Syed, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, 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 20.11.2014 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2014, (Samir Ahmed and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) whereby it has modified the judgment of learned trial Court and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 6089/2014, by which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as under: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.07 12:25:25 +0530 2 Conviction under Section : Sentence Under Section 457 of Indian Penal Code : 03 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code 03 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. (Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant along with co-accused persons on 15.03.2014 at about 12.00 p.m. to 20.03.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. near Dawda Colony, Bhairo Society Garden at the residential house of Manish Kumar Jain, committed house tress- pass at night and theft various articles including one ear-ring, locket of gold of M. printed, golden chain locket of heart design, two pieces golden ladies ring and other jewelries, coin of gold, Rs. 35000/- of cash and driving license. Upon such Act, the aforesaid offences were registered against the accused persons and after that charges were framed by the learned trial Court. 3. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the trial Court, convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment 3 for 2 months for both the offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) whereby, the learned appellate Court has modified the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial Court for offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and in place of these offences, the appellate Court had convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for three months for both the offences. Hence, this revision petition. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to challenge his conviction, however, he submits that as the applicant has already undergone about eight months and twenty days of jail sentence for offence under Section 454 and 380 of IPC, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non- applicant/State submits that the appellate Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 7. 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 revisionist as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In an appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has modified the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial Court for offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC, in place of these offences, the appellate Court had convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for three months for both the offences. 8. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality of infirmity in modifying the judgment of trial Court and convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. 9. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant has faced criminal trial since 2014 and this revision petition has been pending since 2014 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 10 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering the fact that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant for offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC are one year and six months 5 and the applicant has already undergone about eight months and twenty days of jail sentence and has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has 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 one year and six months for offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. eight months and twenty days of jail sentence. Ordered accordingly. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 11. 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 Kunal