1 2025:CGHC:7322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1084 of 2015 Roopchand @ Roopu S/o Samaru Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Nawagaon Hatha, Police Station And Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District – Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.), arising out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.06.2015 passed in Criminal Case No. 416/2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District – Kabirdham (C.G.), wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.13 11:13:36 +0530 2 sentenced to undergo 06 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo 15 days of additional simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.07.2013, the complainant, along with his relative Vijay Barman, was traveling to Pandariya to lend Rs. 2,20,000/- to another relative, Jodhan Mahilange. They hired a Bolero vehicle heading towards Kawardha from Padav Chowk, where the applicant was already present. Upon reaching Pandariya, the complainant realized that the bag containing the money was missing and alleged that the applicant had stolen it. The prosecution examined six witnesses to support its case, and the trial court recorded the applicant’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which he pleaded innocence. 3. The learned trial Court on perusal of material available evidence on record found the applicants guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judged of trial Court, the applicants preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has afÏrmed the decision of the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record, and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant 3 has already undergone about 62 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. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and available records with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, which has been afÏrmed by learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while afÏrming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the convictions are afÏrmed. 8. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2013 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 62 days of jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So 4 this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for six months under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. about 62 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, in addition to the fine amount as has already been deposited by the applicant. Thus, total fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid by the applicant within a period of 01 month from today before the trial Court concerned and the same shall be paid to the Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Sindhanpuri, District – Kabirdhan (C.G.), failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District – Kabirdham (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 10. 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 Rahul Dewangan