1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 858 of 2016 • Ajay Parihar, S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Amapara, Raipur, Police Station - Aajad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bemetara, Civil and Revenue District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent AND Criminal Revision No. 952 of 2016 • Shubham Nandi S/o Ashok Nandi @ Subrat Nandi, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Near Baikunthdham Mandir, Camp-1, Bhilai, Police Station - Chhawni, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant (CRR No.858/2016) : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Applicant CRR No.952/2016) : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent (CRR No.858/2016) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For State/Respondent (CRR No.952/2016) : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.20 16:49:16 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board 20/03/2025 1. As both the revisions arise out of same impugned judgment, they are being heard together with the consent of counsel for the parties and are disposed of with a common judgment. 2. The present revisions are filed by the applicants/accused persons under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.39/2016 arising out of judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.769/2015 wherein the applicants have been convicted under Section 457 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-2 years with fine of Rs.500-500/- each; under Section 380 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-2 years with fine of Rs.500-500/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.08.2015 at about 08:00 PM complainant Mukesh Chandak (PW-01) closed his grain shop. Next morning at about 04:00 AM, one Mahesh Nandawani called the complainant over phone and informed him that someone has broken the lock of his shop and when he reached to the shop, he found that amount of Rs.1,46,000/- was missing from his shop. On the above background, the complainant lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1) against the unknown person. During course of investigation, the 3 applicants/accused persons were arrested and as per their memorandum statements, stolen amount and other properties were seized from the possession of the applicants. 4. After investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed against the applicants/accused persons before the concerned Court. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 5. Learned Trial Court as well the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants/accused persons as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, these revisions. 6. Learned Counsels appearing for the applicants jointly submit that they do not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants/accused persons but are challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. It is further submitted that applicant Ajay Parihar has remained in jail for more than 11 months i.e. from 27.08.2015 to 18.07.2016 and from 27.08.2016 to 09.09.2016, and applicant Shubham Nandi has also remained in jail for more than 11 months i.e. from 27.08.2015 to 18.07.2016 and from 27.08.2016 to 09.10.2016, they have no criminal antecedents, they are facing the lis since 2015 and at the time of incident, the applicant Ajay Parihar was a young boy aged about only 22 years and applicant Shubham Nandi was aged about only 18 years. They further submit that fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned Trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4 7. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Mukesh Chandak (PW-01), Mahesh Sharma (PW-04), N.K. Swarnakar (PW-07), Investigating Officer supported with the other evidence 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 correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants. 10. As regards the sentence part of the applicants/accused persons, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that applicants have remained in jail for 11 months, they have no criminal antecedents, they are facing the lis since 2015, at the time of incident, they were young boy aged about 22 years and 18 years respectively, further the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicants back to jail and the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them while keeping intact the fine amount and default sentence thereof. Further, the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 11. Consequently, the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of 5 applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond 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