HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.204 of 2025 Munni Devi @ Nanhi Devi --Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. DCS Rawat, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Dy.A.G. for the State/respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This revision is preferred against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, U.S. Nagar in Crl. Appeal No.75 of 2023, Munni Devi v. State and judgment and order dated 27.07.2023 passed by learned Addl. CJM, Kashipur, U.S. Nagar whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced under Section 411 IPC. 2. Fact of the prosecution case are that Munni Devi @ Nanhi Devi, a domestic maid working in the house of informant, was doing the job of cooking since last five years. Since last one year, the informant noticed missing of ornaments and cash. Hence she installed a camera in the bed room. On 12.05.2017, informant had gone out with her family members and the revisionist was alone doing the job. When the informant returned she found her ornaments missing. In the record of CCTV, her husband saw the revisionist committing theft of ornaments and cash in the store room. Accordingly the case was registered and charge-sheet was submitted. Total four witnesses PW1 Rupali Aggarwal, PW2 Constable Seema Chauhan, PW3 Sanjay Aggarwal and 1 PW4 S.I. Jaipal Singh Chauhan were examined by the prosecution. 3. Thereafter, the statement of accused- revisionist was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which she denied the allegations. 4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 27.07.2023 held the revisionist guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC and sentenced her to two years’ R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. However, she was acquitted for the charge of Section 381 IPC. 5. Challenging the judgment and order dated 27.07.2023, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2023 which was decided by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur vide its judgment and order dated 21.11.2024, thereby, dismissing the appeal. 6. Challenging both the judgments, present revision has been filed. 7. This is a case based upon concurrent findings of fact. The revisionist has been convicted and sentenced u/s 411 IPC and sentenced accordingly which was affirmed by the appellate Court also. PW1 Rupali Aggarwal has clearly stated that when she noticed that there was a theft of money and ornaments in the house, she got installed a CCTV Camera in the house. The revisionist was doing work in her house for last4-5 years. Even the recovered articles from the revisionist were shown to the informant in the Court which she identified. 8. PW2 Constable Seema Chauhan has stated about arresting the revisionist and recovery of stolen items. The recovery was also made on the pointing out of 2 revisionist from her own house. Even the argument regarding delay does not hold water because the camera was installed on having suspicion of articles. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned findings of conviction and the revisionist has rightly been convicted u/s 411 IPC. 10. So far as sentence part is concerned, learned Counsel for the revisionist fairly conceded that he does not want to challenge the findings of conviction as the same are based on the evidence on record. He only prayed that the revisionist may be sentenced to the period already undergone by her. 11. To this argument, learned State Counsel also does not have any serious objection. 12. In such view of the matter, the present revision is allowed in part. So far as the conviction of revisionist u/s 411 IPC is concerned, the same is affirmed. However, insofar as the sentence part is there, the revisionist is sentenced to the period already undergone by her during jail. The period spent either during investigation, trial or appeal shall be reckoned accordingly. The revisionist however shall deposit the fine, as imposed by the trial Court which shall be a condition precedent for her release. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.08.2025 Rdang 3