IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reduce the sentence for the offences based on the time already spent by the petitioner in incarceration and trial, considering the occurrence in 2008.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.31/2015 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 13.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Original Case No.195/2009, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under :

Offence U/s 457 IPC : Three years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days’ S.I.

Offence U/s 380 IPC : Three years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days’ S.I.

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2008, complainant Ashok Chouhan submitted a written report before Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur to the effect that on 28.11.2008, he went to Balotra, Barmer to attend a marriage function. In the intervening night of 28-29.11.2009, some unknown person unlawfully entered in his house and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments etc. On this report, the police registered the case against accused-person for offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 13.02.2015 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.

7. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.03.2016. Hence this revision petition.

8. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2008 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about one year, eleven months & eleven days, out of total sentence of three years’ S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

10. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2008 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period of one year, eleven months & eleven days incarceration, out of total sentence of three years’ S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

12. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintai