The court emphasized the importance of considering personal circumstances and prior incarceration when determining the appropriateness of a sentence.

ORDER

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Camp Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Criminal appeal No.307/2018 whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 199/2016; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 380 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default, he has been directed to further undergo six months' of additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. The defect of non-filing of the affidavit is over-ruled in view of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody.

3. The revision petition is time barred by 74 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

4. Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. It is contended that the petitioner is behind the bars and there was no one to pursue his cause and to render legal assistance to him, therefore, he was deprived from filing the petition within the stipulated period.

6. Considering the submissions advanced and the grounds mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

7. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself is being heard and decided today.

8. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 07.07.2016, an FIR No.190/2016 came to be lodged at the Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara at the instance of the complainant -Kishor alleging therein that on 06.07.2016, the accused committed a theft of Rs.10,000/- and a gold Madaliya from the house of his maternal grandmother. During investigation, the accused-petitioner was arrested and in furtherance of the information provided by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a gold Madaliya was recovered at his instance. After usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against him under Section 380 of IPC.

9. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Section 380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 02.06.2017. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions court which affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Both these judgments are under assail before this court in the instant revision petition.

10. Learned counsel Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 2016. He had remained in jail for some time during the proceedings of trial and thereafter, he is in custody since 09.06.2022, i.e. from the date of judgment passed in appeal. Other than the present one, only one other case for the offence under Section 454 of the IPC has been reported against him. He belongs to a very poor family and is a weaker person of the society. He was a young boy on the date of incident and presently he is 34 years old. He is facing trial since the year 2016 and he has languished in jail for more than 11 months, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

11. Learned public prosecutor though oppo