ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.35/2023, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming the judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.721/2016 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC, reduced the sentence for the said offence from simple imprisonment of 3 years to simple imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months and also reduced the fine amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The sentence for default in payment of fine was also reduced to 1 months' simple imprisonment from 3 months' simple imprisonment.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 31.01.2016, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Nohar received a telephonic information that a boy has brought a motorcycle to the house of Mohar Singh, resident of Maliya and is intending to sell it at cheap rate, as such, it could be a stolen vehicle. In pursuance of the above information, the SHO along with other police personnel reached to the house of Mohar Singh and found a young boy wandering there, who tried to hide on seeing the police party. On being caught, he told his name to be Vikar Kumar @ Vicky and that the Platina motorcycle lying there had been stolen by his friend Monti from Elanabad and that he had brought the same there with an intention to sell. The police seized the motorcycle and on basis of the aforesaid seizure, registered FIR No.72/2016 for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the above offence.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offence under Section 411 of the IPC vide judgment dated 29.06.2022. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 27.06.2023. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2016. The petitioner was a young boy aged around 19 years at the time of the incident. He is a poor person. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 7 years. He remained in custody for some time during trial and now he is in judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel pra