The court upheld the conviction under Section 379 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in custody and the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 19.06.2003 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2003 by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court partly allowed the petitioners' appeal and instead of offence under Section 392 IPC, it convicted the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced them to undergo six months' RI each and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I.

2. Whereas, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') vide judgment dated 04.02.2003 passed in Cr. Case No. 525/2001 convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year's RI and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' RI.

3. By this revision petition, the petitioners also challenge the judgment of the trial court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2001 at about 9:15 PM, complainant Smt. Karuna Pathak submitted a report before concerned Police Station to the effect that on 25.05.2001 in the evening, when she and her husband were going on scooter, two persons came on a motorcycle from behind and snatched her gold chain and ran away. On this report, Police registered a case against unknown persons for offence under Section 392 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, the petitioners were arrested by the Police.

5. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Section 392 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. No witness was examined in defence.

7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 04.02.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.

8. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal vide its judgment dated 19.06.2003 and instead of convicting the petitioners for offence under Section 392 IPC, convicted them for offence under Section 379 IPC and also reduced the sentence as aforesaid. Hence, this revision petition.

9. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2001 and out of total sentence of six months' R.I., the accused petitioners have already served three months and eighteen days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioners for the offence under Section 379 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

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

11. 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-petitioners.

12. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2001 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of three months and eighteen days in custody, out of six months of total sentence, so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that t