The court can reduce a sentence based on time served and overall circumstances, even while maintaining a conviction.

Judgment :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 06.10.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal No.23/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Magistrate, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioners’ appeal, upheld the judgment dated 25.05.2005 passed in Criminal Case No.431/2005 by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year’s S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s S.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.12.2004, complainant Kachru submitted a written report alleging that he and his family members were sleeping at his home and eleven sacks containing soyabean were kept there. At about 5 AM, he woke up after hearing sound of footsteps and saw present petitioners fled away on bicycle after stealing three sacks of soyabean. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused petitioners and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Section 380 of IPC against the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 25.05.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.

6. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 06.10.2005. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that they do not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2004 and out of total sentence of one year S.I., the accused petitioners have already served about three months of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2004 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of about three months in custody out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 380 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction for offence under Section 380 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby waived. The petitioners are on bail