The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of mitigating factors such as the absence of criminal antecedents, the time elapsed since the incident, and the recovery of stolen property in determining the sentences and imposing fines as victim compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Criminal Revision No.975 of 2012.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Cr. Rev. No.1011 of 2012.

3. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Cr. Rev. No.924 of 2012.

4. These batch of criminal revision applications have been filed against the judgment dated 03.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2010 along with Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2010 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Bokaro whereby the learned appellate court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2010 to the extent that the conviction and sentence of Mejar Singh under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code was set aside and his conviction and sentence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code was upheld. So far as other petitioners are concerned, they were convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and their conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned appellate court.

5. Following is the chart representing the Criminal Appeals filed by the present petitioners before the learned court below :

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners have confined their arguments on the point of sentence as all the petitioners before this Court in three criminal revision applications are convicted only under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsels have also submitted that none of the petitioners have any criminal antecedent as is apparent from the learned trial court’s judgment wherein, it was submitted that there was no previous conviction of any of the petitioners. Learned counsels have submitted that from the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in Criminal Revision No.924 of 2012, two, two, three and three mobile phones respectively were recovered. So far as petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1011 of 2012 is concerned, four mobile phones were recovered from his possession.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1011 of 2012, has submitted that although the case was instituted for offence under Sections 392 and 411 of Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1011 of 2012 for offence under Sections 392 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, but the learned appellate court has acquitted him and the conviction only under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code was upheld. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1011 of 2012 has specifically stated that the recovery of the mobile phones was prior to recording of his confessional statement and the learned appellate court found the conviction of the said petitioner under Section 392 Indian Penal Code unsustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same was set aside. So far as other petitioners are concerned, they were ultimately convicted only under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and their conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned appellate court.

8. The learned counsels su