The court has the discretion to consider the circumstances of the case and modify the sentence accordingly.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This revision, preferred by the revisionists u/s 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.11.2014 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No.718 of 2011, State vs. Balvinder and another, whereby the revisionists had been convicted and sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine one month s additional simple imprisonment was awarded as well as judgment and order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khatima, in Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2014 Balvinder Singh and another vs. State , whereby the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court had been confirmed.

2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the informant- Mohan Chandra submitted an information Ex. Ka-1 with Police Station Nanakmatta, Udham Singh Nagar on 28.09.2009 regarding theft of his buffalos; on the basis of said information chick FIR Ex.Ka-8 was lodged on 28.09.2009.

3. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet Ex. Ka-6 against the revisionist under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. Accordingly, charges were framed on 27.11.2010, to which the revisionists-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To prove the prosecution story, PW-1 Mohan Chandra (informant), PW-2 Mukesh Singh Rana, PW-3 Constable Satveer Sharma, PW-4 Constable Deshraj, PW-5 Constable Bhuwan Negi and PW-6 S.I.- P.R. Angari were examined as prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the statements of revisionists-accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they stated that, they have been falsely implicated in the offence. In defence no witnesses were produced.

5. The trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the revisionists, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, revisionists have preferred an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge; after hearing the parties the learned Addl. Session Judge came to this conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the revisionist and affirmed the sentence passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved both the above judgments and orders the present revision has been preferred.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

7. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned Counsel appearing for the revisionists, fairly submits that, the conviction of the revisionists, as recorded by the Court below is perfectly justified as per the evidence produced by the prosecution and he also does not want lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court may be reduced to some extent. The reasons shown for such a prayer are that revisionists are the only bread earner of their family and lastly, the revisionists were sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment, out of which, they have already served more than three months.

8. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the revisionists to three months R.I. instead of one year s R.I. because the matter relates to the year 2009; as per the evidence one buffalo was recovered from the possession of the revisionists; there is no criminal history against them.

9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision preferred by the revisionists is partly allowed in the following directions: -

A. The conviction awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the Appellate Court is maintained.

B. The revisionists are sentenced to three months R.I. instead of one year s R.I., under Section 411 IPC.

C. The revisionists, however, shall