Point of Law: Reduction of Sentence - Offence of Theft in dwelling house - No criminal history and revisionist has been acquitted by trial court under Section 411 IPC; revisionist has already served more than two and half years in jail and having regard to nature of offence committed by revisionist and his spotless carrier without any criminal antecedents, this Court while upholding revisionist’s conviction, may consider to alter sentence awarded to revisionist and reduce it to extent of period already undergone.

JUDGMENT :

Since the revision is time barred, accordingly, delay condonation application (CRMA No.751 of 2020) has been moved. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and delay in preferring the present revision is condoned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Admit.

4. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Case No.16 of 2018, “State Vs. Harish Singh” whereby the revisionist was convicted u/s 380 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation and U/s 457 IPC to undergo five years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation as well as the judgment and order dated 10.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in criminal appeal no.29 of 2018, “Harish Singh Vs. State”, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the trial Court.

5. Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that on 01.10.2017 at about 12:30 A.M. the accused entered into the house of the informant and took away the domestic articles. On the basis of information, chick FIR No.19 of 2017, under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 380, 457 and 411 IPC. Accordingly, after compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were framed under Sections 380, 457 and 411 IPC. The revisionist denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 Pushpa Devi, PW2 Lachi Ram and PW3 S.I. Ramesh Singh Bora, PW4 S.I. Amarpal Singh and PW5 S.I. Chandra Singh.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against him. In defence, DW-1 Dev Singh was produced.

8. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal no.29 of 2018, “Harish Singh Vs. State”.

9. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court came to this conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial Court’s order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

10. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

11. Learned Counsel for the revisionist fairly submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court rightly convicted the revisionist based on evidence. He fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2017; there is no criminal history and the revisionist has been acquitted by the trial court under Section 411 IPC; the revisionist has already served more than two and half years in jail and having regard to the nature of the offence committed by revisionist and his spotless carrier without any criminal antecedents, this Court, while upholding revisionist’s conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the revisionist and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.

12. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that there is no minimum sentence prescribed regarding the present offences committed by the revisionist.

13. I have also gone through the evidence on record and come to this conclusion that the trial Court has convicted the revisionist based on sufficient evidence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings. The appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal legally.

14