IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of stolen property under Section 411 IPC can lead to conviction, but sentencing may be adjusted based on the offender's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-

(i) Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.177 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand vs. Susheel Kumar and another, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapryag (“the case”). By it, the revisionists have been convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. By the said impugned, order the revisionist Susheel Kumar has been acquitted of the charge under Section 379 IPC.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2024, Susheel Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case has been confirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The revision has been admitted to the extent of examining the quantum of sentence.

4. The case is based on an FIR by PW1 Rajat Negi, according to which, some parts of crash barrier were stolen by some unknown persons, based on which, FIR No.6 of 2023, dated 06.03.2023, under Section 411 IPC was lodged at the Police Station Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag. The matter was investigated.

5. During investigation a vehicle bearing Registration No.UK13 CA 0176 was intercepted by the police. The revisionists were occupants of it and the stolen articles were recovered from them. Charge-sheet was submitted in the case. On 14.07.2023, charges under Sections 379 and 411 IPC were framed against the revisionist Susheel Kumar whereas charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against the revisionist Rais Ahmed, to which, they denied and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses namely, PW1 Rajat Negi, PW2 SI Dinesh Sati, PW3 Head Constable Satish Chandra, PW4 Constable Ankur Singh, PW5 Head Constable Anusuiya Prasad and PW6 SI Yogesh Kumar.

7. The revisionists were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), according to them, they have been falsely implicated. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist Susheel Kumar has been acquitted of the charge under Section 379 IPC, but both the revisionists have been convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced, as hereinbefore. The revisionists unsuccessfully challenged the judgment in appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the revisionists are in custody for more than 50 days now. The revisionists were arrested on 30.04.2024. He would submit that both of them are very poor. The revisionist Rais Ahmed is a driver whereas, the revisionist Susheel Kumar runs a small bangle shop. This is their first offence. Offence under Section 411 IPC is punishable with fine only also. Therefore, it is submitted that the sentence of the revisionists may be restricted to the period of custody which the revisionists have already undergone.

9. Learned State counsel admits that it is the first offence of the revisionists. He admits that the revisionists are in custody since 30.04.2022. It is a case of recovery of stolen article alone.

10. Having considered the nature of offence, the social and financial condition of the revisionists and the other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be better served, if the revisionists are sentenced to the period of custody, which they have already undergone in the instant case.

11. The conviction of the revisionists under Section 411 IPC, as recorded in the case and upheld in the appeal is confirmed.

12. The revisionists are sentenced to the period of custody which they have already undergone in the instant case.

13. The impugned judgment and orders are modified to the extent as narrated above.

14. T