In cases involving first-time offenders where stolen property is recovered but the offence is relatively trivial and a significant time has elapsed since the occurrence, the court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.

ORDERS :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Nanda Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

2. The counter affidavit submitted at Bar by Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, learned A.P.P. is accepted. Let the same be kept on record.

3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Simdega in Simdega P.S. Case No.24 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.78 of 2012 whereby and whereunder learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under sections 411 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years.

Factual Matrix:-

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this criminal revision is that on 18.02.2012 at night, the informant came to his house and mistakenly forgot to lock the door and went to sleep. On the next day morning, the informant woke up and found his clothes scattered in the room and cash of Rs.400, one mobile phone with SIM Card bearing No.9973684520 and one wrist watch kept on the fridge were stolen by unknown thief. The informant got information that from the house of his neighbour, Gariyan Sachanidra, S/o-Late G. R. D. Choudhary, two mobile phones containing with SIM Nos.7488055577 and 9430779511 have also been stolen by the unknown thief by burgling his house through the window.

5. On the basis of above, Simdega P.S. Case No.24 of 2012 has been registered against unknown miscreants. During course of investigation, stolen articles have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against him for the offence under section 380 and 411 of IPC.

6. In course of trial altogether, 5 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely:-

7. Apart from oral evidence the prosecution has also adduced the following documentary evidence, which are as under:-

Ext.1- Written Application

Ext.1/1- Endorsement of case registration by Parmeshwar Prasad on written application

Ext.2- Handwritting & Signature of Maheshwari Prasad in seizure list

Ext.3 -Memo of arrest in the handwriting with signature of Maheshwari Prasad

Material Ext.-1 - Titan watch

Material Ext.II -Samsung Mobile

8. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

Submission on behalf of petitioner:-

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner at the time of hearing on the point of sentence that it was the first offence and there is recovery of one wrist watch and two mobile phones from the possession of the petitioner for which he has been severely punished for R.I. of 2 years. Even, no T.I. Parade of the said material has been conducted by the Investigating Officer and the seized articles were restored/delivered to the victim/informant by the order of the court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching on merits of the judgment and concurrent findings recorded by the concerned trial court and the appellate court has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence and submitted that during trial and post-conviction, the appellant has remained in custody for three m