ORDER

The revision petitioners have filed this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur in C.C.No.175/2012 dated 17.12.2013 (for short hereinafter referred as 'trial Court'), which is confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.233/2013 dated

19.08.2014.

2. The rank of the parties in this petition are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution is that:

On 03.04.2012 at about 5.30 a.m., the complainant as usual performed pooja at the door of Shankar Mutt and after performing pooja, she was returning to her house. At that time, accused persons gathered near Shankar mutt with an intention to commit robbery, accused No.2 robbed the gold Mangalya chain forcibly and took away on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.K.A.18-V-2789. Therefore, the complainant lodged had a complaint. Thereafter, police had investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.

4. After taking cognizance against the accused, a case was registered in C.C.No.175/2012 and since from date of arrest of the accused, they were in judicial custody till the disposal of the case. Charges were framed by the trial Court and the same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of prosecution, eight witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to 6 and one material object mangalya chain marked as M.O.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused had totally denied the material evidence appearing against them, but they did not chose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

6. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period three years and fine of Rs.4,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of fine amount of Rs.4,000/- each, in total Rs.8,000/-, in which 4,000/- is awarded as compensation to the victim under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. After suspension of sentence by this Court, accused remitted the fine amount Rs.4,000/- each.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused had preferred an appeal before Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.233/2013. The same came to be dismissed on 19.08.2014. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Appellate Court, as well as trial Court, the revision petitioners/accused have preferred the present criminal revision petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of revision petitioners/accused has submitted his arguments that, though he has taken several grounds in his revision petition, he will restrict his argument only to the extent of modifying the sentence. He submits that the accused have already undergone the sentence of 1 year 9 months. The trail Court has imposed rigorous imprisonment for three years. Hence, he sought for reducing the same from 3 years to 1 year 9 months. He further submits that the revision petitioners have not committed any offences prior to this alleged commission of offence. Considering the nature and grounds, he sought for modification of sentence. To substantiate his contention, he has relied on the decision passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suryamoorthy and Another v/s Govindaswamy and Others, reported in 1989 (3) SCC 24.

9. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. M.R.Patil has submitted his arguments that, the trail Court has properly awarded the sentence and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence he sought for dismissal of this revision petition.

10. Having heard the argumen