Sentences in theft cases must be proportionate to the value of stolen property and the offender's personal circumstances.

ORDER

The revision petitioner was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

CRRP 2769/2009 2

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner committed theft of a car stereo worth Rs.3,000/- from the car belonging to PW1 on a day in the second week of March, 2004. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 and MO.1 on their side. The trial court, relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution including the recovery of MO.1 car stereo based on the information furnished by the petitioner, convicted him for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and imposed the sentence on him. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality with the conviction entered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the subject matter of theft was only a car stereo worth only Rs. 3,000/- even according to the prosecution. The petitioner was aged only 22. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment CRRP 2769/2009 3 for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- is too harsh and disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he submits that the sentence imposed by the appellate court is liable to be interfered with by this court.

5. On considering the facts and circumstances, age of the petitioner and the value of the subject matter of theft, this Court is also of the view that the sentence imposed by the appellate court is disproportionate. Ends of justice will be met if an appropriate sentence of fine is imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, modifying the sentence imposed by the appellate court, a sentence of fine of Rs.3,000/- is imposed on the petitioner. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.