AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 190 wordsA.K. Mathur, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the record.
The accused has been convicted u/s 394, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month''s rigorous imprisonment,
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the conviction of the petitioner and rightly so for the reason that the accused was caught red handed after snatching the chain. Learned counsel only presses the question of awarding of sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment to the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that the accused is of less than 21 years, of age, therefore, leniency may be shown in the matter of awarding sentence.
Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, I reduce the sentence of the accused petitioner u/s 394 IPC, from 2 years rigorous imprisonment to 8 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.
The revision petition is disposed of as indicated above.