Suresh @ Thakria vs State Of M.P

Heard.

By this revision petition u/S.397/401 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 5th February, 2020 in Criminal Appeal No.50/2019

whereby the appeal has been dismissed and judgment of the trial court has been affirmed.

The trial court by the judgment dated 13th March, 2019 had convicted the petitioner for offence u/S.379 of the IPC and imposed the sentence of one

year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence of 30 days.

The prosecution case was that on 21/2/2013 at about 3.15 PM a report was lodged by the complainant Rekha Patva against two unknown motor cycle

riders alleging that when she was going to her uncle’s house, two persons had come in an unnumbered motor cycle and had snatched her gold

neck chain the weight of which was 2 ½ tola. The snatching was done by the persons sitting as pillion riders in the motor cycle. She had given the

physical description of the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the police had arrested the petitioner and after concluding the

investigation challan was filed. The petitioner along with the co-accused Kanhayalal and Sunil was charged for the commission of the alleged offence

and the said charge has been proved as against the petitioner and co-accused during trial, therefore, the trial court had convicted the petitioner for the

said offence and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. In appeal, the conviction and sentence has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for petitioner has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment. The judgment reflects that PW.1 complainant Rekha had clearly

stated about the incident of chain snatching and that the chain has been recovered at the instance of co-accused Sunil and the motor cycle was

recovered from the house of Kanhaiyalal. The complainant had identified the petitioner and the snatched chain has also been identified.

Confining the argument on the issue of sentence, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had remained in custody for four months 26

days during the trial and he has also remained in custody for a further period of four months six days after the judgement of the appellate court. He

submits that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about nine months and considering the remission period, the total period of custody

comes to eleven months. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the present petitioner and no minimum sentence has been prescribed

for the alleged offence, therefore, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for State.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner on the issue of sentence and also considering the fact that the petitioner has

already completed the sentence of eleven months including remission period and taking note of the other circumstances of the case, the revision

petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for offence u/S.379 of the IPC is upheld and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is

reduced to the period already undergone by him. He is directed to be released forthwith.

c.c as per rules.