The sentence of imprisonment of convicts can be reduced to the extent of the period undergone if the facts and circumstances of the case are such that they are not required in any other case except the present one and the court in its findings deems it to be the correct step. This was upheld by the Single judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice R.C. Khulbe in Kallu Ram and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Revision No.270 of 2020].
The brief facts of the case are, the revisionists stole two motor cycles. An FIR was lodged regarding the missing motorcycles. On 16.09.2008, the police recovered the motorcycles from the possession of the revisionists. Charges against the revisionists were framed under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionists only under section 411 of the IPC for a period 0f 3 years with a fine of Rs. 10000/-. Aggrieved by this, the revisionists appealed before the sessions judge. The sessions court upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the revisionists have applied for a criminal revision before the Hon’ble High Court.
The counsel for the revisionists submitted that the trial court rightly convicted the revisionists based on evidence. He submitted that there is no information regarding previous convictions and that both the revisionists have already served more than one year of sentence in jail. Considering that the revisionists have been acquitted under section 379 IPC, the counsel pleads the court to alter the sentence of the revisionists keeping in mind that they are the sole bread earners of the family. The learned counsel for the state confirms the submission by the revisionists which states that there is no information regarding other convictions of the revisionists.
The learned judge after listening to both the sides concluded and upheld the conviction of the trial court. Regarding the prayer sought by the counsel for the revisionists, the court said that, “considering the fact that the incident is quite old and seems to have occurred in the year 2008; they are the sole bread earner of their families; there is no evidence regarding previous conviction; both the revisionists have already served more than one year in jail; as per the evidence two motorcycles were recovered from their possession; as regards to the sentence is concerned the revisionists have been acquitted U/s 379 IPC while there is maximum three years’ imprisonment prescribed U/s 411 IPC; and, they are not required in any other criminal case except the present one, it is considered to be just and appropriate to reduce the sentence from three years’ RI to fifteen months U/s 411 IPC.”
Thus, the learned judge allowed the petition in part by reducing the sentence of the revisionist but kept the fine awarded by the trial court intact.
