The Supreme Court modified the sentence of two petitioners convicted under Section 379 IPC for snatching, reducing their rigorous imprisonment to 36 days already undergone while maintaining the fine.
Sentence modified to 36 days rigorous imprisonment; fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each petitioner maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BAIL SLIP
The Petitioners namely 1). Babu, S/o. Krishna Reddy, 2).Nagaraj @ Naga, S/o.Panchat Charan in Crl.R.C.No.728 of 2014 (Appellants in Crl.A.No.55 of 2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur) were released on bail vide order of this Court, dated 24.07.2014 and made in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.No.728 of 2014.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 07.12.2021
Judgment Pronounced on : 10.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.728 of 2014
1.Babu
2.Nagaraj @ Naga .. Petitioners
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sevapet Police Station, Thiruvallur District. (Crime No.23 of 2012)
.. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 05.07.2014 made in C.A.No.55 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, confirming conviction and sentence passed on them by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur in C.C.No.339 of 2012 dated 25.04.2014 and set aide the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.04.2014 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur in C.C.No.339 of 2012, thereby, finding the petitioners/accused guilty for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and imposing sentence of six months imprisonment on each of them and imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of them, in default to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment and the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur dated 05.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.55 of 2014, thereby, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
filed appeal in Crl.A.No.55 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. The learned Appellate Court again independently appraised the evidence and considering the fact that P.W.1 had spoken about the incident and that she identified the accused in Court, coupled with the facts that the the gold ingot was recovered, relied upon the evidence of the investigating officer and came to the conclusion that the finding of the Trial Court, as to the guilt of the petitioners/accused, as correct and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, now the present case is laid before this Court.
sentence, since, they are presently leading a law abiding life. To this, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), upon instructions, submitted that the statement, as far as the first accused Babu is concerned, the statment is correct. But, however, second accused, Nagaraj @ Naga, also had two other cases of similar in nature. But, however, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted a copies of the judgment in C.C.No.153 of 2016 and the extract from the e-courts website in C.C.No.152 of 2016, whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
grs
To
Copy to:
+1cc to Mr.R.Sasi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.65879
Crl.R.C.No.729 of 2014
GJ(CO) SU(22/12/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine should be modified considering the petitioners have already undergone 36 days imprisonment.
Whether the revisional jurisdiction allows modification of the sentence upon satisfaction of the petitioners being law-abiding citizens.
Whether the fine imposed on the petitioners should be maintained at Rs. 2,000/-.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.Appeal (MD).No.424 of 2016Referred¶25
Chunthuram vs. State of ChattisgarhReferred¶26
Chunthuram Vs. State of Chattisgarh
Crl.Appeal No.584 of 2009Referred¶27
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babu
Nagaraj @ Naga
State
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
Parties & counsel
