- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-2-1996 of VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, dismissing the Criminal Ap peal No. 40 of 1994 and confirming the conviction and sentence of the applicants under Section 382,i. P. C. and a sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, awarded by the 1st Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 2255 of 1994.
(2.) THE incident is said to have taken place at about mid night of 9/10-7-1986 in the house of the informant Rahim Khan, in which it is alleged that the applicants bad stolen away a box which contained two watches Time Star, two Burkas, two lady suits and currency notes of Rs. 1000/ -. It is also alleged that during the incident, the informant and his wife were assaulted with dandas. THE miscreants after some distance left the box and set fire on the material of the box and took away currency notes of Rs. 1000/- which were kept in the box. On the body of informant two lacerated wounds 3 cm. X 0. 5 cm X skin deep & 2 X. 5 cm. X skin deep on head and three contusions were found on the arms of the informant. One lacerated wound of dimension 5 cm. X 0. 5 cm on head and 2 contusions on non-vital parts were found on the body of the lady by the doctor who medically examined them. Those injuries were also found simple in nature. Both the Courts below believed the evidence and the learned Magistrate held guilty of the applicants for the offence charged with and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. On appeal their con viction and sentence were affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Heard learned Counsel for the par ties. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the ap plicant had already been in jail for about 1 months. According to him, it appears that the incident took place at a trifle matter and that has been given the colour of theft in which the applicants have been named and no stolen property was recovered from their possession. The applicants have also not been proved any previous convict by any Court of law. The applicants have already deposited the amount of Rs. 1000/- each. It-would not be proper to send the applicants behind the bars after a period of 11 years.
(3.) I have given my anxious thought to the submission made on behalf of the ap plicants. In the incident even according to the prosecution the property taken by the miscreants were only two watches Time Star, two burkas and two ladies suits and an amount of Rs. 1000/- in cash. The miscreants had left the box stolen from the house of the informant at some distance where they set fire on the material which were kept in the box. Of course, few simple injuries were also found on the person of the informant and his wife. The applicants have suffered lot of mental agony from July 1986. They suffered imprisonment for about 11/2 months. They have also deposited the amount of fine. In case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice. I do not want to send the applicant again behind the bars after a period of about 11 years from the date of incident. Upholding the conviction of the applicant I reduce the sentence of one year R. I. to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, which have already been deposited by the applicants. With this modification the revision is dis missed. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Sentence modified. .;