The High Court of Chhattisgarh has affirmed the conviction under Section 392 IPC, but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, citing prolonged litigation and the young age of the accused. The decision upholds the approach taken by lower courts and serves as binding authority for sentence modification where mitigating circumstances exist.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/837/2016 of Brijesh Rao @ Babu Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010009072016 |
| Date of Registration | 02-09-2016 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (Sentencing under Section 392 IPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether, in view of long pendency of proceedings, youth of the accused at the time of offence, and substantial period already undergone, the sentence of imprisonment for conviction under Section 392 IPC can be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that while upholding the conviction under Section 392 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused if there are mitigating circumstances such as the young age of the accused at the time of offence, significant duration already spent in custody, and the long pendency of the case. The fine imposed and default sentence remain intact. Such discretion serves the ends of justice and prevents undue hardship to the accused in appropriate cases. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The applicant was convicted under Section 392 IPC for snatching a gold chain and pendant from the complainant. The incident took place in 2011. The applicant was 22 years old at the time. He was sentenced to three years R.I. and fine. He had already undergone about 1 year and 3 months in jail and faced litigation for over 13 years. The applicant challenged only the sentence, not the conviction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | The approach of considering mitigating circumstances in sentencing under Section 392 IPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Upholds the exercise of judicial discretion to reduce sentence to period already undergone if accused has served significant jail time and faced protracted litigation.
- Age of the accused at the time of offence, duration already served in prison, and deposit of fine are relevant mitigating factors.
- Lawyers may rely on this ruling for seeking sentence reduction in similar factual contexts even where conviction is affirmed.
- The conviction under Section 392 IPC was not disturbed, but the sentence was modified purely on mitigating factors.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed the evidence and affirmed that the conviction under Section 392 IPC was justified, agreeing with the findings of both the trial and appellate courts.
- On the sentence, the court considered the young age of the applicant at the time of offence (22 years), the considerable period already spent in custody (1 year 3 months), and the overall lapse of over 13 years since the investigation began.
- It held that in such circumstances, sending the applicant back to jail would serve no fruitful purpose.
- The ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone, keeping the fine and default sentence intact.
- The decision was based on judicial discretion within the framework of law, in the light of mitigating personal and temporal circumstances.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Did not challenge the conviction, only the quantum of sentence.
- Argued that the applicant had already served more than a year in jail.
- Highlighted that litigation had been ongoing for over 13 years.
- Stated that the accused was only 22 years old at the time of the incident.
- Submitted that the fine had already been deposited.
- Sought reduction of sentence to period already undergone.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the judgments of the trial and appellate courts.
- Opposed interference with the conviction and sentence.
Factual Background
The incident occurred on 21.12.2011 at 10:30 PM, when the applicant snatched a gold chain and pendant from the complainant near Chetak Bar Bus Stand. The FIR was filed, and the applicant was arrested. After trial, the applicant was convicted under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. He had already undergone one year and three months in jail and was 22 years old at the time of the offence. The challenge before the High Court was limited to the sentence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code: The court confirmed the conviction for robbery under this section.
- Section 397/401 CrPC: The revision was entertained under these statutory provisions, allowing the High Court to examine the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence.
- Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023: The bail bond was continued for six months as per this provision.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court, while upholding the conviction, exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone based on the long duration of proceedings and personal circumstances of the accused.
- Ordered that bail bonds remain in force for six months pursuant to Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judicial discretion in sentence reduction reaffirmed; existing legal principles on sentence modification upheld.