JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 2. By means of this petition for revision filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.01(02)/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura, has been called in question. 3. The prosecution case is rooted in the ejahar (Exbt.1) filed by one Smt. Bakulbala Debnath (PW.1) on 25.04.2009, disclosing that at about 10.30 pm on the preceding day i.e. 24.04.2009 while they were taking their dinner at their kitchen, they heard some eerie sound from their dwelling hut and when they came out they found the petitioner fleeing away from that room. They shouted, ‘thief’, ‘thief’, and the people from the neighbourhood rushed to the place of occurrence. After the petitioner allegedly left the place of occurrence it was discovered that a sum of Rs.4,220/- , which was kept in a nylon bag was not there. Thus PW.1 filed the complaint on the next day i.e. 25.04.2009. Based thereon, Yatrapur P.S. Case No.32/2009 under Sections 457/380 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. Having completed the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 457/380 of the IPC and accordingly the charge was framed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonamura, to which the petitioner pleaded his innocence and claimed to face the trial. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 6(six) witnesses including the complainant and the Investigating Officer (PW.6). From the prosecution as many as 3(three) documents were brought on record of evidence including the written ejahar filed by PW.1. 5. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied the prosecution story and the incriminating materials those surfaced from the depositions of the witnesses. 6. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that identification of the accused is highly questionable, inasmuch as PW.1 has stated that she identified the petitioner by the light emitting from the electric bulb whereas her husband (PW.2) has clearly stated that they were having their dinner with an oil lamp, not from any light emitting from the electric bulb. According to Mr. According to Mr. De, learned counsel, that creates serious doubt in the prosecution story. Apart that, he has submitted that there is no proof at all in the record that PW.1 or PW.2 had any amount to the extent of Rs.4,220 as their own. It is merely the statement of PW.1, which has been replicated by the other inmates while they deposed in the trial. Mr. De, learned counsel, has further submitted that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case in regard to the presence of the petitioner in the place of occurrence except PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5. 7. PW.1, Smt. Bakulbala Debnath is the complainant, whereas PW.2, Harekrishna Debnath is the husband of the complainant and PWs.4 and 5, namely Smt. Basanti Debnath and Smt. Tuni Debnath respectively are the daughter-in-laws of the complainant. Thus, Mr. De, learned counsel has submitted that for the antecedent enimity that existed between the petitioner and the complainant, the said ejahar was filed on concoction. As such, this court on the fresh appreciation of the evidence, may exude the perverse appreciation as made by the court below. 8. From the other side, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, in order to defend the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, has submitted that, on such situation the presence of the independent witnesses cannot be expected. One independent witness, namely Dinesh Debnath, who was examined as PW.3 though stated to the Investigating Officer that he saw the petitioner fleeing away from the house of PW.2, but, that witness turned hostile. But the prosecution was successful in proving that he made such statement to PW.6, the Investigating Officer. 9. Having confronted with this situation and on appreciation of the evidence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the findings as returned by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court, inasmuch as, the sequence of events as narrated by PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5, is believable because of their natural contours in terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Even the defence did not take any step to suggest that there was no electric light by which PW.1 could have identified the petitioner. As such, this court does not find any infirmity with the finding of conviction as returned by the appellate court and accordingly the finding of conviction is affirmed. 10. Even the defence did not take any step to suggest that there was no electric light by which PW.1 could have identified the petitioner. As such, this court does not find any infirmity with the finding of conviction as returned by the appellate court and accordingly the finding of conviction is affirmed. 10. However, this court, having due regard to the extenuating and the aggravating circumstances, is of the view that the sentence may further be modified. On such modification, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer 3(three) months rigorous imprisonment for committing the offence punishable under Section 457 of the IPC. The petitioner is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months for committing the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. If the petitioner has suffered any detention during the investigation, trial or thereafter, the said imprisonment shall be set off from the substantive sentence as stated above. For purpose of suffering the remainder of the sentence, the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court within a period of 30(thirty) days from today. 11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment and order to the trial court to observe and act compliance. If it is found that within the stipulated period the petitioner failed to surrender then the coercive measure in terms of law shall be followed. 12. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith.