JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, by the judgment dated 10.09.2012 in C.C.No.98 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sankari, confirmed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.113 of 2013, by judgment dated 19.08.2014.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/second accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari, dated 10.09.2013 in C.C.No.98 of 2012, thereby convicting the accused for an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment and for an offence under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of I.P.C and sentencing to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and the Judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 19.08.2014 in C.A.No.113 of 2013 confirming the same. 2. The petitioner herein namely, Sriram, along with the first accused, Mahendran had, on 02.04.2012, at about 11.00 A.M, within the Thevoor Police Station limits, went to P.W.1’s house in a motor cycle, bearing registration No.TN30 AL 3715, with a common intention to commit theft, posing themselves as electricity board servants to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and stating that they have come or repairing fan and made P.W.1 to go away from home to fetch greaze for the work and in their absence, A2 stood out of the house and A1 stolen 2 sovereigns of gold chain, two rings of half sovereigns each, one stud weighing half sovereign, one Sonex ladies watch, cellphone and an amount of Rs.2,000/- without the knowledge of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and escaped from the scene. P.W.1, upon returning from her uncle’s house with grew suspicious, since both the accused were not there and therefore, upon verifying, she found the above things missing from the almirah and therefore, lodged Ex.P1, complaint, upon which, an First Information Report in Crime No.58 of 2012 was registered vide Ex.P7 and P.W.14 took up investigation, completed the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari, proposing accused guilty for the offences under Sections 354, 420 and 380 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. 3. The prosecution examined P.W.1, the complainant, who set law in motion, P.W.2, mother of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 4, the attesting witnesses to the observation mahazar, P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 10, who are the ocular witnesses after the occurrence, P.W.8, V.A.O and P.W.9, Village Assistant, who were the witnesses for confession statement and recovery and P.W.12, the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade. Totally, examining P.Ws.1 to 14 and marking Exs.P1 to P12, the prosecution rested its case. There was no evidence, let in, on behalf of the defence. 4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the fact that the witnesses identified the accused and the recovery of the stolen jewels which from the house of the petitioner herein pursuant to his confession, while acquitting the accused for the offences under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, convicting both the accused for the offences under Section 380 and 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of I.P.C and imposed a sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.4,000/- for each of the offence. Both the accused filed an appeal before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and the learned Appellate Judge, after duly considering arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, reconsidered the entire evidence on record and also came to the conclusion that the identification of the accused persons by the witnesses and the recovery of the jewels coupled with other corroborating materials pointed only towards the guilt of both the accused and as such, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.98 of 2012. 5. Mr.B.Vasudevan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime stating that the recovery is unbelievable, and that there is a delay in registration of the case, and that the identification parade was not done for the accused No.2, however, made his detailed submissions on the question of sentence and submitted that except in the above incident, his client is not involved in any offence either prior to this case or subsequent to this case. His client was in jail, pending trial from 06.04.2012 to 07.09.2012 i.e., five months and one day. He is now in the business of procuring sarees and other cloth materials from the weavers and is selling the same and is leading a reformed and law abiding life. His client was in jail, pending trial from 06.04.2012 to 07.09.2012 i.e., five months and one day. He is now in the business of procuring sarees and other cloth materials from the weavers and is selling the same and is leading a reformed and law abiding life. He has got two girl children by name Sreelekha, who is studying XI standard and Srinidhi, who is studying VII standard and he is the sole bread winner of the family. 6. Considering, (i) the purpose of the sentence, that is, sending the petitioner to the correctional home to reform himself; (ii) the fact that the accused had misadventured and committed crime once, but has not involved in any other offence either prior to this case or subsequent thereof till date; (iii) the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also verifying the above facts to be correct; and (iv) since, he has already undergone the imprisonment for more than five months and (v) the fine amount having already been paid, I am inclined to modify the sentence as the period already undergone by the petitioner. 7. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed to the above extent.