ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 30.12.2011 in Crl.A.No.314 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 27.9.2010 in C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry, for the offences under section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 07.03.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.626 of 2012. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that : (i). On 29.03.2009 at about 06.00 a.m., while P.W.1 alone in the house at Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry, two unknown persons entered into her house by tying clothes to their faces, caught hold her, beat on her head with an iron rod, thereby, caused bleeding injury, snatched away her gold chain weighing about three sovereigns worth of Rs.15,000/- and decamped with booty. (ii). Basing on Ex.P.6 hospital intimation, P.W.5 recorded the Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.39 of 2009 of C.C.S. circle, Rajahmundry and P.W.7-Inspector of Police investigated into. Then, P.W.7 arrested accused Nos.1 to 3, recovered the property and conducted property identification parade. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry, trial was conducted, found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years each and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of six (6) months each. Further, accused No.2 also found guilty of the offence under Section 394 of IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.314 of 2010, before the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 30.12.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioner. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.314 of 2010, before the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 30.12.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioner. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1. 7. Heard Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused No.1 was not identified by P.W.1; that basing on the alleged confession only, the petitioner was implicated, which is hit by Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act; that no property said to have been recovered from the petitioner; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.W.1, who is victim/injured coupled with P.W.3 mediator categorically proved the offence against the petitioner; that basing on the confession of petitioner only, M.O.1 property was recovered from his possession in the presence of mediator/P.W.3; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offence; that there are no ground urged by the petitioner to interfere with the judgment of the Courts below and thereby, prays to dismiss the revision. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. As per the testimony of P.W.1, who is victim/injured, accused No.2 and another person entered into her house, accused No.2 beating her with iron rod on her head, caused injury and snatched her gold chain from her neck. She identified her property under M.O.1. To fortify her testimony, prosecution got examined P.W.4-medical officer, who treated P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.5 would certificate. 12. She identified her property under M.O.1. To fortify her testimony, prosecution got examined P.W.4-medical officer, who treated P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.5 would certificate. 12. It is also the testimony of P.W.3 mediator that on 11.10.2009, accused Nos.1 to 3 and other two persons were detained by police, while they were trying to escape, they admitted the commission of offence, police seized one gold ring from accused No.3 as well seized gold chain from accused No.1 on his confession under the cover of Ex.P.3 mediators report. The testimony of P.W.3 is supported by P.W.6, who is learned Magistrate in whose presence the test identification of property was conducted under Ex.P.8 proceedings as well P.W.7 investigating officer. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which is fully corroborated and consistent. It is categorical that basing on the confession of accused only, M.Os.1 and 2 were seized from their possession in the presence of mediator. Thereby, the recovery of property from the possession of accused can be taken into consideration. The above all facts and circumstances clearly show that the offence against the petitioner/accused No.2 was categorically established by the prosecution beyond all doubt. 13. The trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 found guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC. 14. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 15. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the accused found in possession of stolen property by knowing very well that the same is a stolen property and that there is no apparent failure in appreciating the evidence on record on the part of the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused No.1 for the said offence. 16. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the incident was occurred on 23.03.2009, the petitioner was already undergone imprisonment of one year one month four days and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court to that of already undergone by him. He also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi), AIR 1977 SC 892 , wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment. 17. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 , wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 18. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (3) Crimes 89, wherein it was held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 19. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 29.03.2009 and by this time fifteen (15) years have already lapsed and the petitioner was already undergone sentence of one year one month four days. 20. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 29.03.2009 and by this time fifteen (15) years have already lapsed and the petitioner was already undergone sentence of one year one month four days. 20. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of already undergone by the petitioner/accused No.2 for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused No.1 to that of that of already undergone by him instead of three (3) years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 27.09.2010 in C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry, shall stands confirmed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.