REVN.271-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 271 OF 2010 Zulfikarali Hasan Chowdhari ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent *** Mr. Anket Vagal, for the Applicant. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicant is original accused No.2. The applicant was arrested by the Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai in C. R. No No. 308 of 2006, registered for the offences punishable under S. 393 read with 398, read with S. 34 of I.P. Code and under S. 3 read with S. 25(1b)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. The prosecution case is that the applicant along with 3 others with an intention to commit dacoity had entered in the residential building. However, they could not succeed in their attempt to commit dacoity, as the complainant and her daughter raised hue and cry. As a REVN.271-10 - 2 - result of which the applicant and others ran away from the residential building. The prosecution case is that the applicant and 3 others were apprehended by the two police constables, who were, outside the said premises, on petrolling duty, at that time. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the applicant. 3. Against the said judgment and order of conviction, applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Mumbai, who by the judgment and order dated 13-1-2010 confirmed the conviction and sentence, awarded by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant initially challenged the judgment and order of both the Courts below by pointing out the contradictions in the statement of the witnesses regarding arrest of the applicant and also in respect of recovery of weapons at the instance of the applicant. However, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, as the powers of this Court under S. 401 Cr. P. C. are very limited and this Court is not expected to re- appreciate the evidence in the revisional application. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant then submitted that the applicant was 24 years of age at the time of REVN.271-10 - 3 - commission of the said offence and there was no criminal antecedents against him. He further submitted that the applicant had undergone imprisonment of 4 years and 4 months, out of sentence of 7 years imprisonment awarded by both the Courts below. He submitted therefore, that the said sentence may be reduced. In my view, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and taking into consideration the tender age of the applicant/accused at the time of commission of the said offence, the sentence of 7 years imprisonment is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the him i.e. 4 years and 4 months. The revision application is accordingly, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 5. The conviction of the applicant is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Courts below is, however, reduced from 7 years to 4 years and 4 months. The applicant be released forthwith, if is not required in any other case. 6. The applicant shall pay the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid. [ V. M. KANADE J.]