ORDER
N. Dhinakar, C.J.
1. The above two revisions are filed by A4 and A3 respectively in G.R. Case No. 23/1981 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj. They were tried along with Ramdhani Pandey and Surendar Pandey, who were arrayed as A1 and A2. In this order, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05 and the petitioner in Cr. Revision 1094/05 will be referred as A4 and A3 respectively and Ramdhani Pandey and Surendar Pandey, will be referred as
A1 and A2 for the sake of convenience.
2. The petitioners in the above two revisions, A4 and A3, and other two accused were tried for offence punishable under Sections 148, 452, 324 and 323, I.P.C. The trial Court found them guilty of the above charges and sentenced each of them to one year under Section 148 as well as 452, I.P.C., six months under Section 324, I.P.C. and three months under Section 323, I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. The petitioners and other two accused filed appeal in Cr. Appeal No. 63/1993 and the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Daltonganj, while remanding the case of Ramdhani Pandey (A1) on the ground that no charges were framed against him by the trial Judge, confirmed the conviction of the petitioners as well as sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court. The appellate Court found A4, petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05, guilty for the offence under Section 452, I.P.C. and found A3, petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1094/05, guilty for the offence under Sections 452 and 324, I.P.C. The sentence of one year imposed upon A4 and A3 by the trial Court was confirmed. The petitioners challenge their conviction and sentence by filing the above two revisions.
3. The allegation against the petitioners and the other two accused is that breaking open the door, they entered the house of the informant, Maheshawar Sharma, who was examined as P.W. 8. at about 9.00 p.m. on 11-1-1981 and thereafter Surendar Pandey caused injury on his right back with Baluwa and that A3, Arun Kumar Pandey, assaulted him with Chura on his head. The prosecution, in order to prove the above allegation, examined nine witnesses. P.Ws 3, 4, 5 as well as P.W. 8 spoke about the occurrence and the prosecution examined P.W. 7, the Doctor, who treated P.W. 8, Maheshawar Sharma, for the injuries found on his person and through him the injury report, Ext. 2, was marked. The Courts below accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses and found the petitioners guilty.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the above two revisions submits that he is not challenging the order of conviction and sentence but is only pleading for leniency in the matter of sentence. According to him. the occurrence had taken place on 11-1-1981 and 24 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence and that with the passage of long time, if the petitioners are sent back to jail, it would cause hardship to the families of the petitioners and therefore, he prays that they may be dealt with leniently.
5. I have heard Mr. T.N. Verma, counsel appearing for the State.
6. I had given my anxious consideration to the plea of the counsel appearing for the petitioners. As submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, the occurrence was on 11-1-1981 and 24 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence. It could also be seen from the records before me that the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1094/05 is in custody from 29-10-05 and the other petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05 is in custody from 11-7-05. I feel that on the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, the petitioners in both the revisions can be dealt with leniently, specially when the occurrence had taken place 24 years ago. Therefore, while confirming the conviction of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05 and the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1094/05, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon both the petitioners to the period already undergone by them and instead, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05 is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-(Rs. two thousand) for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Similarly, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1094/05 is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rs. two thousand) for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. The petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1094/05 is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. five thousand) for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fines will be paid by the petitioners within four weeks from today.
With the aforesaid modification in sentence, both the revision applications are dismissed.