In the interest of justice, the court can reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners considering the delay in trial and the fact that they had already undergone some imprisonment.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State at admission stage.

2. This revision petition under Section 397(401) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Cases(Prevention of Atrocity) Jhalawar(Raj.)(Additional Charge) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 101/2011(61/2010), whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pirawa District Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') against the accused-petitioners in Criminal Case No. 257/2004, whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced each of the accused-petitioners as under:

(i) Under Section 341 IPC to undergo one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one day's simple imprisonment;

(ii) Under Section 323 IPC to undergo one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 days simple imprisonment;

(iii) Under Section 324 IPC to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three days simple imprisonment;

(iv) Under Section 325 IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five days simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The concise facts of the case are that on 20.10.2004, complainants Tanwar Singh with his son Devi Singh submitted a report at Police Station Raipur stating therein that in that night at about 9.00 PM, near the place of Balaji, accused-petitioners Rajaram and Laxmi Narayan gave beatings to him with sticks and when his son, Devi Singh tried to intervene, they gave beatings to his son also. On the basis of the said report Case No. 140/04 was registered and investigation commenced in the matter. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 IPC before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused-petitioners denied the allegation of commission of aforesaid offences against them, pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution supported its case with the aid of 9 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. In defence the accused-petitioners wanted to examine witnesses but they did not examine any witness, therefore, defence evidence was closed. Statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they refused the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence stating that they have been falsely implicated in this case.

5. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statements of accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2010 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as stated herein-above. Against the said judgment and order, accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, which was transferred to the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and maintained the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved with the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, the accused-petitioners have preferred this revision petition before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners firstly argued the case on merits and contended that both the Courts below erred in relying upon and appreciating the prosecution evidence for convic