JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

The appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.03.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.16/1995, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 28.09.1994 at 07.15 p.m., complainant Baksaram Meghwal, resident of Kharda submitted a typed report at the Police Station Jhanwar to the effect that he and his brother Mishraram were having an agriculture field jointly in Khasra No.80 of Village Kharda, in which there was millet crop ready to be harvested. In the intervening night of 27.09.1994-28.09.1994, accused Devi Singh, Dungar Singh, Kan Singh, Chain Singh, Ummed Singh, Kishor Singh, Jabar Singh, Jai Singh, Khushal Singh, Jal Singh, Khinv Singh, Hameer Singh and Hukma Ram came to his field with the tractor of Hukma Ram. They cut the corp, loaded the same in the tractor and concealed it somewhere. At that time, the complainant had gone to Katarda and had asked Gokalram, Chhoturam, Munnaram and Pukhram to look after the field. Everything was alright at night, but when they reached the field in the morning, the accused persons were loading the millet crop in the tractor. When they were refrained to do so, they pushed Gokalram and hurled caste related abuses towards the persons of the complainant party. They also threatened them, due to which, they ran away from the field.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.130/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the present appellants. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Section 447 , 379 IPC and section 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 09.03.1995, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellants does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident pertains to the year 1994. Many of the appellants are now aged more than 60 years. They have faced the rigour of criminal case for good 29 years and have langui