ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The petitioners herein were convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar vide judgement dated 23.09.1998 passed in Criminal Regular Case No.172/1991 in the following manner :-

They preferred an appeal giving challenge to the aforesaid judgement, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide judgement dated 03.12.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.104/2000, whereby while maintaining the conviction for the above offences, the sentence for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1, 500/-. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid two judgements, the petitioners have preferred the instant criminal revision under Section 397 /401 of the CrPC.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 17.06.1991, complainant Jetha Ram submitted an oral information at the Police Station Mahajan to the effect that he had gone to Mahaveer for getting repaired his cot and while he was returning, Madan, Surja Ram etc. came armed with lathis and accosted him. Madan gave him lathi blow on head and assaulted with kicks and fists. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.47/1991 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners for the offences under Section 341 , 323 and 325 of the IPC.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for offences under Sections 341 , 323 and 325 of the IPC vide judgement dated 23.09.1998. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgement, they preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 03.12.2001, whereby while affirming the judgement of conviction passed by the trial court, the sentence for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC was reduced. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1991. The petitioners were around 30-32 years of age at that time and at present they are 62-64 years old and are poor farmers. They were not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse