JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing this Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal appeal No.21/2002, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First class), Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.308/1996; whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision petitions are that on 10.07.1996, complainant Mohan Balai submitted a report to the SHO, Police Station Deogarh to the effect that at about 08:00 p.m., the complainant along with his wife and mother, was sitting at their home when the petitioners came to their house carrying sticks and axes with them, abused them verbally and started beating them. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.184/1996 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against petitioners. After conducting a full-fledged trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 31.05.2000. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 29.10.2002 while affirming the conviction and maintaining the sentence awarded to the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition is preferred by them.

3. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confine 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 1996. The petitioners were 45, 30 and 35 years of age respectively at that time. Presently, they are aged 72, 57 and 62 years respectively. The petitioners have already suffered agony of protracted trial for long 27 years. The petitioners have remained in custody for more sometime after passing of judgment of appeal. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending the present petitioners to jail at this stage. With these submissions, learned counsel pray that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

4. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and the case is pending since long.

5. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

6. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1996. The petitioners were 45, 30 and 35 years of age respectively at that time. Presently, they are aged 72, 57 and 62 ye