The court modified the sentence to the time already served, considering the petitioners' socio-economic status and the lengthy trial process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner No.6 – Amra passed away and submitted his death certificate which is hereby taken on record.

2. In these circumstances, the present criminal revision petition in respect of petitioner No.6 - Amra is dismissed as abated.

3. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 21.08.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No.04/2002 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.79/1997 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner No.1 - Hurma as under:-

The petitioners No.2 to 5 were convicted and sentenced as under:-

4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

5. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 20.04.1997 complainant Manilal submitted a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Dungarpur inter alia alleging that on 24.03.1997 at about 5 PM when he was going towards his house, the accused persons abused the complainant and assaulted him with deadly weapons due to which he got seriously injured. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the Court concerned.

6. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 149, 324, 323 & 326 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same. In defence, one witness was examined and various documents were exhibited. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the accused for aforementioned offences vide judgment dated 15.12.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur which was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.08.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

7. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh, representing the petitioners, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1997. The petitioner No.1 had remained in jail for about 2 months and petitioners No.2 to 5 remained in jail for about 1 month after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against them. They hail from a very poor family and belong to the weaker section of the society. They are facing trial since the year 1997 and they have languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing their sentence.

8. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and except the present one no other case has been registered against them.

9. Since the