The court may reduce a sentence based on the defendant’s age, duration of trial, and absence of prior convictions, emphasizing that punishment should serve justice without compromising societal harmony.

ORDER :

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioners – Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal & Ors. against the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2005 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fastrack), Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2005 (Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioners has been partly allowed and while maintaining their conviction as recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") vide Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2003 in Criminal Regular Case no. 472/99 (State of Rajasthan vs. Bharatiya @ Bharat Lal & Ors.) their sentence has been modified as mentioned below:-

2. Facts of the case in short are that on 13.08.1993, one Prabhu Lal (P.W. 13) submitted a report to the effect that around 7.00 o'clock, he along with his son and grandson were pulling of wood logs towards boundary wall of Sorghum agricultural field. Birdhilal and Dhanna were also present there. Then all the 7 accused persons came with oxen, broke out the fencing and tried to take the oxen inside the fields. When complainant objected, all the accused persons assaulted them. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No. 64/93 was registered at Police Station Sarola, District Jhalawar for the offence under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 307 & 323 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge- sheet against accused persons for the offence under , 148, 149, 307, 326, 324, 323 of I.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge vide its order dated 23.06.1999 discharged the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sent the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalwar under Section 228 Crpc for trial for rest of the offences. The trial court framed charges against the accused Bhartiya for the offence under Sections 148 , 326, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 of I.P.C., against accused Jug Raj for the offence under , 326/149, 325, 324/149, 323/149 of I.P.C and against other accused persons for the offence under , 326/149, 325/149,324/149, 323/149 IPC and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 03.12.2003, acquitted the accused persons for the offence under sections 324/149 of but convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.12.2003, accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which partly allowed the appeal qua conviction of the accused-persons for the said offence but modified the sentence as awarded by the trial court, as indicated above. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1993 i.e. around 32 years ago; accused-petitioners were between the age group of 22-26 years at the time of incident and now they old aged persons and facing agony of trial for the past about 32 years; accused-petitioners are sole bread earner in their family, belon