The court has the discretion to modify sentences by imposing fines and remitting a portion of the fine amount to the injured victims as victim compensation based on the nature and gravity of the offence, time elapsed since the incident, and the age of the convicted persons.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these criminal revision petitions arise out of the same Judgment passed by the learned trial court and therefore, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Cr. Revision 305 of 2002 has been filed by the informant of the case against the judgement of learned trial court and Cr. Revision no. 1073 of 2013 has been filed by the 7 out of 11 convicts against the judgement of the appellate court confirming the judgement and sentence of the trial court. No separate revision has been filed by the informant of the case against the appellate court’s judgement.

2. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 1073 of 2013.

3. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel who has also assisted this Court in the matter.

4. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel alongwith Mr. Din Dayal Saha and Mr. Suraj Kishore, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Informant in Cr. Rev. No. 1073 of 2013 and on behalf of the petitioner-Informant in Cr. Rev. No. 305 of 2002.

5. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State in Cr. Rev. No. 1073 of 2013.

6. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State in Cr. Rev. No. 305 of 2002.

7. Cr. Rev. No. 1073 of 2013 has been filed against the Judgment dated 28.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-I Pakur in Cr. Appeal No. 111/2002 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.05.2002 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Session Case No. 164 of 1994 / 21 of 2002 and dismissed the criminal appeal.

8. The petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 1073 of 2013 alongwith Kedar Saha, Deonarayan Saha, Choudhary Saha and Budhwa Saha had preferred the Cr. Appeal No. 111/2002 against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.05.2002 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Session Case No. 164 of 1994 / 21 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioner Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were convicted for offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code only and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons including the petitioners from the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also acquitted the Petitioner No.1-Pahalu Saha from the charge under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Cr. Rev. No. 305 of 2002 has been filed by the Informant of the case against inadequacy and insufficiency of the conviction and the sentences passed against the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 11 in the Judgment dated 16.05.2002 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Session Case No. 164 of 1994 / 21 of 2002 with a prayer to convert the conviction of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 11 to under Section 307 or under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and to sentence them accordingly.

Arguments on behalf of petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 1073/2013

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 1073 of 2013 has submitted that the impugned judgements of conviction are perverse and the petitioners have been wrongly convicted by the learned c