ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Through Video Conferencing

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the legality/propriety or correctness of the judgment dated 29.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 267 of 2009, whereby the order of conviction of the petitioners by the learned Trial Court for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 323, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been upheld and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside.

Further, the learned Appellate Court has modified the sentence of the petitioners by reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each under Sections 147/342/323/448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and a compensation of Rs.5000/- each to be given to the informant under Section 357(3) Cr. P.C. and in default further imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. The learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 342, 323, 448, 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced all the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the charges under Sections 147, 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and six months rigorous imprisonment each for the charges under Sections 342, 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Submission on behalf of petitioners :

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. A.K. Sahani has confined his argument to the sentence imposed by the learned courts below. He further submits that though the learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioners under Sections 147/341/342/323/448/385/506 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted by the Appellate Court for the alleged offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the case is of the year 2001 and the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 15.09.2009 and at the time of conviction, the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 were of 50 years, 48 years, 40 years and 46 years of age respectively and accordingly their present age are about 62 years, 60 years, 51 years and 57 years respectively. He submits that they have faced the rigorous of criminal case for more than 20 years and accordingly some sympathetic view may be taken. He further submits that it was submitted before the learned Trial Court that there was no previous conviction of the petitioners.

Submission on behalf of Opposite Party-State :

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State while opposing the prayer on the other hand, has submitted that the Appellate Court had modified the sentence of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, though the petitioners were acquitted for offence under Section 385 of the IPC by the learned Appellate Court. He has also submitted that in view of concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 147, 342, 323, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no perversity or illegality, so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned. He further submits that in case, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioners, the same may be coupled with imposition of fine.

Findings of this Court :

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going to the materials on record and the impugned judgments this court finds that as per the prosecution story on 11.04.2001 at about 8 A.M. the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 4 went to the house of the informant, the Executive Officer of the TTCL, Telco and asked him as to why he stopped the treatment of wife of petitioner No. 4. In the meantime, the