JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

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

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that he has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner No. 7 has expired on 01.10.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner No. 7 has expired.

5. Accordingly, office is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 7 from the cause title in red ink.

6. The matter has been further argued by the learned counsel for the parties on merits.

7. Instant revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2012 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 2nd June, 2006 passed by the learned trial court.

8. Vide judgment dated 2nd June, 2006 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 100/1997, T.R. No. 231/2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar passed substantive sentence only against the petitioner no. 7,namely, Paitar Rajwar (since deceased) for offence under Sections 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The rest of the petitioners were given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the learned trial court upon furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- of two sureties each of the like amount with a condition to maintain peace and good behaviour for the period of two years.

9. The learned appellate court vide judgment dated 19.01.2012 modified the sentence of the petitioner no. 7, Paitar Rajwar and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 143 of the IPC and to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of the surviving petitioners

10. Learned counsel for the surviving petitioners at the outset has submitted that substantive sentence was passed only against the petitioner No. 7 who has already expired but so far as other petitioners are concerned, they were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as the impugned judgments of conviction of the surviving petitioners are concerned, the same are perverse and accordingly not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel while referring to the impugned judgments has submitted that initially the police had submitted final form by indicating that there was land dispute between the parties but upon a protest filed from the side of the complainant, the case was instituted and the petitioners were charged for the offence under Section 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has also submitted that the witnesses examined before the learned court below were all interested witnesses and were closely related to each other. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel does not dispute the fact that there are concurrent findings based on evidence against the convicts including the surviving petitioners.

Arguments of the State

11. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the prayer has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and no illegality or perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, accordingly no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.

Findings of this court

12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, thi