ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 263/1998, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.08.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1162 of 1995/T.R. No. 167/1998 and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the present six petitioners and one Subhash Singh.

4. The learned trial court had convicted seven persons including the present six petitioners under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and had further convicted the Petitioner No.1 under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them as under:

- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 147 of IPC;

- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 149 of IPC;

- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 323 of IPC; and

- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 325 of IPC with fine of Rs. 500/- each; and

- in addition, the Petitioner No.1 (Dharam Nath Munda) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 148 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of IPC; and

- all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. He further submitted that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are seen and compared with the injuries as indicated by the doctor P.W.- 8, the same do not match in toto, but these aspects have not been properly considered by the learned courts below. He submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to be acquitted giving benefit of doubt.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, there are certain specific allegations against the Petitioner No.1 in the F.I.R. and without concealing, it has come in evidence that he had assaulted the informant with tangi, but so far as the assaults on other persons are concerned, the same do not stand proved, when seen with the allegation made in the F.I.R.

7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners, but the learned trial court did not consider the provision under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. properly and refused to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and the learned appellate court remained totally silent on the point of sentences of the petitioners. He further submitted that considering the facts that the occurrence is dated 18.07.1995 and more than 26 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long period and they have remained in custody from 26.06.2003 to 12.08.2003 during pendency of the present criminal revision application, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentences of the petitioners may be modified and limited to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with imposition of some fine amount and/or victim compensation. He also submitted that no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners in jail custody again after a long gap.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted t