JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

4. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bokaro, in Cr. Appeal No. 86/2000, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

5. The petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 323, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chas, Bokaro dated 14.08.2000, who convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 323 IPC and one year for offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of G.R. No. 516/1994.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has confined his argument on the point of sentence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner No. 1 as on date is about 72 years of age and so far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, their present age is about 50 years and 63 years respectively. Learned counsel submits that present offence is the first offence of all the three petitioners. He also submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and in support of which certain sale deeds were also produced and exhibited before the learned court below as Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B. Learned counsel submits that both the parties belong to the same family. Learned counsel has further submitted that the incident is of the year 1993 and more than 27 years have elapsed from the date of the incident and as on date the parties are living peacefully. Learned counsel submits that during the revision application, the petitioners had surrendered before the learned court below on 30.01.2003 and thereafter they were granted bail by this court vide order dated 05.02.2003 and the bail bond was furnished by them on 10.02.2003 and accordingly they have remained in custody for about 11 days. Learned counsel submits that the impugned orders would indicate that the petitioner No. 1 Amulya Gorain is the main assailant and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had accompanied him and the allegation against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is that they had assaulted the victims by fists and slaps. Learned counsel submits that considering the present age of the petitioner No. 1 and the nature of allegation against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the sentence of the petitioners be modified. He has also submitted that some victim compensation may be fixed, as the dispute is between the members of the same family. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed for offences under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there are two victims in the case, the informant and his wife, who suffered grievous injury in as much as there were fractures in their limbs and at the stage of trial, informant of the case has expired, but other victim i.e. his wife has fully supported the prosecution case and the evidence is supported by the medical evidence given by the doctor who had treated them. Learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment of conviction are well reasoned judgment and the judgments of conviction do not call for any interference. Learned counsel however does not dispute the fact that present offence is the first offence of the petitioners and as per records of the case, the petitioner No. 1 is 72 years of age and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are 50 years and 63 years respectively. The petitioners and the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are members of the same family and 27 years have elapsed from the date of incident. He also