JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. As per service report, Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are dead and Petitioner No. 3 and 4 are alive.

3. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant criminal revision stands dismissed as abated against Petitioner No.s 1 and 2.

4. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. submits that inspite of her best efforts she is unable to get a report of Petitioner No.5 Alexious Bud.

5. Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned A.C. to J. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners is ready to assist this court on behalf of Petitioner No. 5 also.

6. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2003, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.09.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa in C/3 Case No. 35 of 2002, whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Section 51 (1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default to pay the fine petitioners were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

7. The prosecution case in brief is that on receipt of confidential information, the informant along with officers of Goilkera police station went into the jungle and found that one elephant was lying dead. Later in course of investigation, the house of the accused Karam Singh Kora at village Purana Goilkara was searched and four pieces of elephant jaw was recovered from his possession and as per his confession before the informant forest personnel that he along with Arjun Meral and Longo Meral had killed the wild elephant by shooting arrow and extracted both the tusks and jaws of the elephant for the purpose of selling the same and that out of the two jaws, he had retained one jaw and one tusk. It is further alleged that the tusk was sold for Rs.45,000/-and on the basis of the aforesaid said confession, house of other petitioners were also searched and two pieces of the elephant tusk was found

8. At the outset, Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and the learned trial court punished them for three years. Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 & 5 remained in custody for about 268 days, 432 days and 313 days respectively. As such, she is confining her prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2002 and the petitioners are now aged persons and sending them back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper their entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

9. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

10. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the court below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

11. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2002 and 20 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 20 years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail and Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 & 5 remained in custody for 268 days, 432 days and 313 days, respectively.

12. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners/convicts back to prison;