JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both these criminal revision applications arise out of common judgment as such both the cases are heard together and decided by this common order.

3. Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as Petitioner No.3 of Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2004 is concerned, he has died on 06.10.2015, as such he will not be pressing the case on his behalf.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2004 stands dismissed as abated against the Petitioner No.3 –Nepan Keot.

5. These criminal revision applications are directed against judgment dated 31.01.2004 passed by learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 77/2003, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 82/2000 corresponding to T.R. No. 177 of 2003, whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 379 I.P.C.

6. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.01.2000 and on 23.01.2000 petitioners, armed with Lathi, Bhala, Bow and Arrow, committed theft of 80 kgs. of fish from the pond of the informant. It was further alleged that when the informant tried to protest, she was about to be assaulted by the petitioners and at last when the villagers reached the place of occurrence at her call, the petitioners ran away.

7. At the outset, Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and the allegation is minor in nature. In Criminal Revisions No. 234 of 2004, Petitioner No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 remained in custody for about 36 days and Petitioner No. 5 and 7 for about 33 days. In Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2004, Petitioner No. 1 and 4 remained in custody for about 37 days and Petitioner No.2 remained in custody for 20 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2000 and the petitioners are now aged persons and sending them back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

8. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment 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.

9. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 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.

10. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2000 and about 22 years have elapsed and the petitioners of the respective applications must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 22 years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity and In Criminal Revisions No. 234 of 2004, Petitioner No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 remained in custody for about 36 days and Petitioner No. 5 and 7 for about 33 days. In Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2004, Petitioner No. 1 and 4 remained in custody for 37 days and Petitioner No.2 remained in custody for 20 days.

11. 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; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

12. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, mod