The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable evidence, consideration of the circumstances, and the imposition of appropriate sentences and fines.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Faruque Ansari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

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

The present is criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 23.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2010, whereby the learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court. However, the learned appellate court acquitted the petitioners from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and also acquitted Abdul Gani Mian from all the charges levelled against him.

- The appellate court upheld their sentences of Simple Imprisonment for 01 month for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code,

- The appellate court modified and reduced their sentences for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months and directed that 50% of the fine amount will be paid to the Informant as compensation.

- The appellate court did not impose any sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no separate sentence under this section was inflicted by the learned trial court and no cross appeal was filed.

3. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 737 of 1998 / Trial No. 182 of 2009 (arising out of Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 62/1998 dated 02.07.1998) had convicted the petitioners alongwith one Abdul Gani Mian for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned trial court had sentenced the petitioners and one Abdul Gani Mian to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 02 years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 01 month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 03 years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 03 months under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and had directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. No separate sentence was passed under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned appellate court has upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code only and has imposed the maximum sentence of six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that there was land dispute between the parties and the petitioners were found ploughing the field where the incident had taken place and it was the informant-party who was the aggressor in the case.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that -

-the date of incident is of the year 1998;

- the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 had surrendered before the court below on 19.06.2012 and the Petitioner No.4 had surrendered on 02.07.2012 and they were released on bail on 18.07.2012 during the pendency of the present criminal revision petition and a few days must have been taken to furnish the bail bonds before the learned court below;

- the petitioners have faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long period and the age of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 was 75 years, 70 years, 65 years and 32 years respectively, as recorded in the form of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 10.08.2009.

It is submitted that the sentences of the petitioners may be modified to some extent. He submitted that he has also taken instructions that some fine amount may be imposed upon them to be given as victim compensation to the victims of the case. He submitted that there we