The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify sentences based on the circumstances of the case, including the lengthy trial period, lack of criminal antecedent, and time spent in jail by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Sardhu Mahto, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 23.08.2013 passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and also confirmed their sentences to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court reduced their sentence for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code to Simple Imprisonment for three months only and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and partly allowed the criminal appeal. The learned appellate court held that Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code are not applicable in the present case. The learned appellate court acquitted the co-convicts, Sunil Mahra and Kishore Mahra from the charges on the ground that their identification was erroneous.

4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.05.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar at Madhupur in G.R. Case No. 124 of 1998 / T.R. No. 164 of 2006 (arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 57/1998 dated 15.03.1998) had convicted the petitioners alongwith Sunil Mahra and Kishore Mahra under Sections 447, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court had acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned trial court had, interalia, sentenced the petitioners to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for 1 ½ years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Conviction and sentence under section 147 and 148 of IPC was also passed and had directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer on the point of sentences of the Petitioner No.1 (Sahdeo Mahra) and Petitioner No.3 (Anil Mahra @ Anil Das). He submitted that the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 379, 447 of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed by the learned appellate court and the maximum sentence imposed upon the petitioners is for three months for each of the offences under Sections 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that so far as Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is a senior citizen and is aged about 65 years at present and the Petitioner No. 3 is aged about 40 years at present and the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners and the incident was of the year 1998 and the petitioners have faced rigours of the criminal case for a long period and both the petitioners were all along on bail during trial and they had never misused the privilege of bail and they have already remained in jail custody for a period of 09 days from 03.03.2014 to 11.03.2014 during pendency of the present criminal revision petition. He also submitted that the entire allegation is that the petitioners had taken away the wheat crops worth Rs.4,500 – 5,000/- of the informant party. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, a lenient view may be taken and the sentences of the petitioners may be confined to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody and if this Court finds proper, some fine amount may be imposed upon the petitioners.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

7. Learned A.P.P. fo