The court has the discretion to modify a sentence based on the circumstances of the case, including the time elapsed since the incident and the conduct of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. Since all these applications arise out of common judgment dated 24.06.2003 passed in Cr. Appeal No.93/97; as such same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(Cr.Rev.No.801 of 2003)

2. At the outset, Mr. P. K. Mukhopadyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of this revision application; the sole petitioner, namely, Ratan Mahto @ Ratan Lal Mahto has died.

3. In view of the aforesaid fact, Cr. Revision No.801 of 2003 is dismissed as abated.

(Cr.Rev.No.695/ 2003 & Cr.Rev.No.699/2003)

4. These two criminal revision applications is directed against the judgment dated 24.06.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.93/97, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. No.175/95; whereby the petitioners along with others were convicted to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Section 147 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Section 323 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Section 427 IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the respective petitioners were dismissed.

5. The prosecution case in short is that on 14.05.1995 at 9.A.M. the complainant along with his nephew went to see his land which is plot No.1037 under Khata No.13, area 13 decimals in mauza Kusmtand and saw that the appellants/convicts were erecting structures by bricks over his land to which the complainant and his nephew protested then the appellants abused the complainant and his nephew and further surrounded them and also assaulted with fists, slaps and kicks, causing injuries.

6. At the outset, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the case; petitioner No.5 of Cr.Rev.No.695 of 2003, namely, Sitaram Mallah has died.

7. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.695 of 2003 is dismissed as abated qua petitioner No.5, namely, Sitaram Mallah.

8. Learned counsel further submits that it was a land dispute and the petitioners claim the land in question as their own land and that is the reason the dispute arose. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint petition due to minor altercation which took place. It is alleged that the petitioners assaulted the complainant and his nephew.

He fairly submits that the case is of the year 1995. Further, all the offences are bailable in nature; however, the petitioners surrendered on 29.07.2003 and were enlarged on bail by this Court on 05.08.2003 and were subsequently released.

9. On the basis of aforesaid facts, learned counsel confines his prayer only on the question of sentence. He submits that all the petitioners now aged persons and sending them back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family. As such, the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

10. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rajendra Prasad learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment and submit that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

11. 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 finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

12. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1995 and 26 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation