The court has the discretion to convert the remaining sentence into a fine, considering the time already spent in jail by the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Shri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No. 1, Babu Lal and appellant No. 4, Smt. Ram Kali, have died.

3. In view of above statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the present appeal stands abated in respect to the appellant No. 1, Babu Lal and appellant No. 4, Smt. Ram Kali.

4. The present criminal revision under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. was preferred in the year, 2011 by the accused-appellants, namely, Babu Lal (since deceased), Babban, Lal Ji and Smt. Ram Kali (since deceased), against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Court No. 8, Sultanpur in Session Trial No. 497 of 2004, State Vs. Babu Lal and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 470-A of 2000, under Sections 32, 325, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur, convicting and sentencing each of the appellants under Section 323/34 I.P.C. for six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 325/34 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/-each, and under Section 504 I.P.C. for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment, with default stipulation.

5. After passing of the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellants were granted interim bail by the learned trial court and at the time of admission of the present appeal they have been released on bail vide order dated 06.04.2011 passed by this Court.

6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present criminal appeal is being decided on the question of sentence only.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that maximum sentence provided to each of the appellants is two years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and they have already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The crime was committed in the year, 2000 and the appellants were convicted by the trial court in the year 2011, and now they are on bail. A sufficient time has passed, therefore, their rest of sentence be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence.

8. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below and has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence on record before it, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below and have gone through the entire record. In my opinion the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error which may call for any interference by this Court, hence the conviction and sentence of present appellants is hereby upheld. But taking in account of the fact that appellants have already undergone sufficient period in jail as under trial and after conviction by the trial court, their rest of sentence is converted into a fine.

10. Accordingly, surviving appellants are directed to pay and deposit a fine of total Rs. 20,000/-in the court of C.J.M. concerned, out of which Rs. 15,000/-shall be paid to the informant and 5,000/-shall go to the State, which shall be used by the State Government in some health programme. If appellants deposit the aforesaid amount of fine, they shall be released forthwith, if not already released, and further if not wanted in any other case.

11. In default of the fine as directed above, the appellants shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court.

12. In view of the above, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed.

13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to C.J.M., concerned for its compliance.

14. Let the lower court record, if any