The appellate court's power to modify sentences must be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an appeal has been brought before it, and the fine imposed should not exceed the jurisdiction of the court passing the original sentence.

ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanawad, District-Mandleshwar in Criminal Appeal No.64/2020, by which learned Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 14.10.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.798/2012, wherein learned Sessions Judge affirming the sentence under Section 148 of IPC modified the sentence from 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- to only fine of Rs.10,000/- and default stipulation to each petitioner. Likewise, the learned trial Court affirmed the conviction under Section 323/149 of IPC but modified the sentence from 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- to only fine of Rs.1,000/-. Similarly, the learned trial Court affirming conviction under Section 427 of IPC rectified the sentence from 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- to only fine of Rs.25,000/-and default stipulation to each petitioner for the offence.

2. Since the revision has been filed on behalf of petitioners namely Bablu, Sabban, Ishu, Firoz, Nabbo Bee, Jugro Bee, Anware, Shareef, Fared Khan, Aarif, Rased and Hakem, hence, the findings of the learned trial Court regarding these petitioners are required to be considered.

3. Briefly stated facts leading to the present revision in short are that on 20.11.2012 at morning 9 o'clock, the accused persons reached at home of the complainant-Savitri, abused the complainant Savitri and her family members and also assaulted with stone on the head and leg of the complainant-Savitri. Motorcycle bearing registration No. MP10MD2472 and Pulsar bearing registration No. MP09 MB 0524 was broken by the accused persons. When the complainant said to her husband, son Vicky and brother-in-law Kullu to get inside of the house, the accused persons warned them to kill, for which, complainant-Savitri lodged report for the offences under Sections 148, 294, 323/149, 427, 506 (Part-II) about the said incident. Thereafter, the police party, after following due procedure, arrested the accused persons and registered the case against the appellants. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants/accused as aforesaid.

4. In turn, appellants were charged by the learned trial Court for offences under Sections 148, 294, 323/149, 427 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC. They abjured their guilt and took a plea that they had been falsely implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.

5. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Savitribai Thakur (PW-1), Kanhaiya Thakur (PW-2), Kullu @ Kulsingh (PW-3), Vicky Thakur (PW-4), Seemabai (PW-5), Nitin (PW-6), Sachin (PW-7), Vishal (PW-8), Virendra Mandloi, Doctor (PW-9), Surendra Singh Jhala, Retd. DSP (PW-10). No witness has been adduced by the appellants in their defence.

6. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and arguments advanced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 27.02.2023 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellants as aforesaid. Against which, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter, the learned Appellate Court adjudicated the case as aforesaid.

7. Being crestfallen by learned Appellate Court, the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merit and nor assail the finding part of judgment. They confine their arguments on the point of fine only. It is also submitted that the petitioners have already deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners deserve some leniency as they have already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2012 i.e. for a period of 11 years. It is further submitted that this petition