JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) no.2, Dholpur in sessions case no. 27/2005 whereby accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: (I) for offence under Section 307 IPC: 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's SI. (II) For offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act: 03 years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo on months SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sita Ram, Sub-Inspector recorded the parcha bayan of Haluka Ex.D-3. On the basis of aforesaid parcha bayan, FIR bearing No.186/2003 was registered for offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 336, 307/149 IPC. After investigation, police filed challan before the concerned Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge for trial, from where it was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Dholpur on 26.5.2004. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined some witnesses and got certain documents exhibited. Thereafter statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 30.4.2009 convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 3. Against the said impugned order dated 30.4.2009, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants are in judicial custody for the last five years, nine months and four days approximately. It is also contended that appellants are not habitual offenders and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. They are the only male members in their family. 5. Thus at this stage, during the course of arguments, learned counsel has requested to this court that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants may be reduced from 10 years to 07 years, as also the concerned authorities may be directed to give benefit of Section 433 Cr.P.C to the appellants in accordance with law. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same, and contended that neither sentence awarded to the accused appellants may be reduced from 10 years to 07 years, nor benefit of Section 433 Cr.P.C be given to them. 7. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same, and contended that neither sentence awarded to the accused appellants may be reduced from 10 years to 07 years, nor benefit of Section 433 Cr.P.C be given to them. 7. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, and in view of above, I do not think it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him in custody, but it is a fit case to reduce the sentence from 10 years to 07 years, and also issue direction to the concerned authorities to give benefit of Section 433 Cr.P.C to the accused appellants in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) Impugned order dated 30.4.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced from 10 (ten) years to 07 (seven) years; (ii) Conviction passed against the appellants be maintained. (iii) The concerned authorities are directed to give benefit of Section 433 Cr.P.C to the accused appellants in accordance with law. Appeal Partly Allowed. *******