JUDGMENT 1. - At the threshold, this criminal revision petition was filed by five accused-petitioners challenging the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned appellate Court') but during pendency of revision petition, petitioner No.4- Brashbhan Singh and petitioner No.5-Pappu @ Ashok Kumar expired. Taking note of this fact, the Court was pleased to abate revision petition qua these two incumbents by order dated 30.10.2014. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of Parchabayan of complainant-Darshan Singh (P.W.1), when he was admitted in Government Hospital, Keshrisinghpur, FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered on 19.01.1988. In the FIR, specific roles were attributed to the accused-petitioners for giving beatings to complainant-Darshan Singh and his other family members, namely, Rugibai, Charni and Babusingh. In the FIR, the allegation against the accused-petitioners indicated that all of them well armed with gandasies, kasias, soward and lathies came to complainant's residence on the fateful day when his family members were at the residence. It is further reveals that accused-petitioners abused him and also gave serious beatings to him by using gandasies, kasias, lathies and soward besides other family members. In terms of FIR, complainant, Darshan Singh and Babu Singh suffered serious injuries on their vital parts and others suffered simple injuries. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-petitioners under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC on 24.02.1988 before Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). In view of the fact that offence under Section 307 IPC was also attributed to the accused-petitioners, learned trial Court committed the case to Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar Camp, Sri Karanpur. Before Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar Camp, Sri Karanpur, charge under Section 307 IPC was dropped against the accused-petitioners by order dated 20.04.1989 and the matter was remitted back to the learned trial Court for trial qua the other offences. 4. Learned trial Court thereafter framed charges against the accused-petitioners and accused-petitioners, Rajendra Singh @ Kaku and Sarjeet Singh were charged for offence under Section 326 IPC and the rest of the accused-petitioners were attributed charges under Sections 325/149-323-324/149-148 IPC. Charges were denied by the accused-petitioners. 5. During trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and 27 documents were produced to substantiate the allegations against the accused-petitioners. Charges were denied by the accused-petitioners. 5. During trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and 27 documents were produced to substantiate the allegations against the accused-petitioners. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned trial Court thereafter, by its judgment dated 15.02.1999, indicted the accused-petitioners and accused-petitioner, Rajendra Singh @ Kaku was convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to 2 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-and for offence under Section 325/149 IPC, simple imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/-. That apart, accused Rajendra Singh was also sentenced for simple imprisonment of 1 year in respect of offence under Sections 323/149 & 324/149. Accused-petitioner, Sarjeet Singh was sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- for offence under Section 325 IPC and for offence under Section 326/149 IPC 2 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-. That apart, accused-Sarjeet Singh was also sentenced for 1 years simple imprisonment for offence under Section 324 IPC and for offence under Section 323/149 IPC of even duration. Accused-petitioner-Mander Singh, Brashbhan Singh and Pappu @ Ashok Kumar were sentenced to 2 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- for offence under Section 326/149 IPC and for 1 years simple imprisonment in relation to offence under Section 325/149 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/-. Accused-petitioner-Mander Singh was also sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 324/149 IPC and sentence of even duration for offence under Section 323/149 IPC. Accused-Brashbhan Singh was sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentence of even duration for offence under Section 324/149 IPC. Lastly, accused Ashok Kumar @ Pappu was sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 324 IPC and 1 year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 323/149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, all the accused persons were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Learned trial Court also ordered that all the sentences are to run concurrently. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, accused-petitioners laid an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'appellate Court'). 8. Learned trial Court also ordered that all the sentences are to run concurrently. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, accused-petitioners laid an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'appellate Court'). 8. Learned appellate Court, after considering the matter de novo and re-appreciation of evidence, fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court by dismissing the appeal. It is in that background, the petitioners have approached this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. As observed herein above, the revision petition stands abated in relation to accused-petitioners No.4 and 5, now the instant revision is to be considered, vis-a-vis, accused-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 only. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gupta has very candidly submitted that he is not challenging the conviction of the petitioners as the same has been upheld by the learned appellate Court but has craved for indulgence of this Court for some leniency in respect of the sentences awarded to the accused-petitioners. Mr. Gupta would contend that the incident occurred at the threshold of 1988 and since then almost three decades have elapsed and therefore, it would be just and appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the duration/period they have already undergone. Learned counsel further submits that there are certain other mitigating circumstances for reducing the sentences awarded to the accused-petitioners. In this behalf, learned counsel submits that accused-Rajendra Singh @ Kaku has crossed 70 years of age and Sarjeet Singh is also in his early 60's and the third accused-petitioner-Mander Singh in his late 60's, therefore, it would be just and appropriate to have a benevolent view regarding the sentence awarded to these accused-petitioners. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the accused-petitioners have suffered mental agony and harassment for almost three decades and therefore, it is desirable that revision petition may be partly allowed by reducing the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners. 10. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the accused-petitioners have suffered mental agony and harassment for almost three decades and therefore, it is desirable that revision petition may be partly allowed by reducing the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners. 10. At the outset, learned counsel has urged that accused-Rajendra Singh has already remained in custody for 4 months and 20 days, Sarjeet Singh remained in custody for 2 months and 22 days and Mander Singh also remained in custody for 20 days and therefore in the backdrop of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, more particularly, the passage of time, which is almost three decades, it is very much desirable that all the accused-petitioners be awarded reduced sentence, i.e., the duration they have already undergone. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. O.P. Rathi has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that looking to the gravity and magnitude of the offence attributed and proved against the accused-petitioners, it is not desirable to have a lenient and benevolent view, vis-a-vis, punishment awarded to the petitioners. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and throughly scanned the record of the case. 13. Upon perusal of the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case, it clearly and unequivocally reveals that there was serious acrimony between the complainant party and the accused-petitioners and that has culminated into the incident wherein accused-petitioners have shown aggression. 14. Well it is true that there was aggression and overt act on the part of accused-petitioners and as a consequence thereof, the complainant and his other family members have suffered injuries some of which are serious injuries duly proved by the medical evidence but then the mitigating circumstances, on which, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners have emphasized cannot lose sight of this Court and deserve due credence. Apart from the fact that incident is almost three decades old and all the accused-petitioners are above 60 years of age and have also undergone sentences for the duration mentioned supra, in my considered opinion, this Court is required to have a pragmatic approach to abate the harassment and mental agony suffered by the accused-petitioners. Apart from the fact that incident is almost three decades old and all the accused-petitioners are above 60 years of age and have also undergone sentences for the duration mentioned supra, in my considered opinion, this Court is required to have a pragmatic approach to abate the harassment and mental agony suffered by the accused-petitioners. After filing of the charge-sheet in the year 1988, the trial continued for more than a decade and thereafter for almost 5 years, appeal also remained pending before the learned appellate Court. This revision petition is also pending before Court since last 13 years, therefore, by passage of time and taking into account the fact that incident is of almost three decades old and accused-petitioners have crossed the age of 60, it would be just and appropriate to grant some indulgence to the accused-petitioners in the matter of sentence. 15. Accordingly, the instant revision petition merits acceptance in part and therefore while maintaining conviction of all the accused-petitioners, sentence awarded to them is reduced to the duration/period they have already undergone. The accused-petitioners are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are cancelled.The revision petition is therefore allowed in part as indicated herein above. *******