ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. The petitioners have preferred these revision petitions against common judgment dated 14th of January, 2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby the learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeals filed by petitioners has affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to them by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court convicted all the petitioners for offence under Sections 377 & 506 but petitioners Naresh alias Narendra and Dinesh were also indicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC and awarded following sentences : Offence U/s Sentence Fine In default of payment 377 IPC 5 years' S.I. Rs.2,000 3 months' S.I. 506 IPC 1 year S.I. Rs.500 1 month S.I. 120-B IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.500 1 month S.I. Court further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that an FIR came to be lodged against present petitioners on a complaint made by complainant Imran on 5th of February 2014 alleging, inter-alia, therein that his maternal aunt's son Dilshad is dull-headed boy who was put in fear by petitioners and then was taken to some isolated place where all the three subjected him to unnatural sex. The complaint further revealed that petitioners made clippings of the saga and asked Dilshad to bring his sister's jewellery otherwise the clippings shall be shown to others which panicked the victim. Petitioner Rahul gave him a memory card and asked him to see it and also to bring Rs. 50,000 else he would upload the same on internet. The FIR was registered for offence under Section 377 IPC. Later on, after investigation charge-sheet against petitioners was filed for offence under Sections 377, 384, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the I.T. Act. The accused-petitioners denied the charges framed against them. During trial, prosecution exhibited 20 witnesses and 19 documents. Thereafter, statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and in defence they too examined witnesses. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted petitioners for offence under Section 384 IPC and 67A of the IT Act but found petitioner Rahul guilty of the offence under Section 377 and Section 506 IPC and two others petitioners under Section, 377, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted petitioners for offence under Section 384 IPC and 67A of the IT Act but found petitioner Rahul guilty of the offence under Section 377 and Section 506 IPC and two others petitioners under Section, 377, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred separate appeals before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while concurring with the findings of learned trial Court, has affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to them. It is in that background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has not challenged the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below to the extent the petitioners are held guilty for the offence under Sections 377, 506, 120-B IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the petitioners have already suffered substantial part of the sentences awarded to them, therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, sentences awarded to them be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that since occurrence of the incident more than four years have elapsed and during interregnum the petitioners have suffered a lot, as such, a lenient view in the matter is desirable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments : (1) Fazal Rab Choudhary v. State of Bihar [ (1982) 3 SCC 9 ], (2) Chitranjan Dass v. State of U.P. [ (1974) 4 SCC 454 ], and (3) Neel Kumar @ Neelu v. State of U.P. [2013 (1) Crimes 99 (H.P.). 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is reliable, clinching and trustworthy evidence on record to prove that the accused have committed the offence, and therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt as such no mercy can be shown towards them even by reducing the sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the Courts below have recorded finding of guilt against the accused-petitioners, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners, therefore, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the Courts below have recorded finding of guilt against the accused-petitioners, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners, therefore, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 6. Indisputably, the learned trial Court, on the material available on record, has recorded a definite finding of guilt against the petitioners and the said conclusion of the learned trial Court is affirmed by learned appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. Otherwise also, the learned counsel for petitioners has conceded on the finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below. However, taking into account the concession made by learned counsel for the petitioners and a significant fact that out of the maximum sentence of five years awarded to the accused-petitioners, Rahul has already undergone imprisonment for 4 years and 27 days, and both Naresh and Dinesh for 3 years 10 months and one day, which is evident from the communication of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur dated 07.03.2018 addressed to the Government Advocate, I feel persuaded to consider the prayer of the petitioners in the backdrop of their prove delinquency. There remains no quarrel that offence under Section 377 IPC is punishable with very heavy punishments including the punishment for imprisonment for life but then no minimum sentence is prescribed. Likewise, offence under Section 506 IPC is also punishable with maximum sentence of two years or with fine only. Therefore, in totality, by relying on the legal precedents, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, sentence awarded to the petitioners can be reduced to the extent they have already undergone to meet the ends of justice. It is made clear that there is no reprieve to the petitioners so far as punishment of fine is concerned and therefore the petitioners shall deposit the fine before the learned trial Court within four weeks. The learned trial Court upon receipt of the aforesaid amount of fine from the petitioners shall pay the same to the victim through his mother as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., 1973 forthwith. 7. The learned trial Court upon receipt of the aforesaid amount of fine from the petitioners shall pay the same to the victim through his mother as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., 1973 forthwith. 7. In view of above discussion, revision petitions are allowed in part and while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, as recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by appellate Court, the sentences awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them while maintaining the fine. The petitioners, who are under incarceration, be set at liberty upon their paying/depositing the fine before learned trial Court, if not required in any other case.