ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assisted by Ms. Talat Praween, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. This criminal revision petition was filed by the present petitioners against the Judgment dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned Dist. & Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2012 whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 4. The criminal appeal was preferred by the present petitioners alongwith two others against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge-V, Chatra in G.R. Case No. 582 of 2009/T.R. Case No. 718/2012 (arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 98/2009) whereby and whereunder the present petitioners alongwith Shyam Sundar Paswan and Deo Kumar Paswan were held guilty and convicted under Sections 147, 342 and 323/149 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 5. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present criminal revision petition was admitted for hearing on 27.04.2015 on the limited point of sentence only and the petitioners were enlarged on bail and accordingly, he would confine his arguments on the question of sentence of the petitioners only. 6. The learned counsel submitted that the present case arises out of family land dispute, as it is the specific case of the prosecution that the entire incident had happened due to the fact that the accused persons sold their shares alongwith the share of land of the Informant to the extent of two kathas which was protested by the Informant. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 147, 323 and 342/149 of the Indian Penal Code and the maximum sentence imposed upon them is simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 of IPC and they have remained in custody for more than 33 days. He further submitted that the incident is of the year 2009 and accordingly, 11 years have already elapsed from the date of the incident and the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and are not habitual offenders and at present, Petitioner No.1-Dilip Kumar Paswan is 33 years of age, Petitioner No.2-Vinay Paswan is 41 Years of age, Petitioner No.3-Shravan Kumar is 32 years of age and Petitioner No.4-Arjun Paswan is 63 years of age and they are living with their families and Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the only bread earners of their families and Petitioner No.4 is a senior citizen and as such, sending them back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose. 8. The learned counsel also submitted that the Informant-victim-Shanti Devi was examined by the doctor (PW-9) who found that she has suffered simple injury resulting in swelling on left foot 1”x ½” caused by hard and blunt substance. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the sentence of the petitioners may be modified and reduced. He further submitted that the petitioners are also ready to pay some amount by way of victim compensation to the informant of the case which may be deemed proper by this Court. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State opposed the prayer and supported the impugned judgments and submitted that the petitioners have not even served 50%of the punishment imposed upon them. However, he did not dispute the fact that the dispute was amongst the family members in connection with sale of some property and the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. He also submitted that if this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioners, then some fine amount may be imposed and some victim compensation may also be directed to be paid to the informant of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount may not be less than Rs. 15,000/-. Findings of this Court 10. 15,000/-. Findings of this Court 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the scope of revision jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned courts below and as such, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby confirmed. 11. So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, this Court finds that the present criminal revision has been admitted for hearing on the limited point of sentence only and the First Information Report was instituted as back as in the year 2009 and since then, more than 11 years have elapsed and the petitioners have suffered the rigours of the litigation for the last 11 years and the petitioners have remained in custody at least for 33 days. Further, no such allegation has been made by the opposite party regarding any misuse of the privilege of bail by the petitioners. This Court further finds from the trial court judgment that the present case is the first offence of the petitioners. Further, it appears that the genesis of the offence is dispute alleging sale of some landed property in the family. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioners is modified to some extent. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners for all the offences is modified and reduced to four months and fine of Rs.5,000/- each to be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently and the sentence already served by the petitioners is directed to be set off. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated time, they would serve the sentence as directed by the learned courts below. 13. The fine amount is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case after due identification. 14. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in the sentence, this criminal revision petition is disposed of. 15. 13. The fine amount is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case after due identification. 14. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in the sentence, this criminal revision petition is disposed of. 15. The bail bond furnished by the Petitioners are hereby cancelled. 16. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 17. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/e-mail”. Revision disposed of.