JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since both these revision applications arise out of the common judgment, as such both are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These revision applications are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C,-I, Chaibasa in Cr. appeal No. 50 of 1997; whereby the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.1997 and orders of sentence dated 25.11.1997 passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge at Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 130 of 1993 (Trial No. 38/1994) in connection with Chakradharpur, P.S. Case No. 04/1992 corresponding to G.R. No. 11/1992 against both the petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 549 of 2005, namely, Man Kumar Pradhan and Anant Kumar Pradhan and the sole petitioner- Pradip Kumar Pradhan @ Pradeep Pradhan in Cr. Rev. No. 632 of 2005 to undergo R.I. for 3 years and 5 years respectively, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 IPC has been affirmed while the convictions of the latter for the offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, has been set aside. 4. Ms. Apurwa Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (in Cr. Rev. No. 549 of 2005) have also undergone 80 days imprisonment and petitioner (in Cr. Rev No. 632 of 2005) remained in custody for about 322 days and now the petitioners are aged persons. As such, she is confining her prayer only on the question of sentence as the petitioners are aged person and sending them back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required. 6. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 7. 7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1992 and 30 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation for the last 30 years. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (in Cr. Rev. No. 549 of 2005) also remained in custody for about 80 days and petitioner (in Cr. Rev No. 632 of 2005) remained in custody for about 322 days. Further, it is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. 8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. 9. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- each i.e. Rs.15000/- in total. 10. It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 5000/- each within a period of 4 months before the D.S.L.A, Chaibasa, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below. 11. With the aforesaid observations, direction and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of. 12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.