JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Upman, J. 1. By way of this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the convict-petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.114/1998 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and while affirming the conviction of the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC, reduced the sentences awarded to them by judgment dated 20.06.1997 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Criminal Case No.119/86, as below: Offences Sentence Fine Default Sentence 147 IPC 3 months' S.I. -- -- 148 IPC 3 month's S.I. -- -- 326/149 IPC 1 Year's R.I. Rs.500/- 2 Months' SI 325/149 IPC 6 Months' RI Rs.100/- 10 Days' SI 324/149 IPC 3 Months' SI -- -- 323/149 IPC One month and fifteen days' SI -- -- 2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.10.1985, the complainant Atmaram submitted a written report (Ex.P/7) at Police Station Keshorai Patan alleging therein that in the morning, he along with his father Badrinath and one Hali Shankar were doing work. At that time, the accused persons who were armed with ballam, gandasi and lathis came there. It was alleged that Shyoji was having ballam in his hands whereas Devlal, Mangilal and Mohanlal were having Ghandasi in their hands. Ramswaroop, Ramkunwar and Devlal were having lathis in their hands. When his father asked the accused persons to take away the cart through the way, they accused persons started beating his father due to which, his father sustained several injuries. 3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No.150/1985 was registered at Police Station Keshorai Patan for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 307 IPC and investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC 4. As one of the offences was under Section 307 IPC, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Bundi. However, the learned Sessions Court discharged the accused petitioners from the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and remitted the matter to the learned trial court for trial for remaining offences. 5. As one of the offences was under Section 307 IPC, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Bundi. However, the learned Sessions Court discharged the accused petitioners from the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and remitted the matter to the learned trial court for trial for remaining offences. 5. After remittance from the learned Sessions Court, learned trial court framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 326/149, 324/149, 324, 325, 325/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. After examining the accused petitioners under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., opportunity was also given to them to lead defence evidence. They denied the prosecution case. The accused Devlal examined himself as DW.1 in defence. 6. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 20.06.1997, convicted and sentenced them for the offences as mentioned above. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.06.1997, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi (Raj.). The learned appellate court vide judgment dated 04.12.2004 partly allowed the appeal and while affirming the conviction of the accused petitioners for the aforesaid offences, reduced the sentences awarded to them by the learned trial court. Hence this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of this revision petition, the accused petitioners Mangilal and Ramkunwar expired on 09.06.2014 and 09.10.2022 respectively. He has submitted the copies of the death certificates of both these accused petitioners. Same are taken on record. 9. As the accused petitioners No.4 Ramkunwar and No.6 Mangilal have expired, the instant revision petition stands abated to the extent of these accused petitioners. 10. Arguing the case for remaining accused petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently and fervently contends that both learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have erred in convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC. He further contends that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court did not appreciate the material available on record in right and correct perspective and committed perversity in convicting the petitioners. He further contends that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court did not appreciate the material available on record in right and correct perspective and committed perversity in convicting the petitioners. It is contended that as a matter of fact, the complainant party was the aggressor and firstly, they started giving beatings to the accused persons for which, an FIR No.149/1985 was also lodged by the accused persons against the complainant. Besides this, it is argued that except formal witnesses, all other prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and are the members of one family and therefore, they are not the trustworthy witness. He also submits that there are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and as such, the conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable and same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. His alternative submission is that as the petitioners Mangilal and Ramkunwar have already expired and the occurrence relates back to year 1985 and now the petitioners are more than 60 years years of age. The petitioner Devlal S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan had remained in custody for nearly 26 days whereas the other accused petitioners Sheoji, Mohan, Ramswaroop and Devlal S/o Shri Gordhan had remained behind the bars for nearly 23 days out of maximum sentence of one year's imprisonment awarded to them by the learned appellate court, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned courts below have rightly recorded conviction of the accused petitioners, which need not be interfered with by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders of sentence. 13. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the record. After perusing the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court and material available on record as also after re-appreciating the evidence, I am of the considered opinion that both the courts have rightly recorded conviction of the accused petitioners for the aforementioned offences. After perusing the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court and material available on record as also after re-appreciating the evidence, I am of the considered opinion that both the courts have rightly recorded conviction of the accused petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Both the courts have not committed any illegality or perversity in recording conviction of the accused petitioners for the aforesaid offences and same does not require any interference by this Court. Now comes to the alternative submission of learned counsel for the petitioners for releasing the accused petitioners on the period already undergone by them. 14. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 15. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1985 and this revision petition is pending since 2004. A cross FIR No. 149/1985 was also lodged by the accused side against the complainant alleging therein that firstly the complainant started giving beatings to them and they exercised their right of private defence. Out of the seven accused petitioners, the accused petitioners Mangilal and Ramkunwar have already expired. A cross FIR No. 149/1985 was also lodged by the accused side against the complainant alleging therein that firstly the complainant started giving beatings to them and they exercised their right of private defence. Out of the seven accused petitioners, the accused petitioners Mangilal and Ramkunwar have already expired. The petitioner Devlal S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan had remained in custody for nearly 26 days whereas the other accused petitioners Sheoji, Mohan, Ramswaroop and Devlal S/o Shri Gordhan had remained behind the bars for nearly 23 days. The accused petitioners also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for last 39 years. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 16. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offences under Sections 147, 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 IPC, the sentences awarded by the learned appellate court for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine imposed by the appellate court is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo default sentence in terms of the judgment dated 04.12.2004. The petitioners are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 17. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.