JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1.Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal No.11/2006 by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 27.01.2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Revdar, District Sirohi, in Regular Cr. Case No.171/2002 by which the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 365 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year RI along with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days additional SI. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.06.2002, complainant Sura submitted a written report at Police Station Anadara to the effect that the accused-petitioners forcefully abducted his nephew (bhanja) and assaulted him. On this report, Police registered a case and started investigation. 2. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 365/34, 342, 323/34 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined some witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 27.01.2006 acquitted the accused- petitioners from the offences under Sections 342, 323/34 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, however, convicted and sentenced them for offence under Section 365 IPC. 5. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.11.2006. Hence, this revision petition. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2002 and the sentence awarded to the petitioners is of one year R.I. and the petitioners have remained in custody for some time, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioners for the offence under Section 365 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 8. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. 9. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2002 and the petitioners have remained in custody for some time, out of total sentence of one year RI, so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 365 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 365 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is also waived. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. 11. The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.