ORDER : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report in which it has been mentioned that petitioner No.1-Gokla S/o Dana Ji expired. The said report is hereby taken on record. 2. Hence, the criminal revision petition in respect of petitioner No.1-Gokla S/o Dana Ji is dismissed as abated. 3. So far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, by way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 05.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aburoad, District Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.11/2005 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Pindwara, District Sirohi in Criminal Regular Case No.193/2001 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:- Offence Sentence Section 332 IPC Two years’SI Section 353 IPC One years’ SI 4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 5. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 08.04.2001, complainant – Hem Singh submitted a written report to the effect that he along with Constable Bhanwar Singh went to arrest Gokla at his house, they found the accused-petitioner, but he resisted to surrender. Accused-petitioner Gokla ran inside the house and brought a lathi and arrow from inside and inflicted injury to complainant as well as on Constable, meanwhile petitioner No.2 came with stick and assaulted them. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the Court concerned. 6. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners for offences under Sections 332 & 353 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 332 & 353 of IPC vide judgment dated 21.07.2005 and sentenced them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.08.2006. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition. 7. Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Rathore, representing the petitioner No.2, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 2001. The petitioner No.2 remained in jail for about one month and fifteen (15) days after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He is facing trial since the year 2001 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for more than one month and except the present one no other case has been registered against them. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 10. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner No.2 remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for last 24 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs . Stat e of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister An tho ny Pareira vs . Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs . Stat e of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister An tho ny Pareira vs . Stat e of Ma h arashtra reported in 2 01 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner No.2 has suffered incarceration for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon petitioner No.2 is of two years as well as the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner No.2 has already undergone till date. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aburoad, District Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.11/2005 and the judgment dated 21.07.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Pindwara, District Sirohi in Criminal Regular Case No.193/2001 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence petitioner No.2 has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner No.2 is on bail. He need not to surrender. his bail bonds are cancelled. 12. The revision petition is allowed in part. 13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 14. Record of the Courts below be sent back.