MANGILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11.8.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in criminal appeal No. 2/1986 whereby the accused petitioner No. 1 Mangilal has been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 3000/ -; petitioner No. 5 Daya and petitioner No. 6 Kuiya have been convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/ - each and petitioner No. 2 Achla Ram, petitioner No. 3 Puriya, petitioner No. 4 Shankariya, petitioner No. 5 Daya, petitioner No. 6 Kuiya and petitioner No. 7 Vagta have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to six months S.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) AFTER arguing on merits of the case for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioners does not wish to challenge the conviction and states that instead of requiring the accused petitioners to serve out the complete substantive sentence, it would be appropriate that they may be asked to pay compensation to the injured person.

(3.) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the accused petitioners were sentenced in the year 1985, the incident is of the year 1982, and the revision is being heard in the year 2000, this Court feels persuaded that instead of maintaining the substantive sentences of imprisonment, the accused -petitioners' sentences may be modified in the following terms: