IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISON NO. 957/2001 Nanda Ballabh S/o Devi Dutt, R/o Village Kalna, P.S. Bageshwar, District Bageshwar. .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal (Now, State of Uttarakhand) .… Respondent January 4, 2011 Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, AGA, present for the State/respondent. HON’BLE PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This revision is filed against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2001, whereby the said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused including the present revisionist Nanda Ballabh relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC. However, the said court has allowed the appeal partly acquitting the accused (including the appellant-revisionist) from the charge of offence punishable under Section 452 & 354 IPC. Each one of the convicts including the revisionist was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in respect of each of the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 & 506 IPC. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist Nanda Ballabh is a handicapped person. The report that the revisionist is suffering from a paralytic 2 attack is on the record of this revision. It is further pointed out that other convicts, namely, Soban Singh, Nandan Singh and Khushal Singh have got compounded the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 & 506 IPC during the pendency of Criminal Revision No. 951 of 2001 and they have been acquitted of all the charges vide order dated 31.12.2010 passed by this Court. It is also pointed out that the revisionist Nanda Ballabh had been in jail for about seven days after the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, and the bail was granted by this Court in this revision. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has not pressed the revision on the point of conviction, which was affirmed by the appellate court. It is only prayed on behalf of the revisionist that in view of the fact that the revisionist is suffering from paralytic attack, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for the State, in the above circumstances of the case, the conviction of the revisionist under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, recorded by appellate court, is affirmed, but the sentence awarded by the appellate court (Sessions Judge, Bageshwar) is reduced to the period already undergone. 6. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4.1.2011 PRABODH