IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2005 Amar Singh. ……….Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondent. Present : None for the Revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. None has turned up on behalf of the revisionist, so this Court has given hearing to Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ 3rd FTC, Haridwar whereby Joginder Singh (respondent no. 2) was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced for the period, which has already been undergone by him nay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo 15 days imprisonment. The accused was not found guilty for the offence under Section 307, 504 IPC. 3. The incident is of 1996. The theme of the incident is that pet dog of Joginder Singh was nuisance for his neighbour Amar Singh (complainant). The dog was in the course of biting Manjeet Kumar (son of complainant), he resisted the incident by way of picking a piece of brick to be thrown on the dog. Joginder Singh felt annoyed and intimidated Manjeet Kumar. He (Joginder Singh) brought some acid from his home and threw it over Manjeet Kumar, who was injured. First 2 Information Report was lodged and charge sheet was submitted for the offence 307, 504 IPC bearing crime no. 223 of 96 pertaining to Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee District Haridwar. Trial proceeded which ended into conviction, as above. 4. Considering the injury as minor one and nature of the offence nay the age of accused as of 55 year, at the time of rendering the judgment, learned Judge found it appropriate to punish the accused for the period already undergone and impose a fine of Rs. 500/-. 5. Having considered the nature of injury as well as offence and having regard to the fact that both accused and complainant are next door neighbours, this Court feels it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to enhance the sentence or to find accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC because no evidence indicates the intention of Joginder Singh to kill Manjeet Kumar by way of throwing the acid. 6. In the above circumstances, this revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The Revision is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 15.12.2011 SKS