IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 13 of 2002 Kantiballabh, S/o Shiv Dutt, R/o Village Wagigaon, P.S Bageshwar, District – Bageshwar. …….Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand. ………....….Respondent Shri Raj Kumar Singh Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate present for the revisionist. Shri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in criminal appeal no. 4 of 2001 (old number 7 of 1999) Kantiballabh Vs. State whereby the said court has affirmed the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court (Judicial Magistrate Bageshwar) in criminal case no. 61 of 1997 under section 323, 504 IPC. However, the Appellate Court has modified the sentence by awarding the punishment of fine only. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.02.1992, Bhagirathi Devi was tethering her cattle at about 05.00 p.m. in village Mauji Gaon within the limits of police station Bageshwar. At that point 2 of time, some cattle of revisionist Kantiballabh entered in the field of complainant Bhagirathi Devi. She ousted the cattle. This invited quarrel between revisionist Kantiballabh and the complainant Bhagirathi Devi whereafter accused / revisionist Kantiballabh hurled abuses at her and caused injuries by stoning her. The complainant got lodged first information report on the very day at police station Bageshwar. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the revisionist and his servant Kundan Ram relating to offence punishable under section 323, 336, 504, 506 IPC. Civil Judge / Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar tried the case and found the accused / revisionist Kantiballabh guilty of the charge of the offence 323, 504, 506 IPC. Another accused Kundan Ram was acquitted of all the charges. After hearing on sentence, the trial court sentenced the accused Kantiballabh to rigorous imprisonment for five months under section 323 IPC and directed him to pay fine of ` 500; rigorous imprisonment for five months under section 504 IPC and directed to pay fine of ` 500 and further rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 506 IPC and directed to pay fine of ` 4000. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 02.04.1999 passed by Civil Judge / Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in criminal case no. 61 of 1997 convicting the revisionist, revisionist Kantiballabh preferred an criminal appeal no. 7 of 1999 before Sessions Judge, Almora (earlier Bageshwar was part of District Almora), after the Sessions Division was created in Bageshwar, the appeal no. 7 of 1999 was transferred to Sessions Judge, Bageshwar and re- numbered as criminal appeal no. 4 of 2001. Learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar after hearing the parties affirmed the conviction of Kantiballabh under section 323, 504 IPC but acquitted him of the charge punishable under section 506 IPC. 3 The Appellate Court modified the sentence and directed the appellant (present revisionist) to pay fine of ` 1000 under section 323 IPC and ` 4000 under section 504 IPC. It is this order dated 06.12.2001 passed by the Appellate Court which is challenged in this revision. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record summoned by this court. There is concurrent finding of the fact, after appreciating the evidence on record adduced by PW1 Bhagirathi Devi, PW2 Chandra Shekhar, PW3 Dr. L.D. Pant, PW4 Mohd. Tauseef, the Investigating Officer. After going through the oral and documentary evidence on record, this court finds that there is no room for interference with the findings recorded by the trial court. Sentence awarded by the Appellate Court is also reasonable and proportionate to the charge for which accused Kantiballabh was found guilty. 5. In the above circumstances, this court finds no force in this revision, which is liable to be dismissed. According the revision is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.13.06.2011 SKS