1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2001 (Old No. 1773 of 1998) Smt. Upma Rana, W/O of Shri Raghunath Singh Rana, R/O Talla Naigwar, Gopeshwar District Chamoli. ………. Revisionist Versus State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) …………..Respondent Shri L.K. Tiwari, Adv. holding brief of Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the revisionist. Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the Judgment and order dated 30th of October 1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1995, whereby, said appellate court has affirmed the conviction of the revisionist Upma Rana in respect of offences punishable under section 504 and 506 I.P.C, and one relating to offence punishable under section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, the said appellate court has sentenced revisionist Upma Rana directing her to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in each of the counts of 2 504 and 506 of I.P.C. She has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, and also directed to pay fine of Rs. five hundred under section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955. (2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. (3) Brief facts of the case are that complainant Devi Lal Joshiwara filed a Criminal Complaint No. 467 of 1991, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli stating that his house in Vivekanand Colony, Talla Naigwar, within a limit of police station Gopeshwar, is down the hill, and house of Raghunath Singh Rana is situated at height to the one that of complainant. It is alleged that Raghunath Singh Rana used to get flow the dirty water towards the house of the complainant. Revisionist Upma Rana is the wife of Raghunath Singh Rana. On 08.08.1991 at 11.30.p.m due to the heavy rain and flow of water from the house of Raghunath Singh Rana, house of complainant got damaged. On this when he protested, revisionist Upma Rana and her husband hurled abuses at the complainant and they insulted him for being member of lower caste. It is pleaded in the complaint that the complainant was threatened by the accused. According to the prosecution case Bhopilal (PW3) intervened and witnessed the incident. After recording statement of the complainant under section 200 and that of witness under section 202 of Cr.P.C, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli summoned Raghunath Singh Rana, her wife Upma Rana (present revisionist) and Virendre Devri and 3 Smt. Raija Chaudhry to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under section 504 I.P.C and one punishable under section 3/7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955. The trial Court at the conclusion of the trial found all the accused guilty of offences punishable under section 504, 506 I.P.C and also one punishable under section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act. They were sentenced on each count judgment and order dated 19.01.1995. Against said order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1995 was preferred, by Raghunath Singh Rana and her wife before the Sessions Judge Gopeshwar. After hearing the parties said appellate court (Sessions Judge, Chamoli) allowed the appeal of Raghunath Singh Rana and Virendra Devri and acquitted them of the charge framed against them. But the appeal of Upma Rana was allowed partly upholding her conviction recorded by the trial Court, in respect of offences punishable under section 504, 506 of I.P.C and one punishable under section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955. However, the sentence was modified by the first appeal court by directing Upma Rana (revisionist) to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each count part under section 504, 506 of I.P.C. Said court further directed for the Upma Rana shall undergo one month simple imprisonment and shall further deposit Rs. Five hundred as fine under section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955. Hence this revision was filed by the convict before Allahabad High Court on 03.11.1998, where, it was admitted on 05.11.1998. The revision is received by this Court under section 35 of U.P Reorganization Act 2000 (Central Act No 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 4 (4) After going through the lower Court record and the statement of the witnesses, this court is of the view that since the concurrent finding of the courts below in respect of offences punishable under section 504, 506 I.P.C and one punishable under section 7 of Civil Rights Protection Act 1955 is based on evidence on record, it can not be said that the opinion given by the courts below is erroneous in law. That being so the conclusion arrived at by the appellate court, in respect of charges on which the revisionist was convicted is not required to be interfere with. However, on the point of sentence this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist, who is a woman, again to jail at this stage when she is already about sixty years old. Perusal of the lower court record and that of the appellate court record shows that she has been already in jail for more than a week. It is also pertinent to mention here that it is pleaded on behalf of the revisionist that she herself is the member of the Scheduled Tribe. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence, in respect of offences punishable under section 504, 506 I.P.C deserves to be reduced to fine of Rs. One thousand on each of said counts. (5) Accordingly this revision is disposed of with the direction that the conviction recorded by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 30th of October 1998, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1995 is affirmed, in respect of offences punishable under section 504 and 506 I.P.C and one punishable under section 7 and the Protection of Civil Rights 5 Act 1955. However, on the point of sentence revision is allowed and sentence passed by appellate court is set aside. The sentence in respect of offences punishable under section 504 and 506 I.P.C is reduced to fine of Rs. One thousand, on each count. In case of default in payment of fine, the revisionist would be required to undergo one-month simple imprisonment on the count, the default is committed. in respect of offences punishable under section 7 and Protection of Civil Rights Act, revisionist is sentenced to the period already undergone by her. No sentence of fine awarded under said section. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.05.4.2010 Nahid