IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 824 of 2001 (Old No. 297 of 2000) (1) Rakesh, S/o Murari, (2) Murari, S/o Bhudhwa, Both R/o Village Maduwadawara Daripur, P.S. Jarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …………………..Revisionists. Versus State ………..……..Opposite Party. Sri B.S. Parihar and Sri Mohd. Azim, Advocates for revisionists. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby said court has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999, maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in Case No. 445 of 1999. The trial court had convicted the revisionists under Section 324 read with Section 34 and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.), and each one of the two revisionists was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, under Section 324/34 I.P.C.. 2 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that on 05.04.1998 at about 7 A.M. in village Mahuwa Dabra, within the territorial limits of Police Station Jaspur, accused Rakesh and Murari gave beating to complainant Rajwati @ Rajo (P.W.1) and caused fracture in her thumb. Apart from this, it is said that complainant was bitten with teeth on her waist. Initially the crime was registered on the basis of First Information Report lodged with the Police, relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.. But after perusing the injury report of the complainant, the case was converted into one punishable under Sections 324/325 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against the two accused. The trial court after giving necessary copies and hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 and one punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. The two accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined P.W.1 Smt. Rajo @ Rajwati (injured), P.W.2 Baldev Singh, husband-not eyewitness, P.W.3 Dr. G.S. Joshi, who examined the injuries on the person of the injured and P.W.4 Sub Inspector Prithwi Singh, who investigated the crime. Oral and documentary evidence put to the accused in reply to which they alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties trial court found both the accused guilty of charge of offence punishable under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 23.03.1999, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, the 3 two convicts preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999. After hearing the parties, the appellate court concurred with the view taken by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision was filed by the two convicts, namely, Rakesh and Murari, before Allahabad High Court on 16.02.2000, from where it is received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. (4) Perusal of the lower court record shows that P.W.1 Rajo @ Rajwati has stated on oath that on the day of incident at about 7 A.M., the two accused, namely, Rakesh and Murari armed with LATHI, came to her and caused her injuries. Statement of said witness is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. G.S. Joshi, who examined the injured at 11 A.M. on the day of incident. This Court in its revisional jurisdiction has limited scope to appreciate the evidence on record, which has already been assessed not only by the trial court but also by the appellate court. Having gone through the lower court record and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any illegality committed either by the trial court or by the appellate court. In the circumstances, this court agrees with the courts below so far as the conviction of the two accused (present revisionists) is recorded under Section 324 read with Section 34 and one punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. However, on the point of sentence this Court is of the view that grievous injury alleged by prosecution is minor in nature and that too on the thumb of the injured and the other injury is also simple in nature, and as such the punishment awarded by the 4 trial court and affirmed by the appellate court appears to be disproportionate to the injuries suffered by the injured. Both the revisionists had already been in jail for about a fortnight during investigation and after affirmation of their conviction by the appellate court. As such, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of fine is affirmed and sentence of imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by the revisionists. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of with the direction that the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court needs no interference. However, the sentence awarded to each of the convicts/revisionists is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone and the fine as imposed by the trial court. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 17.07.2008 NS