IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2002 Munnu S/o Ram Chander R/o Village Banskhera P.S. Kashipur, District Nainital At Present-District Udham Singh Nagar. …………..…Revisionist. Versus State of Uttaranchal. ……….Respondent. Shri B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the revisionist. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for the State/respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision, is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal appeal No. 16 of 1999, whereby said court affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded against the revisionist-Munnu, relating to offence punishable under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 08.11.1993, complainant Jagan Singh, lodged a First Information Report against revisionist-Munnu 2 that he assaulted with a sharp edged weapon (GANDASA) on his cow, which caused 5 inch long incised wound on said animal. Said report was registered as crime No. 1207 of 1993, with Police Station Kashipur. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the revisionist, for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 429, 506 I.P.C. The trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur) after giving necessary copies, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 429 and 506 I.P.C., against the accused Munnu (revisionist) to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Jagan Singh, P.W. 2 Sub-Inspector M.P. Singh, and P.W. 3 Dr. S.B. Verma. The evidence was put to the accused in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence, appears to have been adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that charge of offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. is not proved but the charge under Section 429 of I.P.C. proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial court convicted accused Munnu, under Section 429 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 27.08.1999, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in criminal case No. 486 of 1994, criminal appeal No. 16 of 1999, filed by the convict, before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh 3 Nagar. Said appeal was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur. Said court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2002, affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial court. Hence this revision. 4. Having gone through the oral testimony of the complainant, which is supported by the medical evidence, on record, this Court does not find any error of law, committed by the trial court in convicting the accused/revisionist on the charge of offence punishable under Section 429 I.P.C. However, on the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionist, pleaded that Section 429 of I.P.C., provides maximum sentence of imprisonment for five years or fine or with both. It is argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and nature of offence, the Magistrate should have released the convict (revisionist) on probation, on executing bond to keep his conduct good. However, this Court is of the view that considering the fact that the cow got disabled after suffering the injury at the hands of the revisionist, the courts below have committed no error of law in not giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. No doubt, the convict could have been granted benefit under such section but it was the discretion of the trial court to take a decision after considering the facts 4 and circumstances of the case. This Court, is of the view that since the revisionist had been earlier arrested and released on bail, thereafter when his appeal was dismissed by the appellate court, he was again taken into custody and granted bail by this Court on 06.03.2002, as such, it would meet the ends of justice if the revisionist is sentenced to period already undergone by him. 5. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of with the observation that the conviction of the revisionist under Section 429 I.P.C. is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:05.04.2010 Sweta 5