IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 36/2004 Baldev Singh & Others …….Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate, for the revisionists. Smt. Mamta Bisht, AGA, for the State. 9th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.3.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2003, titled as Santokh Singh & Others v. State. In the said criminal appeal, the judgment and order of conviction dated 7.2.2003, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, was affirmed. The learned Magistrate tried a Criminal Case No. 1877/2002 (Old No. 199/1999), State v. Santokh Singh & Others, Crime No. 32/1999, under Section 324, 506 IPC, pertaining to PS Nanakmatta, and after conclusion of the trial, found the accused Santokh Singh, Gurmel Singh, Baldev Singh and Kripal Singh guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 & 506 IPC, and sentenced each of the accused revisionists to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Section 324 IPC, and six months’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine of rupees one thousand for the offence of Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State, it was highlighted that the complainant/injured and all the accused persons are cousin brothers and thus they belong to the same family. 2 Prior to the incident, there was some litigation between the two parties, which also ended in compromise, and now, they are living peacefully. Their relations are not sour now. The incident is almost 12 years old. Although the injuries are of firearm, but all are simple and not on the vital part of the body. So, the learned Counsel for the revisionists has pleaded mercy of this Court only on the quantum of punishment with the facts that each one of the revisionists have already undergone to gaol from 7.2.2003 to 14.2.2003 i.e. for 7 days and again from 1.3.2004 to 7.3.2004 i.e. for seven days, in total they had been in jail for two weeks. 3. In the above circumstances, the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate for the offence of Section 324 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, while each one of the revisionists shall pay rupees ten thousand for the offence of Section 324 IPC. As regards the punishment under Section 506 IPC imposed by the learned Magistrate, the same is also reduced to the period already undergone, however, the fine of rupees one thousand is enhanced to rupees two thousand to be paid by each one of the revisionists. This way, every revisionist shall deposit fine of rupees twelve thousand before the court below within two months from today. However, the amount of fine already deposited, if any, shall be adjusted in the aforesaid amount. If the fine, as ordered by this Court, shall not be paid, the defaulter revisionist/revisionists shall undergo the sentence as has been imposed by the learned Magistrate. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge stand modified to the extent indicated above. The revision stands disposed of accordingly. 3 4. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the court below for its compliance. Lower court record be also sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 9.12.2011 Prabodh