IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.152 of 2003 Ramashish ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ..…. Respondents Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate i/b Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the revisionist Sri P.S. Bohra, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Dated: November 1, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar dated 6.10.2003 in criminal appeal no.36 of 2001, Ramashish Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another. In the said appeal, the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar dated 23.5.2001 was affirmed, maintaining the conviction and sentence against the accused/revisionist Ramashish Yadav. Accused Ramashish Yadav was sentenced to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Section 452 IPC and again to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Section 323 IPC, in total he was directed to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Having heard the learned counsel of the revisionist as well as learned brief holder for the State, it appears that the revisionist Ramashish Yadav used to live in the house of complainant Ganga Sagar Yadav prior to three months of incident of dated 29.12.1996. On the date of incident at about 5 PM, revisionist Ramashish Yadav entered in the house of complainant Ganga Sagar Yadav hurling the filthy abuses and intimidating him to kill. Accused Ramashish Yadav assaulted the complainant Ganga Sagar Yadav with slaps and fists and 2 also gave a blow on his head by an iron pipe, as a result of which the complainant was injured. The occurrence was witnessed by the wife of complainant Smt. Baleshwari and neighbouring witnesses Veer Bahadur and Ram Prasad Singh. The complainant tried to lodge an FIR but the police, instead of recording the same in the General Diary, exerted pressure upon the complainant to compound the offence with the accused persons. So, the complainant, helplessly, filed a complaint case no.858 of 2001 in the court of C.J.M., Haridwar and after adducing his evidence nay that of his witnesses, the learned Magistrate found the accused Ramashish Yadav guilty while another accused Rama Kant Yadav (uncle of Ramashish Yadav) was not found guilty and he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge while hearing the appeal and appreciating the evidence de novo, sustained the judgment and order of conviction, whereagainst this revision has been filed. On a perusal of the grounds of the revision mentioned in the enclosed affidavit, it appears that all are very formal and stereotyped. No material incongruity or inconsistency could be highlighted by learned counsel of the revisionist in the appreciation of evidence by both the courts below. The independent witnesses have proved the occurrence without any material contradiction. The medical officer has also proved the injury reports on the body of complainant, which were soon noticed after the occurrence. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pleaded for some mercy in respect of the accused Ramashish Yadav. In this regard, this Court is of the view that the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate is already very moderate, however the 3 sentence can be made to run concurrently instead of consecutively. The revision, thus, fails on merit while it is partly allowed on the question of sentence, modifying the same to run concurrently instead of consecutively for both the offences. This finally disposes of the revision. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 01.11.2011 Rajeev Dang