IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 35/2003 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Pratap Singh & Another …….Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the revisionists. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 14th September, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.2.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Almora in Criminal Appeal No. 13/99, whereby the appeal of the revisionists accused against the judgment and order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora dated 8.7.1999, has been dismissed. By the said judgment and order dated 8.7.1999, each of the revisionists have been convicted under Section 324, 504, 506 IPC. For the offence of Section 324, each of the revisionists have been sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment, while they have been fined with Rs. 500/- for the offences of Section 504 & 506 IPC each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo one month’s additional imprisonment. 2. The revisionists Pratap Singh and Smt. Parvati Devi are husband and wife. It has been apprised to this Court that fine of rupees one thousand imposed by the trial court has been deposited by each of the revisionists. 3. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the incident is dated 10.4.1993 and the matter was reported on 12.4.1993, i.e. almost after two days. It was a quarrel on the issue of 2 dumping the cow dung at some place. The altercation between the parties altered into assault by the revisionists with sickle (grass cutting instrument) and a baton. All the injuries suffered by the victim are very superficial and simple in nature. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionists has not pressed this revision on merit, but has only requested that the sentence of imprisonment, imposed under Section 324 IPC, may be converted into sentence of fine only. He submitted that the revisionists are husband and wife. They are very poor person and belong to remote hills of district Almora. The incident is almost two decades old and they have living peacefully thereafter. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does agree and concede with the request of learned Counsel for the revisionists. In the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice will be met if the revisionists are fined with rupees one thousand each, and their sentence of imprisonment under Section 324 IPC, awarded by the trial court, is done away with. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, on the quantum of sentence, it is partly allowed. The rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence of Section 324 IPC, awarded to each of the revisionists, is done away with, and they are fined with rupees one thousand each for the said office. The fine shall be deposited within two months from today. In case of failure in payment of fine, they shall undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment, as awarded by the trial court. 3 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. The lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 14.9.2011 Prabodh