1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 344 Of 2001 (Old No. 151 of 1998) Vishnu Singh Bora S/O Diwan Singh Head Clerk Vivekanand Agriculture Research Institute, Almora ………..Applicant/Revisionist Versus 1. State of U.P 2. Dhirendra Nath S/O Jiwan Nath Working in Vivekanand Agriculture Research Institute Almora …………..Opposite parties Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 28-1-1998 passed by Sessions Judge Almora in criminal appeal no. 9 of 1995, whereby said court has partly allowed the appeal setting aside a conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora) against the revisionist, in respect of offences punishable under section 427 and 504 I.P.C, but his conviction and sentence recorded under section 323 I.P.C, is maintained. 2 (2) Heard and perused the Lower Court Record. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that a criminal complaint was file by Dhirendra Nath (PW1) alleging that his wife Smt. Shakku Goswami was posted as Superintendent in Vivekanand Parwatiya Agriculture Research Institute, Almora. She had filed a criminal case against the accused/revisionist Vishnu Singh Bora, her colleague in said organization, who used to pass obscene remarks against the female members of the staff. The accused/revisionist tried to put pressure on her to enter into compromise, to which she refused whereafter accused/revisionist Vishnu Singh Bora caught hold of collar of the complainant (who also work in the same establishment), and beat him with fists and kicks. The Magistrate after recording statement of complainant under section 200 and that of the witnesses under section 202 of Cr.P.C, was summoned the accused/revisionist to face the trial, in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 427 and 504 I.P.C. After recording evidence of PW1 Dhirendra Nath (complainant), PW2 Constable Jagdish Prasad and PW3 Dr. Bhupendra Singh, who medically examined the injured (complainant) the evidence was put to the accused in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found the accused Vishnu Singh Bora, guilty of charge of offences punishable under section 323, 427, 504 I.P.C, and 3 sentenced on each count to simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by said order dated 1.12.1995, passed in criminal case no. 276 of 1993, the convict preferred criminal appeal no. 9 of 1995, which was heard and disposed of by Sessions Judge Almora vide his order dated 28.1.1998 setting aside the conviction recorded by the trial court under section 427 and 504 of I.P.C, but maintaining the same under section 323 I.P.C. Hence, this revision was prefered by the convict before the Allahabad High Court on 4.02.1998, from where it is received by transfer to this court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000(central Act No. 29 of 2000). (4) Perusal of the Lower Court Record shows that the statement of PW1 Dhirendra Nath (complainant) that he was assaulted by the accused which gets fully corroborated by the statement of PW3 Dr. Bhupendra Singh, who medically examined the injured after the incident on 05.03.1993. The statement of PW2 Constable Jagdish Prasad of Police Station Almora, further shows that after the incident the report of the complainant was registered as non-cognizable report (for short N.C.R). (5) Having gone through the evidence on record this court finds that trial court and the appellate court have committed no error of law in holding accused Vishnu Singh Bora guilty of offence punishable under section 323 I.P.C. As such the conviction upheld by the appellate court, in respect of offence 4 punishable under section 323 I.P.C needs no interference . However, on the point of sentence, from the papers on record it appears that the revisionist had been in jail for more than a month after his appeal was partly dismissed by the appellate court. He was released on bail by the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 9.03.1998. Therefore, considering the fact that now 17 years have passed from the date of the incident, this court feels it just and proper, in the circumstances of the case, that the sentence awarded by the trial court be reduced to the period already undergone. (6) Accordingly, this revision is disposed of affirming the conviction of the revisionist under section 323 I.P.C, but reducing the sentence to the period already under gone by him in jail. Lower Court Record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.05.05.2010 N.P