1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2008. Shri Dhondu Raghoba Govekar, R/o. H.543, Guddem, Siolim, Bardez, Goa. .. Applicant. Versus 1. State through the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Panaji. .. Respondent. Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent . CORAM :- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 27 TH JANUARY, 2009 . ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the accused No.1, who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. by the Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge. The Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced the accused No.1/ present applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days and fine of Rs.200/-. 2. The facts can be narrated as follows : 2 There is a nallah, which intervenes the houses of the complainant and the accused persons. It is alleged that the complainant has an access through the property of the accused. On the day of the incident, it is alleged that Kalawati, who had come to reside with her parents on account of marriage ceremony, saw the accused persons blocking their passage. She, therefore, enquired with them as to why their passage was being blocked by the accused. It is alleged that the accused No.1, therefore, abused her in bad language. He took out a sickle from the scooter, pushed Kalawati down. One Ramnath Vernekar also came there and was assaulted by the accused No.1 with the sickle. When Ramnath tried to avoid the blow of sickle,he suffered injury on his wrist. When Raju Vernekar went to the spot, the accused No.1 also assaulted him with the sickle. The accused No.2 also assaulted Raju Vernekar with the wooden stick. Raju fell unconscious. Then accused No.3, it is alleged, also assaulted to them with pick-axe. A report of this incident was lodged with the police, upon which the police had registered the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 504 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. 3 3. The police carried out investigation and submitted the chargesheet to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. The Assistant Sessions Judge, to whom the trial was made over, framed the charges under Sections 324, 307, 504 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. Upon consideration of the evidence led before him, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, found that the prosecution had failed to make out an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. as well as offence under Section 504 of I.P.C. He acquitted all the accused of these offences, but found the accused persons guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. He gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused No.2. He sentenced the accused No.3 to undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 days and fine of Rs.100/- while he imposed the sentence of 45 days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- on the accused No.1. 5. The accused No.1 preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge concurred with the findings recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, confirmed 4 the conviction as well as the sentence. Being aggrieved by the order of the confirmation of conviction and sentence, this revision has been preferred. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that considering the incident and the age of the accused No.1, the Trial Court was little bit harsh in imposing the imprisonment of 45 days. According to him, the accused/ applicant is aged about more than 60 years and, therefore, a lenient view should have been taken in the matter. He submits that he does not want to urge any other point before the Court. 7. After having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondent and considering the fact that the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment and considering the age of the present accused/ applicant, who is aged about more than 60 years age, the sentence of imprisonment certainly calls for interference particularly when it is stated that the accused had already undergone the imprisonment of 29 days out of 45 days. Considering the fact that the accused has already undergone the sentence of 29 days out of 45 days and considering his age, I find that the 5 sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him, would be enough. However, in the circumstances of the case, I find that the accused should be directed to pay fine of Rs.1500/- instead of Rs.200/-. 8. In the circumstances, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused/ applicant, is maintained. Instead of 45 days imprisonment, the accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period, which he has already undergone and the accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.1500/- instead of Rs.200/-. The fine should be paid within a period of one week in the Trial Court. If the fine is not paid by the accused, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days i.e. in default of payment of fine. The bail bond of the accused, stands discharged. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA