IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.77 of 2004 Govind Singh … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA for the State/respondent Dated: July 21, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Revisionist-Govind Singh was convicted for the offence of Sections 323 and 506 (2) IPC by the J.M. Karanprayag, Chamoli vide his judgment and order dated 19.6.2001 and was sentenced to undergo six months’ S.I. with each of the offences running concurrently. Accused Govind Singh challenged the order of Magistrate vide criminal appeal no.11 of 2001 wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli dismissed the appeal and confirmed his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up in this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. Brief facts are that on 23.10.1997 at about 6:30 PM in the remote hills of village Lawani, the potatoes were being boarded in the truck. Accused Govind Singh came there and being sozzled, he started to abuse the truck driver saying that the potatoes are being stolen by him. Anyhow the truck was loaded and it was set out for its destination. The accused also boarded in the truck. Having covered some distance, Maan Singh complainant asked the accused to get down from the 2 Truck but he declined and began to abuse again. At this, some altercation started between the accused and the complainant and in that course, accused gave a blow of stone upon the head of Maan Singh causing him injured. He suffered simple injury and after trial, he was convicted by the court below, as aforementioned. Learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that due to the nature of injury and being such an old trial, besides the poverty of the accused, quantum of sentence may kindly be converted to the sentence of fine only. He told yet another reason for this conversion and that the accused is bedridden due to fracture in his backbone for last couple of years. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 4 S.C.C. 57”, considering that the accused has undergone mental agony and financial sufferings, found it appropriate to release him on the sentence of undergone only. In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the quantum of sentence is converted from six months imprisonment each under Sections 323 and 506 (2) IPC to fine of Rs.1,000/- each for both the offences, in total Rs.2,000/- upon the accused. Revision is partly allowed. The sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and sustained by the Sessions Judge is modified to the respect that he will deposit a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rs.1,000/- each for u/s 323 and 506(2) IPC] instead of undergoing the sentence of six months under those sections. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 21.07.2011 Rajeev Dang