IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.116 of 2002 Abdul Rab & others ………. Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal ..…. Respondents Dated : 29th July, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision has been called time and again even in the revised call, but none turns up on behalf of the revisionists while Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State is present. So, the Court has heard learned brief holder on merits of the case and has gone through the entire record. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge (U.S. Nagar) dated 21.8.2002 whereby the finding of conviction of revisionists recorded by the Additional C.J.M. Kashipur vide judgment dated 7.12.20002, has been affirmed but the quantum of sentence has been modified as below: - A. Revisionists were convicted for the offence of Section 323 IPC by the sentence of six months’ imprisonment along with Rs.500/- fine. This sentence has been reduced to three months while leaving the fine intact. B. The sentence of two years’ R.I. for the offence of Section 325 IPC has been reduced to one year and fine of Rs.1000/- has not been touched by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists have come up in this revision. I have gone through the grounds of revision, which are as below: - A. That the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court and the appellate court is too severe and the fine imposed is too excessive. On this ground, this Court is of the view that considering the gravity of the facts as well as the injury description proved in the trial court judgment, the quantum of sentence is quite moderate and not severe at all. B. Next ground of the revision is that the judgment and order passed by both the courts below is bad in the eyes of law and against the weight of evidence on record. This is a very vague ground and does not disclose as to in what manner the judgment is bad and how it is against the weight of evidence. So, this ground is quite shallow and vague. C. Third ground is that the appellate court had not applied its mind to the material on record, as there is no corroboration of the ocular evidence. In this ground, the Court finds that the both the courts below have well discussed their judgments and have properly applied their mind on the material on record. There is sufficient evidence of the injured witness coupled with the proved injury report. So, there is no scope in the interference of the judgment and order of the appellate court which has already reduced the sentence passed by the Magistrate court. So, this way, the revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is accordingly dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 29.07.2011 Rajeev Dang