IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Revision No. 50 of 2000 Jalfkar Bhutto S/o Mustfa R/o Akbarpur P.S. Jabreda District Haridwar. ………Revisionist. Versus State of Uttaranchal. …………….Respondent. Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate, for the revisionist. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. AND Criminal Misc. Revision No. 27 of 2001 Salim S/o Sri Imam Ali R/o Village Paniyala P.S. Gangnahar, Roorkee District Haridwar. ………Revisionist. Versus State of Uttaranchal. …………….Respondent. Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the revisionist. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Both these criminal revisions are directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2000, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in criminal appeal No. 17 of 1999, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal of the revisionist, affirming their conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. and maintaining the sentence, passed by the trial court (First Additional Civil Judge, 2 Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee), in criminal case No. 1038 of 1991. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 14.09.1991, complainant Smt. Mehkarwati (P.W. 3) lodged First Information Report at police station Gangnehar, Roorkee, stating that her sister’s son Pitamber (P.W. 2) was going to his shop from his home. On his way, at about 1:30 p.m. on said date (14.09.1991), accused/revisionists-Salim and Jalfkar along with other two Brijesh and Faizal, stopped him and Salim gave a knife blow on the person of Pitamber, which landed on his back. The police registered the crime (No. 122 of 1991 relating to offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C.), and investigated the same. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against revisionists-Salim and Jalfkar Bhutto. It appears that Magistrate, on conclusion of the proceedings of the trial, found both the accused/revisionists guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to each one of them to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to each one of them to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of which one month’s further imprisonment was to be undergone by the defaulter convict. Against said judgment and order dated 10.03.1999, passed by First Additional Civil 3 Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, a criminal appeal No. 17 of 1999, was filed before Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Said appeal was transferred to the court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, for its disposal. Said court after hearing the parties affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial court, vide impugned order dated 20.11.2000. Hence this revision. 4. Perusal of the lower court record shows that though P.W. 1 Pinto has not supported the prosecution story but P.W. 2 Pitamber (injured witness) has supported it and stated that accused Jalfkar and Salim stopped him on the day of the incident, and Salim gave a knife blow on his person. The cross examination of this witness shows that nothing has come out in his statement, which creates doubt in his testimony. Statement of injured P.W. 1 Pitamber is supported by medical injury report, which is proved by Dr. S.P. Ahuja (P.W. 5). As per the medical injury report, the petitioner was found to have suffered an incised wound size 2.5cm X .5cm. [Depth could not be probed]. P.W. 3 Mehkarwati, has proved First Information Report (Ext. A-1) lodged by her in respect of the crime. P.W. 4 Sub-Inspector D.P. Singh Chauhan, is Investigating Officer, who has proved other documents on record. Having gone through the evidence on record and after considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any error of law 4 committed by the trial court or by the lower appellate court in recording and affirming the conviction of the two revisionists namely Salim and Jalfkar Bhutto, relating to offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the injured was himself a criminal and was later killed in an encounter by the police. It is further submitted that the revisionists are poor persons and it is there first offence, as such humanitarian approach be taken by the court. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that revisionists were students at the time of incident and they were of an immature age. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no interference is required so far as the conviction of the revisionists is recorded by the courts below. However, on the point of sentence, the revisionists can be sentenced to the period already undergone by them, maintaining the fine, imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, both the criminal revisions No. 50 of 2000 and 27 of 2001, are allowed partly. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the trial court (IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and Ist Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee), are affirmed to the extent the conviction is recorded against the revisionists-Salim and Jalfkar Bhutto in respect of the offence punishable under Section 5 324 I.P.C. But sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court, is set aside, and reduced to imprisonment already undergone. However, the punishment of fine, awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court shall remain undisturbed. With this modification in the sentence, both the revisions stand disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:09.03.2010 Sweta 6