1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2009 Shri Subhash N. Naik, s/o late Nanu Naik, 50 years of age, r/o. H. No.328, Karaimoll, Shiroda, Ponda, Goa. .. Petitioner V/s. S T A T E through the Public Prosecutor, Panaji. .. Respondent. Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent. CORAM: N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE: 18TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This revision petition is filed by an accused who has been convicted under section 324 IPC and whose conviction has been 2 maintained by the Learned Sessions Judge by Judgment dated 28.7.09. The petitioner was tried and charged with allegations that on 26.11.2006 at about 9.15 hours at Baikade, Shiroda, the accused had assaulted one Leela Kadam with a bamboo stick/danda causing her simple injuries. The said Leela Kadam belonged to an organisation which is known as Sanathan Saunstha and the incident took place when the said informant had gone to distribute their publication known as Sanathan Prabhat. It appears that the accused had a grievance against the said organisation because it was his allegation that his minor daughter was sexually abused by one of the members of the said organisation. 3. Both the Courts below, upon appreciation of evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, have convicted and sentenced the accused under section 324 to undergo SI for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo SI for 20 days. At the time of hearing of this revision petition Shri Sardessai, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused has submitted that considering the nature of the offence, the sentence imposed is severe. Learned Counsel referring to section 324 IPC points out that sentence of imprisonment was optional. Learned Counsel further submits that the 3 petitioner is working for the Government as a laboratory assistant and has otherwise three children to look after and in case the accused is ordered to undergo the sentence imposed by the Courts below, the accused is likely to loose his job. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner/accused is willing to pay additional fine by way of compensation to the injured the said Pw1 Leela Kadam. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Coutinho, Learned Public Prosecutor has left the matter as regards the sentence, to the discretion of this Court. I have already set out the facts leading to the commission of the offence by the accused against the said Pw1/Leela Kadam against whom the petitioner might had have a grudge on account of his daughter being dealt with by one of the members of that organisation in a manner claimed by him. This was certainly a circumstance atleast to be taken note of whilst imposing the sentence against the accused. Considering the facts of the case therefore, in my view, ends of justice will be met by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner and enhancing the fine imposed. As a result, the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused is hereby modified and the petitioner/accused shall undergo SI for one day ( till rising of the Court) 4 which shall be certified by the Court Superintendent to the trial Court, and in addition the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default shall undergo SI for three months. In case the fine is realised the entire amount shall be paid to the said Pw1 Leela Kadam by the Learned J.M.F.C. and in case the same cannot be paid to her, after due notice, for whatever reason, the same shall be credited to the account of the District Legal Services Authority, concerned. 5. With the above observations and findings, the revision petition is disposed of. N. A. BRITTO, J. oc.