The court considered the age and period already spent in jail in deciding to reduce the sentence for the elderly revisionist.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.:-

This revision is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 07.01.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2004, whereby the conviction of the revisionist under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is affirmed by said court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on 27.07.1991, at about 05:00 P.M., Tari Ram (deceased) was pouching his field, when Lachham Singh (revisionist/ac­cused) shouted that a deer (CHEETAL) has come to damage the crop in the field. He fired shot at the animal but the fire hit Tari Ram, who succumbed to his in­juries. On this, a first information report was lodged at the police station Haldwani against accused Lachham Singh, Raja Ram, Ram Bharose and Gopal Bahadur, relating to offences punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C., and one punish­able under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. As per the pros­ecution story, soon after the accidental death of Tari Ram, the aforesaid accused killed the deer. After investigation charge sheet was filed against Lachharn Singh (revisionist) and co-accused Ram Bharose. During the trial prosecution got adduced evidence of P.W. 1 Ishwari Ram (brother of the deceased); P.W. 2 Prem Ram; P.W. 3 Dr. B.S. Rawat; P.W. 4 Sub Inspector Lalit Mohan Vishwakarma, P.W. 5 Diwani Ram and P.W. 6 Dr. E.U. Siddiqui. After hearing the parties, the trial court found Lachham Singh (revi­sionist) and co-accused Ram Bharose guilty of the charge of offences punish­able under Section 304-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Each of the convicts was sentenced to simple im­prisonment for a period of one year un­der Section 304-A of I.P.C., and simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2004, before the Ses­sions Judge, Nainital, against his convic­tion and the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, affirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court, but reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and further maintained the sentence of fine.

4. Learned counsel for the revision­ist submitted that the revisionist only prays for reduction in sentence awarded by the appellate court. The conviction affirmed by the appellate court is not challenged during the arguments. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that revisionist has already spent about 1½ months in jail. It is further submitted that the revisionist is 77 years old person, and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail again, at this age.

5. Considering the facts and circum­stances of the case and the age of the re­visionist, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the courts below is hereby affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the appel­late court (Sessions Judge, Nainital) is re­duced to the period already undergone. However, it is made clear that the sen­tence of fine shall remain undisturbed. If the amount of fine is not already depos­ited, the revisionist shall deposit the same within a period of one month, failing which he shall undergo the period of sen­tence of further two months simple im­prisonment awarded by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2004. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital, stands modified.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document