ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - Syed Ali and Ali Ahmad were convicted by the Munsif Magistrate, First Class Ghazipur for an offence u/s 428, of the IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- each. In default, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of fifteen days. 2. The accused above named and the complainant Iqbal Ahmad are residents of village Jangipur, P.S. Kotwali, Ghazipur. Relations between the two were strained due to previous litigations. It is the case for the prosecution that on 26th September, 1970 a leg-born specie hen belonging to the complainant happened to go to the door of the accused. On the instigation of Ali Ahmad accused Syed Ali gave a blow on the neck of the hen by a stick. The hen died instantaneously. When Iqbal Ahmad raised a protest the accused hurled abuses at him and threatened him with dire consequences. On the aforesaid allegations a first information report was lodged at the police station the same day at 7 p.m. A case was registered. The hen was sent for medical examination. According to the post mortem report taken by Dr. Sri Harish Chandra Upadhya death of the hen had been caused due to the puncture of trachea which was the result of injuries caused in the neck of the bird, by means of a stick. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied having committed the offence. After taking evidence, the Magistrate acquitted the accused for an offence u/s 506, IPC but convicted him u/s 428 IPG and awarded the sentence mentioned above. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined Iqbal Ahmad complainant, Shamsher Ali and Jokhu (PWs 1 to 3 respectively) as witnesses of fact. The other witnesses examined are formal in nature. The Magistrate after a consideration of the entire evidence on the record held that the prosecution case had been proved. His finding was that the hen was killed by accused No. 1 on the instigation of accused No. 2. As such, he convicted the accused as above. 5. Aggrieved thereby Syed Ali and All Ahmad filed a revision before the First Temporary Sessions Judge, Ghazipur who has made a reference to this Court for quashing the impugned order of the Magistrate. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the orders in question. As such, he convicted the accused as above. 5. Aggrieved thereby Syed Ali and All Ahmad filed a revision before the First Temporary Sessions Judge, Ghazipur who has made a reference to this Court for quashing the impugned order of the Magistrate. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the orders in question. It appears from the referring order that the Sessions Judge has reappraised the evidence on the record and has recorded findings of fact contrary to that of the trial court. In his view the evidence produced by the prosecution was not reliable and as such, the guilt of the accused could not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I have carefully considered the orders in question. In my opinion, the Sessions Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial court oh a reappraisement of the evidence on the record. This is a case where the Magistrate has failed to consider the evidence on the record, or has taken any inadmissible evidence into consideration, or has committed any other illegality sufficient to vitiate such a consideration. In the absence of these factors, the finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate should have been accepted by the Sessions Judge. It was not correct for him to embark upon a reconsideration of the evidence and to form his own assessment on the questions of fact. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to accept this reference. 7. Counsel supporting this reference has also raised a rather an interesting question as to whether a hen would be covered within the definition of the word 'animal' and whether in these circumstances, a conviction of the accused for an offence u/s 428 IPC could be legally maintained In common parlance a "hen" would fall within the category of a bird and not within the species of animal. But, in view of the fact that the word 'animal' has been defined in the IPC, it is not for the courts to give their own interpretation of the word unless it is inexplicit or ambiguous. Section 47 of the IPG defines the word 'animal' thus: The word 'animal' denotes any living creature either than a human being. But, in view of the fact that the word 'animal' has been defined in the IPC, it is not for the courts to give their own interpretation of the word unless it is inexplicit or ambiguous. Section 47 of the IPG defines the word 'animal' thus: The word 'animal' denotes any living creature either than a human being. The Hindi translation of Section 47 runs as follows: Jiv Jantu shabd manav se bhinn kisi jivdhari ka dyotak hai. In view of the definition given above it is obvious that for purposes of application of the IPC, the word 'animal' denotes any living creature. As such, in my opinion, a hen would be covered by this definition. In this view of the matter I do not find any illegality in the conviction of the accused recorded by the Magistrate u/s 428, IPC. The learned Counsel supporting this reference submits that the fine of Rs. 50/- imposed on the two accused for killing a hen is excessive. I am inclined to accept this submission. I direct that the fine shall be reduced to Rs. 25/- each. 8. The result, therefore, is that this reference is rejected and the order of the Munsif Magistrate dated 1st July, 1971 is upheld. The fine as modified by this Court-shall be realised from the accused. If the fine has already been deposited by them the proportionate amount shall be refunded. Out of the fine realised Rs. 20/-shall be pay to the complainant as compensation.