JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent. 2. The revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2003, Jodh Singh Vs. State. In the said appeal, the judgment and order dated 26.2.2003 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge/FTC, Pithoragarh was confirmed wherein the revisionist was found guilty for the offence of Section 325 IPC and was directed to undergo four months’ R.I. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed this revision on the question of sentence and prayed for modification of the same on the ground that the revisionist is an old man residing in the remote village of District Pithoragarh and that he has already been in gaol for 25 days eversince his arrest on 8.5.2000 to 26.5.2000 and thereafter since 27.6.2003 to 5.7.2003. It was prayed that if this Court may deem proper, then instead of sending him to jail while he is in 70’s, some fine may be imposed by this revisional court. 4. Considering the prayer of the modification of sentence, this Court also feels that in the circumstances, as stated by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the nature of injuries caused to the victim, the ends of justice will be met out if the sentence of four months’ R.I. is reduced to that of undergone by him along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The sentence is modified accordingly. The convict-Jodh Singh will deposit the fine within two months from the date of receiving the record in the judgeship of Pithoragarh. If he fails to deposit the fine, as ordered by this Court, then he will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence, as awarded by the trial court. Revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.