-1- Criminal Revision No.1233 of 2005. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1233 of 2005. Date of Decision: March 17, 2010. Baldev Singh and another ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Baldev Singh and Ajaib Singh were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 325 and 323 -2- Criminal Revision No.1233 of 2005. read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). For the former offence, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the latter offence, the petitioners were awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal by the petitioners, the lower appellate Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years awarded to the petitioners by the trial Court under Section 325 of the Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed on the petitioners by the trial Court under Section 325 of the Code and the default clause were maintained by the lower appellate Court. The sentence awarded to the petitioners by the trial Court under Section 323 of the Code was also upheld by the lower appellate Court. With the said modification in the sentence order passed by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. Hence this revision petition by the petitioners. I have heard Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State of Punjab and have gone through the records of the case with his assistance. The instant case was registered on the statement of complainant-injured Sher Kaur. On 7.8.2002 at about 8/9 P.M, -3- Criminal Revision No.1233 of 2005. complainant Sher Kaur and her daughter-in-law Gurmeet Kaur were at home. At that time, the petitioners came there and started calling bad names. When the complainant came outside, the accused-petitioners threw brick bats at the face, breast and back of Sher Kaur (complainant). Babu Singh and Gurjant Singh, who had been attracted to the spot, saved the complainant from the accused-petitioners. The complainant was taken to hospital where her statement was recorded by the police on 8.8.2002 at about 7.30 A.M leading to the registration of the instant case. The ocular version in this case has been given by complainant Sher Kaur (P.W.1), Babu Singh (P.W.2) and Gurmeet Kaur (P.W.3). They have deposed in clear terms that the accused-petitioners had caused injuries to the complainant. The petitioners, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, except pleading their false implication in the case, could not project any defence. No evidence was led by the petitioners in their defence. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out anything which may compel this Court to believe that the statements of complainant Sher Kaur (P.W.1), Babu Singh (P.W.2) and Gurmeet Kaur (P.W.3) are, in any way, untrustworthy. The presence of Babu Singh (P.W.2), who is brother of the husband of the complainant and of Gurmeet Kaur (P.W.3), who is daughter-in-law of the complainant, at the spot cannot be doubted. The evidence of complainant Sher Kaur (P.W.1), Babu Singh (P.W.2) and Gurmeet -4- Criminal Revision No.1233 of 2005. Kaur (P.W.3) gets complete corroboration from the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Baljit Singh (P.W.6). Dr. Baljit Singh (P.W.6) had medico-legally examined injured-complainant Sher Kaur. He had observed two injuries on the person of Sher Kaur i.e a lacerated wound on the left side of the face (fresh bleeding was present) and swelling on the dorsum of left hand at the base of the thumb (advised X-ray). Injury No.1 i.e injury on the face was declared simple in nature whereas injury No.2 i.e swelling on the dorsum of left hand was kept under observation. The kind of weapon used was blunt for both the injuries. Upon X- ray of injury No.2, it was noted that there was fracture of second metacarpal of left hand. As such, injury No.2 was declared grievous in nature. The prosecution has, thus, been able to prove its case against the accused-petitioners beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. The petitioners have rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case, as mentioned above. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 17, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE