Criminal Revision No.284 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 284 of 2005 Date of Decision:April 07, 2010 Jabarjit Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG Punjab Mr.N.C.Doabia, Advocate for the complainant. ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 326/324/ 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 15.4.2004 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Baba Bakala. Vide order of even date, petitioner-Jaspal Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 326 IPC. Petitioners-Jabarjit Singh, Boota Singh and Shamsher Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 326/34 IPC. Petitioners-Jabarjit Singh, Jaspal Singh and Shamsher Singh were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 323/34 IPC Criminal Revision No.284 of 2005 (O&M) 2 and petitioner-Jabarjit Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 IPC. Petitioners-Boota Singh, Jaspal Singh and Shamsher Singh were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 324/34 IPC and petitioner-Boota Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar vide judgment dated 1.2.2005. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “2.The accused/appellants were sent to face their trial by the Station House Officer of Police station, Mehta. The case against the accused was registered on the basis of statement made to police by Surinder Singh, wherein he alleged that he is working as a Pharmacist in Veterinary Hospital, Dehriwal. During the panchayat elections, his wife Sharanjit Kaur was elected as Sarpanch and Manjit Kaur wife of Shamsher was also one of the candidates for the election but her nomination papers were rejected. Shamsher Singh was nursing grudge against Surinder Singh on the score that he was the instrumental in the rejection of the nomination papers of his wife. On 28.2.1999, he had gone to the house of Gurpal Singh in connection with some domestic affair. After completing the job, he alongwith Harjinder Singh was returning to his house on a scooter. At about 5 p.m., when Criminal Revision No.284 of 2005 (O&M) 3 they reached near the house of Gurdial Singh Jabarjit Singh accused armed with Kirpan, Jaspal Singh alias Raju armed with Datar, Shamsher Singh and Buta Singh empty handed, arrived at the spot. Shamsher Singh raised lalkara that Surinder Singh should be caught hold and should be taught a lesson for getting the nomination papers of his wife rejected in the panchayat elections. Jabarjit Singh accused inflicted a Kirpan blow on the left arm of Surinder Singh while Jaspal Singh accused inflicted a Datar blow on his right leg. Buta Singh inflicted a fist blow on his lower lip. Shamsher Singh took away the turban of Surinder Singh with an intention to defame him and hurt his religious feeling besides taking away his wrist watch. An alarm was raised which attracted Gurpal Singh at the spot. Harjinder Singh and Gurpal Singh intervened and accused slipped away from the spot with their respective weapons. Shamsher Singh also took away the turban and wrist watch of the complainant with him. Gurpal Singh made arrangement for a conveyance and removed Surinder Singh injured to Civil Hospital, Tarsikka . 3. After completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of all the documents to the accused as envisaged u/s 207 Cr.P.C 4. After hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, a prima facie case under Sections 326,324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused and they were accordingly charged thereunder by the Criminal Revision No.284 of 2005 (O&M) 4 learned Ilaqa Magistrate. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial” Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was a case of version and cross-version. Complainant is present in person and has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Fine is stated to have already been deposited. Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge April 07, 2010 arya