IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1419 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 05, 2011 Karambir & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. The petitioners were convicted for commission of offence under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, by the Trial Magistrate vide judgment dated 13.11.2009. The petitioners have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34; and rigorous imprisonment for three years and payment of fine ` 2,000/- each, for commission of offence under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Crl. Revision No.1419 of 2011 [2] simple imprisonment for a period of six months). Judgment of conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 4.6.2011. 2. In the incident, Shanti and her son Kitaba were caused injuries. One of the injuries received by Shanti was found to be grievous. PW-4, Dr. M.L. Kochar proved the grievous injury. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel is that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 did not cause any injury on the person of Shanti and therefore, their case cannot be considered for commission of offence under Section 325 IPC. It has further been contended that Section 34 IPC is not attracted. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 5. The incident took place at 12’O Clock at night when the two injured were sleeping in the ‘Gher’. The assailants came with lathis and caused injuries, at the first instance, on the person of Shanti and thereafter to her son Kitaba. The circumstances clearly indicate that Section 34 IPC is attracted and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment of conviction, as upheld by the Appellate Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any piece of evidence that was material, however, has not been considered by the Trial Court. Learned counsel further Crl. Revision No.1419 of 2011 [3] has not been able to point out any piece of evidence that has been perversely read. 7. No ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 05, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?