IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2661 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: November 01, 2011 Tara Singh @ Jagtar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition is directed against judgment of conviction dated 5.2.2010 and order of sentence dated 6.2.2010. The petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 325, 452, 323 IPC. Petitioner carried an appeal that has been dismissed, however, sentence has been reduced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in effect, has argued that material witness namely Raja Singh (Devar of complainant, Amarjeet Kaur) has not been examined and therefore, prosecution story is rendered suspicious. 3. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. Criminal Revision No.2661 of 2011 [2] 4. Complainant, Amarjeet Kaur has been examined as PW-5 and injured, Butta Singh has been examined as PW-6. The deposition of the two witnesses makes it evident that on the night of 12.5.2004, while family members were sleeping in the house, the petitioner-accused came under the influence of liquor armed with Lathi and shouted to teach a lesson for not casting vote on his asking. Then, he gave Lathi blow on the chest of Butta Singh (PW-6) and thereafter, gave a Lathi blow on his stomach. When Amarjeet Kaur (PW-5) tried to rescue her husband, petitioner gave a Lathi blow on her head and back. On raising noise, Raja Singh (brother- in-law of Amarjeet Kaur) came there and on seeing him, the petitioner fled. 5. The statements of the two witnesses were considered to be sufficient to draw a conclusion that offences committed by the petitioner stand proved. 6. In revisional jurisdiction, I see no reason to differ with the opinion formulated by the Trial Court and endorsed by the Appellate Court. In the considered opinion of the Court, sentence awarded is commensurate with the conduct of the petitioner. 7. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) November 01, 2011 JUDGE avin Criminal Revision No.2661 of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?