IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.343-SB of 1999. Date of Decision : 30.11.2010. Tarsem Singh ......Appellant Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Bharat Singh and Tarsem Singh (the present appellant) were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on the allegations that on June 5th, 1995 at 5 PM Harnek Singh (PW-5) was attacked by Bharat Singh and Tarsem Singh who acted in pursuant of their common intention. Harnek Singh was caught hold by Tarsem Singh and was stabbed in the abdomen by Bharat Singh. The injury was opined to be dangerous to life. Bharat Singh and Tarsem Singh were held guilty. Bharat Singh was convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC while Tarsem Singh was convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation by learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated March 17th, 1999. 2. The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 368-SB of 1999) preferred by Bharat Singh before this Court was decided by Mohinder Pal, J. by judgment dated January 25th, 2010. The appeal failed. The conviction of Bharat Singh was maintained but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. 3. On the principle of stare decisis, the appeal of Tarsem Singh present appellant must fail. This Court has still Criminal Appeal No.343-SB of 1999. (2) gone through the evidence. The statement of the victim of the attack Harnek Singh which is corroborated by medical evidence comprised in the statement of Dr. Jatinder Sayal (PW-1), copy of the Medico- Legal Report (Exhibit PB) and the opinion (Exhibit PA) are sufficient to bring the guilt home. In legal parlance, the injured is a stamped witness whose testimony cannot be disbelieved unless it is fraught with too many blemishes or contradictions etc. In the instant case, the testimony of Harnek Singh injured is thoroughly convincing. It is without blemish or even exaggeration. As observed earlier, it stands fully corroborated by Dr. Jatinder Sayal (PW-1) who was emphatic in opining that the injury was dangerous to life. In other words, if death of Harnek Singh had occurred, the offence would have fallen under the definition of Murder and would have attracted punishment under Section 302 IPC. 4. This Court does not find any illegality or even irregularity in the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge which in fact, is well reasoned. The conviction of present appellant Tarsem Singh is, therefore, maintained. 5. Adverting to the quantum of sentence, the main accused Bharat Singh was awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years which was reduced in appeal to rigorous imprisonment for three years, as stated above. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence of Tarsem Singh to three years. It is ordered accordingly. The sentence of fine is however, maintained. 6. Except with this modification in the quantum of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. 7. The appellant is on bail. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forth to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order under intimation to this Court. 30.11.2010 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE