SADHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While granting special leave in the above matter, notice was issued to the petitioners to-show cause why the sentence imposed upon them by the High Court should not be enhanced. Mr. J. D. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged and in our opinion rightly that once a notice to enhance the sentence is issued the case is wide open and the appellants are entitled to challenge the correctness of the order. of conviction. We accordingly heard submissions on the merits of the order of conviction to satisfy us that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge.

(2.) Having heard Mr. Jain we are satisfied that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting the appellants Sadha Singh and Natha Singh for an offence under S. 307/34 I.P.C. for attempting, to commit murder of Mohinder Singh and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 900/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Both of them were also convicted under S. 324/34 I.P.C. for causing injury to Ajit Singh for which each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Each of them was convicted for an offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) Both the accused. preferred Criminal Appeal No. 94-SB of 1982 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of the High Court. Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel appeared for the appellants. It appears that Mr. Harbans Singh did not question the correctness of the order of conviction because the learned single Judge stated in the first sentence of his judgment that Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has not addressed the Court on merits but prayed that the appellants are first offenders and the occurrence took place all of a sudden and that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced and fine may be enhanced. Therefore, it appears that the correctness of the order of conviction was not questioned before the High Court. It appears, therefore, futile to question the correctness of conviction or credibility of witnesses. We are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants on credible and reliable evidence for committing the offences under S. 307 read with Ss. 34 and 324 read with S. 34 and under S. 27 of Arms Act.