SINGH RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the appellant and his grievance is that respondents 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. He desires that the respondents should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urges that the impugned order dated January 21, 2013 would show that the learned Trial Judge was influenced by the fact that a compromise had taken place between the complainant and the accused.

(3.) THIS is incorrect. The decision dated January 21, 2013 does not refer to any compromise being effected. The order on sentence dated January 28, 2013 does note that the parties have entered into a settlement.