BALJIT SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners -accused, Baljit Singh, Satwinder Singh and Buta Singh, have filed this revision against the judgment dated 11.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by them against the judgment dated 15.3.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, convicting them of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC and sentencing them as under:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that at the time of the Panchayat election, the complainant party had opposed Mukand Singh, paternal uncle of the accused, as a result of which that Mukand Singh had lost. On that account, the accused party was nourishing a grudge against the complainant party. On 19.9.1998, at about 2 -00 p.m., Sukhmandar Singh -complainant, along with Ranjit Singh, was coming back to his village from Bhadaur on a scooter, which was being driven by Ranjit Singh. When they reached near the tube well of Karnail Singh, they were stopped by Buta Singh -accused, by giving a signal with his hand. After the scooter was stopped, Satwinder Singh and Baljit Singh -accused, who were concealing themselves behind the tree, came running to the spot while armed with weapons and Satwinder Singh raised a lalkara challenging the complainant that they would not let them to go unharmed. Thereafter, Baljit Singh gave a blow with his gandasa on his right arm and in the process, he received injury on the thumb of his right hand. The second blow was given by that accused on his left leg, as a result of which he fell down. While he was lying on the ground, Buta Singh gave a blow with his dang on the right side of his head and second blow with that dang was given on his left arm. The third blow by that accused, with the help of the dang, was given on the upper right arm. Then Satwinder Singh gave a blow with his dang below his right knee and the second blow was given on his right thigh.

(3.) COUNSEL for the accused did not assail the conviction of the accused, so recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He submitted that the complainant has already entered into a compromise with the accused but on account of his non -availability, the accused are not in a position to prove that compromise on the record. He prayed for the reduction of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused on the ground that they have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of five months.