ATMA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioners, namely, Atma Singh son of Bakshish Singh, Harbans Kaur wife of Atma Singh and Inderjit Kaur wife of Santokh Singh have filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated July 19, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby their appeal against the judgment dated July 14, 1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon was dismissed and their conviction under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the Code') was maintained. The petitioners were also additionally convicted for offences under Section 323/34 of the Code and a fine of Rs. 800/- and Rs. 200/- each was imposed upon them.

(2.) PROSECUTION version has been detailed out in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the facts therein need not be repeated again.

(3.) SHRI J.S. Mann, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as far as the petitioners Harbans Kaur and Inderjit Kaur are concerned, the only role attributed to them is that they grappled with one Paramjit Kaur when she tried to intervene and deprived of her ear ring by tearing it away. It is submitted that under these circumstances, it could not be suggested that the conviction of the aforesaid two ladies under Section 326 read with section 34 of the Code was sustainable. Shri Mann has submitted that in fact there was no common intention of the aforesaid two ladies and Atma Singh who had given grievous injury to Ajaib Singh. I find merit in the submission of Shri Mann. There is no pre-meditation and common intention in commission of offence under Section 326 of the Code between the aforesaid ladies and Atma Singh. Under these circumstances, I modify the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to the conviction of there two ladies and set aside their conviction under Section 326 of the Code and convict them under Section 323 of the Code.