BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION is allowed and Annexures P-2 to P-4 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Convict Baljit Singh has filed this revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below.

(2.) THE petitioner, along with his wife Meena Devi, was tried for offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ­ IPC). Learned trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 05.08.2010, convicted both the accused for the aforesaid offences and vide order dated 06.08.2010, sentenced both the convicts to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months and to pay fine of Rs.200.00 each under Section 323 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 each under Section 325 IPC. In appeal preferred by both the convicts, learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 12.02.2013, while maintaining the conviction of both the accused, ordered release of Meena Devi on probation and reduced the sentence of petitioner Baljit Singh to imprisonment for 09 months for offence under Section 325 IPC, while maintaining the remaining sentence. Both the sentences of petitioner have been ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, Baljit Singh has filed this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-2), regarding which complainant party have furnished affidavits Annexures P-3 and P-4. However, no benefit of these documents can be extended to the petitioner without verification thereof. Complainant party is not party to the instant revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that adjournment may not be granted to the State for verifying the genuineness of the documents. Consequently, these documents have to be ignored. Counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner be released on probation of good conduct.