MEGHA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, namely, Megha Singh and Hardev Singh alongwith other accused faced trial in case FIR No. 60 dated 12.6.1999 registered under Section 148,323,382,149 IPC at Police Station Rampura and were convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year each with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of one month each, under Section 323 IPC to undergo RI for six months each with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days each and under Section 382 IPC to undergo RI for two years each with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for five months each by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 4.4.2006. Hardev Singh was also convicted and sentenced under Section 149 IPC.

(2.) The judgment passed by the trial Court was challenged by all the accused by way of filing an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Bathinda, which was allowed qua to remaining accused persons but was dismissed qua to present petitioners. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period already undergone by them, if any, was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentences.

(3.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the courts below on various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that co-accused of the petitioners were acquitted by the lower Appellate Court by disbelieving the statements of the witnesses, whereas, the appeal qua the present petitioners was dismissed. Other arguments were also raised to challenge the judgments of conviction and order of sentence but when the court was not inclined to interfere with the judgments of courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his prayer qua to quantum of sentence only. He prays that he will not contest the conviction in case the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them as the petitioners have faced the agony of trial since the registration of FIR i.e. 12.6.1999.