SARDOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC, and Section 506, IPC, was dismissed.

(2.) AT the time of preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners opted not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners in view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below, therefore, notice of motion was issued with regard to quantum of sentence only.

(3.) MR . J.S. Brar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though the petitioners have not been extended the benefit, while holding them guilty, in spite of certain infirmities in the complainant's case, but in view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below, he has proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. However, the benefit in the sentence can be extended to the petitioners while taking into consideration the said infirmities. He further submits that during investigation, the allegations levelled against the petitioners were found to be baseless and, as such, the police had chosen not to file the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) against them. On the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Karamjit Singh, the petitioners were held guilty. He further submits that petitioner No. 1 Sardool Singh, who is now aged about 58 years, is an agriculturist and is neither required nor involved in any other case. He had caused a simple incised wound on the left fore -arm of Karamjit Singh, while petitioner No. 2 Satta Singh, who was a student at the time of occurrence and has now completed his degree in Bachelor of Technology and is an Engineer, had allegedly inflicted simple injury on the right arm of Karamjit Singh. He too is not a previous convict. It has also been contended that motive for the quarrel was that the petitioners claimed themselves to be the relative of the landlord of the shop, where Karamjit Singh was a tenant. Civil suits pertaining to the said shop had already been decided by the courts below and attained finality. It has also been contended that by now each of the petitioners has suffered incarceration for approximately three months and, as such, they be ordered to be released on probation.