KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment, dated 22.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners Kashmir Singh and Gurjant Singh and their co -convict Harpal Singh challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 325 read with Section 34, and 326 read with Section 34, IPC, was dismissed.

(2.) AT the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, he does not propose to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. However, he submits that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1993 on account of a water dispute between the informant/injured Randhir Singh (PW1) and the petitioners and their co -convict Harpal Singh in which Randhir Singh (PW1) had allegedly received four simple and two grievous injuries. One grievous injury was on the first metatarsal of the right foot attracting the mischief of Section 326, IPC, while another grievous injury attracting the mischief of Section 325, IPC, was on ulna of left arm. The petitioners, who were of young age at the time of occurrence, are neither required nor involved in any other case. Both of them have already suffered substantive sentences of approximately four months and during their incarceration they earned remissions for approximately one year. Petitioners were on bail during pendency of trial and appeal but they did not misuse the said concession; the grievous injuries alleged to have been caused by the petitioners were on the non -vital parts of Randhir Singh (PW1). The petitioners are ready to duly compensate the injured, Randhir Singh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has produced two affidavits of Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, showing the period of incarceration and the remissions earned by the petitioners. He fairly concedes that the grievous injuries on the person of Randhir Singh (PW1) alleged to have been caused by the petitioners were on non -vital parts. He also concedes that the petitioners are neither required nor involved in any other case and during their incarceration they have earned remissions for 01 year and 12 days.