NIRLEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as they have arisen out of one occurrence. Petitioners had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 138 dated 28.11.2002, registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.11.2012, at about 9.30 P.M., complainant Balbir Singh was irrigating his crop with the help of electric motor. At that time, Nirmaljit Singh, nephew of his sister Sukhwinder Kaur, came to the spot in a vehicle to meet the complainant. Complainant and Nirmaljit Singh were talking to each other. Petitioners Puran Singh, Rajinder Singh armed with gandasis and petitioner Nirlep Singh came there at about 9.45 P.M. On a lalkara raised by Nirlep Singh, Rajinder Singh gave a gandasi blow on the forehead of Nirmaljit Singh. Puran Singh gave a gandasi blow on the left wrist of the complainant. Nirlep Singh -petitioner gave fist blows on the face of Nirmaljit Singh. In the meantime, Sapinder Singh, son of the complainant, reached the spot. All the petitioners fled away from the spot. The motive behind the occurrence was that there was a civil dispute pending between the complainant and the petitioners qua the land of the father of the complainant and the petitioners wanted to forcibly encroach upon the land of the complainant.

(2.) TRIAL Court vide judgment/order dated 16.8.2012 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners qua commission of offence punishable under Section 324, 326, 34 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of their conviction and sentence, petitioners preferred three separate appeals and the same were dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 1.10.2014. Hence, the present petitions by the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners had been falsely involved in this case due to pendency of civil litigation between the parties. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case.