SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. PARVEEN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition, at the instance of complainant, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal filed by the State, thereby upholding the judgment of conviction dated 06.03.2009 and the order of sentence dated 09.03.2009, whereby after their conviction, the accused were granted the benefit of probation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned trial Court in para 2 of its judgment of conviction, are that on 07.04.2004 at about 10.30 AM in the area of Defence Colony Jind, the accused persons along with another unidentified person, while armed with weapons, forcibly entered into the house of complainant Bijender Singh and in furtherance of their common intention, they voluntarily caused multiple injuries on the person of Shamsher Singh (the cousin brother of complainant), who along with complainant Bijender Singh was ready to go to the office of District Education Officer for some work at that time. It was alleged that all the accused persons suddenly attacked upon Shamsher Singh and started causing injuries with their respective weapons. When complainant Bijender Singh and his brother Krishan intervened in order to rescue Shamsher Singh, all the accused persons fled away from the spot on their motorcycles while firing in the air from a pistol. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to General Hospital, Jind for medical treatment. The complainant reported the matter to police vide statement Ex.PW2/A and on that basis ruqa Ex.PW4/A was sent to the police station. Upon which, formal FIR Ex.PW4/B was registered against the accused. The accused were formally arrested. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW4/D was prepared. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) were recorded. After completion of necessary investigations, challan was prepared and put forward to the Court.

(3.) The police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. having been presented, copy thereof along with documents attached therewith, was supplied to the accused, as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, the accused were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as five PWs, besides producing other relevant documentary evidence on record.