AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment two Criminal Revision Petitions bearing No. 1280 of 1987 and 519 of 1988 can conveniently be disposed of together because both the criminal revision petitions are directed against the common judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib dated 8.5.1984 and that of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ropar, dated 9.12.1987. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib had held the petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Except Amar Singh, other petitioners were extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. So far as Amar Singh petitioner is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code; six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. They had preferred appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate court.

(2.) THE relevant facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on 8.11.1982 at about 9.00 p.m. Dalel Chand, the complainant, was proceeding to his house from his duty. When he reached near his house, all the petitioners at that time were irrigating their fields. A khal passes through the land of the complainant. The water from that khal was going to the fields of the complainant. The complainant had prepared the same for sowing the wheat. He requested the petitioners to repair the khal. On this, wife of Jit Singh raised a lalkara. At that time Jit Singh was armed with an axe. He gave a blow with the same on the forehead of Dalel Chand as a result of which he fell down. Amar Singh gave a lathi blow on the person of Dalel Chand. Karnail Singh was armed with a spade. He gave a fist blow. Dalel Chand raised alarm. This attracted his wife Kaushalya and son Rajinder Kumar besides one Raman Kumar. On seeing them, the petitioners ran away.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They had pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.