GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition challenging the judgment dtd. 11/2/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the judgment of conviction passed by Trial Court was upheld and order of sentence was modified and the respondents No. 2 and 3 were ordered to be released on probation, and the appeal filed by the present petitioner for enhancing the sentence was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner lodged an FIR under Ss. 323,325,506 and 34 IPC; with the allegation that on 29/10/2010 at about 11:30 pm, the petitioner had been attacked by the accused/respondents No.2 and 3. They had given blows on the arms of the complainant/petitioner with Kurahi 'Belcha'; which resulted in multiple fractures in both arms of the petitioner/complainant. The reason for the attack was that the petitioner's mother was Sarpanch of the village and the accused were supporting the opposite party. With these allegations, respondents No. 2 and 3 were prosecuted. The Trial Court held respondents No.2 and 3 to be guilty under Sec. 323 IPC. While dealing with the question of commission of offence under Sec. 325 IPC, on account of the alleged fractures caused to the petitioner, the Trial Court held that although, the opinion of the Doctor namely, Dr.Harjeet Singh has been led in evidence but the Radiologist who gave this report qua the nature of injuries has not been examined; nor has the X-ray film been placed on record of the case. Since, the Radiologist; who had reported the fractures in the hand of the petitioner was not produced before the Court, therefore, Sec. 325 IPC was held to be not made out. Further; the Trial Court sentenced respondents No.2 and 3 with the rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith the fine.

(3.) Aggrieved against the order of the Trial Court, the present petitioner; as well as respondents No.2 and 3; both filed separate appeals. The petitioner had filed appeal for conviction of respondents No.2 and 3 under Sec. 325 IPC and for enhancement of the sentence to seven years, whereas, respondents No.2 and 3 had filed appeal against their conviction and order of sentence. However, the lower Appellate Court vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. But, so far as the appeal filed by respondents No.2 and 3 is concerned, the same was dismissed but instead of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment against the respondents No.2 and 3; had modified the order of sentence and Ordered that respondents No.2 and 3 be released on probation for a period of one year. Challenging this Order passed by the lower Appellant Court, present revision petition has been filed by the Complainant. However, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has pointed out that pursuant to the order passed by the lower Appellate Court, the petitioners have furnished the due bond and they have since completed the period of probation. As of today, they are not under any bond of probation from any Court.