Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042094
CRR-1171-2023(O&M) #1# 2024:PHHC:042094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRR-1171-2023(O&M)
Date of Decision:-22.03.2024
Surinder Kumar & Ors.
......Petitioners.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Petitoine rno.1
Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner nos.2 & 3.
Mr. Mohit Saroha, AAG Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioners-accused against the judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence both dated 15.03.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class, Ludhiana has been upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Vijay Kumar got recorded his
statement to the effect that he had purchased a house which he had given on
rent. On 25.04.2009 he along with his friend Narinder Kumar had gone to
the said house to receive rent. At about 9.30 pm while they were near the
Mandir, Surinder Kumar, his brother Pammi, Kaka, Captain Da Munda and
8/9 other persons armed with Kirpans and Gandasis started inflicting
injuries on him. Pammi gave Kirpan blow which struck his right finger
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042094
CRR-1171-2023(O&M) #2# 2024:PHHC:042094
while other persons inflicted injuries upon him due to which one of his teeth
got dislocated. He and Narinder Sharma received many injuries. On raising
hue and cry accused ran away from the spot while they (injured persons)
were got admitted in the hospital.
3. On the basis of the aforementoned complaint FIR was
registered and on conclusion of the investigation the report under Section
173(2) Cr.PC was submitted under Sections 324, 326 and 34 IPC. All the
petitioners faced trial and vide judgment dated 15.03.2017 were convicted
and sentenced by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana as
under:-
Sr. Offences under Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
No. Section imprisonment
1. Section 324 r/w RI for 03 years _ _
34 IPC each
2. Section 326 r/w RI for 03 years Rs.1,000/- RI for 15 days
34 IPC each each each
All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. All the convicted accused preferred an appeal bearing Criminal
Appeal No.254 of 2017 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.04.2023.
5. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present revision petition.
6. The Counsel for the petitioners contend that no offence under
Section 326, 324 IPC is made out. As per the statements of Dr. Chaitanya
Juneja, Radiologist of CMC, Ludhiana and Dr. Raman Kumar, CMC
Ludhiana recorded as PW-4 & PW-6, no fracture was found. Therefore, no
offence could be made out under Section 326 IPC. Further no weapon of
offence was recovered from the petitioners. The motive had also not been
proved by the prosecution. Be that as it may, if this Court comes to the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042094
CRR-1171-2023(O&M) #3# 2024:PHHC:042094
conclusion that the conviction was to be upheld, as the petitioner Surinder
Kumar had undergone custody of 01 year 01 month and 23 days whereas
petitioners Paramjit Kumar @ Pammi and Jagdish Kumar @ Kaka had
undergone custody of 01 year and 11 days respectively, the sentences should
be reduced to the period already undergone by them as the occurrence
pertains to the year 2009.
7. The Counsel for the State has placed on record custody
certificates dated 19.03.2024 of all the petitioners as per which petitioner-
Surinder Kumar had undergone custody of 01 year 01 month and 23 days
whereas petitioners-Paramjit Kumar @ Pammi and Jagdish Kumar @ Kaka
had undergone custody of 01 year and 11 days respectively out of the
awarded sentence of 03 years. He contends that the offences against the
petitioners stand well established. The medical evidence was totally in
consoance with the ocular account. Vijay Kumar and Narinder Sharma had
both received grievous injuries. Therefore, there was no merit in the present
petiton and the same was liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
9. A perusal of the record would reveal that PW-1 Vijay Kumar
has categorically enumerated the manner in which the occurrence took place.
PW-6 Dr. Raman Kumar medico legally examined Vijay Kumar and
Narinder Sharma. Injuries no.1 & 2 on the persons of Vijay Kumar and
were declared to be grievous in nature. Similarly the injury on the person of
Narinder Sharma was also declared to be grievous in nature. Once the
medical evidence was in consonance with the ocular account it does not lie
in the mouth of the petitioners to say that no offence under Section 324 IPC
was made out.
10. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042094
CRR-1171-2023(O&M) #4# 2024:PHHC:042094
with the well reasoned judgments of conviction and order of sentence
recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana which have been
upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Resultantly, the revision
petition stands dismissed.
11. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be pertinent to
mention here that the occurrence took place FIR was registered in 2009.
The petitioners are first time offenders and never misused the concession of
bail either during the Trial or during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore
while upholding their conviction, I deem it appropriate to reduce their
sentence to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of
fine and sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact.
12. The revision petition stand disposed of in the above terms.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
March 22, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
