Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 2025

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014971




CRR-2173-2008 (O & M)


                                        ::1::


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH
(201-2)
                        Date of Decision: 31.01.2025

1)    CRR-2173-2008 (O&M)

Pargat Singh @ Kala                                             ... .Petitioner

                          Versus

State of Punjab                                              ...Respondent


2)    CRR-2176-2008 (O&M)

Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky and ors.                             ... .Petitioners

                          Versus

State of Punjab                                              ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:    Mr. Aarav Gupta, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae
            with Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate,
            for the petitioner(s) in both the petitions.

            Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab,
            for the respondent.

                   ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

This order shall dispose of two criminal revisions petitions i.e.

CRR-2173-2008 on behalf of accused-petitioner, namely, Pargat Singh @

Kala and CRR-2176-2008 on behalf of accused-petitioners No.1 to 3,

namely, Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky, Manjit Singh and Amrik Singh as the

same arise out of a similar FIR.

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014971

CRR-2173-2008 (O & M)

::2::

2. The prayer in these revision petitions is for setting aside the

judgment dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Muktsar whereby the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Muktsar has been dismissed.

3. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on

15.07.2003. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed

on 03.03.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar. The Appeal

filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was

dismissed on 22.09.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar. The

instant revision petitions were filed on 17.10.2008 and 20.10.2008

respectively and have come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 21

years from the date of registration of the FIR.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from the

petition bearing No.CRR-2173-2008.

5. The brief facts of the case are that complainant-Kashmir Singh

got registered FIR No.107 dated 15.07.2003 under Sections 323, 325, 148

and 149 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Muktsar with the allegations that

Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky son of Kashmir Singh, Pargat Singh alias Kala

son of Amar Singh, Amrik Singh son of Jit Singh and Manjit Singh son of

Jit Singh and one Amrinder Singh @ Makhan had assaulted him on account

of a dispute arising out of Panchayat elections.

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014971

CRR-2173-2008 (O & M)

::3::

6. During the course of his medical examination, it was found that

the complainant-Kashmir Singh had suffered 15 injuries and injuries No.2

to 4 were declared grievous in nature.

7. On conclusion of the investigation, the report under Section

173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against four accused, namely, Vikramjit Singh

@ Vicky, Pargat Singh @ Kala, Amrik Singh and Manjit Singh whereas

accused-Amrinder Singh @ Makhan was found to be a juvenile and

therefore, his case was segregated.

8. On conclusion of the Trial, the accused-petitioner, namely,

Pargat Singh @ Kala (in CRR-2173-2008) and accused-petitioners, namely,

Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky, Amrik Singh and Manjit Singh (in CRR-2176-

2008) came to be convicted and sentenced by the court of the Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar vide judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 03.03.2008 as under:-

Name of the Offence RI Sentence Fine RI in default of Convict payment of fine

Pargat Singh U/S 325 IPC 02 years 1000/- 02 months @ Kala U/S 323 IPC 01 year 500/- 02 months

U/S 148 IPC 01 year -- --

Vikramjit        U/S 325/149 02 years              500/-      02 months
Singh @ Vicky    IPC
                 U/S 323 IPC 01 year               500/-      02 months

                 U/S 148 IPC 01 year               --         --
Amrik Singh      U/S 325/149 02 years              500/-      02 months
                 IPC
                 U/S 323 IPC 01 year               500/-      02 months




                                 3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014971

CRR-2173-2008 (O & M)

::4::

                  U/S 148 IPC 01 year               --         --
Manjit Singh      U/S 325/149 02 years              500/-      02 months
                  IPC
                  U/S 323 IPC 01 year               500/-      02 months

                  U/S 148 IPC 01 year               --         --

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

8. While accused-Amrik Singh filed an appeal bearing No. Crl.

Appeal No.18/05.04.2008, the accused-Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky, Pargat

Singh @ Kala and Manjit Singh had filed an appeal bearing No. Crl. Appeal

No.11 IPC/27.03.2008.

9. On consideration of the material on record, both the aforesaid

appeals came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Muktsar, vide a common judgment dated 22.09.2008.

10. Thereafter, the instant revision petitions i.e. CRR No.2173 of

2008 by the accused-petitioner/Pargat Singh @ Kala and CRR-2176-2008

by the accused-petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky,

Manjit Singh and Amrik Singh have been filed impugning the

aforementioned judgments.

11. During the pendency of the instant revision petitions, the

sentence of the accused/petitioners was suspended vide order dated

04.11.2008 passed by this Court.

12. The learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the

petitioners in both the petitions contend that the judgments of conviction

and order of sentence are based on conjectures and surmises. The medical

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014971

CRR-2173-2008 (O & M)

::5::

evidence was totally in variance with the ocular account. There was no

evidence of any prior enmity as the elections had taken place two years ago.

No weapon was recovered during the course of investigation. In the

alternative, it is prayed that as the occurrence was of the year 2003 and the

accused-petitioners had clean antecedents, they be released on probation or

their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

12. The Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed separate

custody certificates dated 31.01.2025 of the accused-petitioners, which are

taken on record. As per the said custody certificates, the accused-

petitioners have undergone 1 month 15 days out of their substantive

sentence. He contends that the medical evidence is totally in consonance

with the ocular account. The complainant-injured/Kashmir Singh had

deposed clearly regarding the manner in which the occurrence has taken

place. PW-4/Dr. Sukhpal Singh has conducted the medico legal examination

of Kashmir Singh and found 15 injuries 03 of which were grievous. Thus,

as the case stands established beyond reasonable doubt, the present petitions

were liable to be dismissed. As regards the reduction of sentence, he

contends that the nature of the offence committed by the accused-petitioners

did not entitle them to the concession of either probation or reduction of

their sentences.

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

14. A perusal of the depositions of complainant-injured/Kashmir

Singh (PW-1) and his brother-Gurbachan Singh (PW-2) would show that

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014971

CRR-2173-2008 (O & M)

::6::

they are consistent in material particulars. Their depositions are

completely in consonance with the medical evidence as brought on record

by PW-4/Dr. Sukhpal Singh. There is absolutely no reason for the

complainant to exonerate the real accused and falsely implicate the present

accused on account of injuries suffered by him. Therefore, as the offence

stands established beyond reasonable doubt, I find no fault in the

impugned judgments dated 03.03.2008 and 22.09.2008 passed by the Trial

Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court. Thus, the present petitions

stand dismissed.