Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1206 (PNJ)

Atma Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-13

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petitioners, namely, Atma Singh son of Bakshish Singh, Harbans Kaur wife of Atma Singh and Inderjit Kaur wife of Santokh Singh have filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated July 19, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby their appeal against the judgment dated July 14, 1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon was dismissed and their conviction under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, `the Code) was maintained. The petitioners were also additionally convicted for offences under Section 323/34 of the Code and a fine of Rs. 800/- and Rs. 200/- each was imposed upon them. 2. Prosecution version has been detailed out in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the facts therein need not be repeated again. 3. I have heard Shri J.S. Mann, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Prem Kumar, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. 4. Shri J.S. Mann, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as far as the petitioners Harbans Kaur and Inderjit Kaur are concerned, the only role attributed to them is that they grappled with one Paramjit Kaur when she tried to intervene and deprived of her ear ring by tearing it away. It is submitted that under these circumstances, it could not be suggested that the conviction of the aforesaid two ladies under Section 326 read with section 34 of the Code was sustainable. Shri Mann has submitted that in fact there was no common intention of the aforesaid two ladies and Atma Singh who had given grievous injury to Ajaib Singh. I find merit in the submission of Shri Mann. There is no pre-meditation and common intention in commission of offence under Section 326 of the Code between the aforesaid ladies and Atma Singh. Under these circumstances, I modify the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to the conviction of there two ladies and set aside their conviction under Section 326 of the Code and convict them under Section 323 of the Code. 5. Further in the circumstances, in my considered view the interest of justice would be met if the sentence and imprisonment awarded to the petitioners, namely, Harbans Kaur and Inderjit Kaur is set aside and the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation. 5. Further in the circumstances, in my considered view the interest of justice would be met if the sentence and imprisonment awarded to the petitioners, namely, Harbans Kaur and Inderjit Kaur is set aside and the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioners, namely, Harbans Kaur and Inderjit Kaur are directed to be released on probation on their furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one each surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years and to appear and receive sentence during the said period if and when called upon to do so. 6. As regards the case of Atma Singh, the prosecution version stands duly proved from the evidence on the record. Injury statement has been proved by the medical evidence and the other witnesses have shown that the aforesaid Atma Singh had given Gandasa blow to Ajaib Singh. 7. Under these circumstances, the conviction of the aforesaid Atma Singh under Section 326 of the Code is absolutely justified. However, keeping in view the facts that the aforesaid Atma Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and that the said occurrence had taken place on November 11, 1985 i.e. almost 17 years back no useful purpose would be served by sending back the petitioner to jail at this stage. Shri Mann has submitted that no untoward incident has taken place between the parties after the aforesaid occurrence and, therefore, under these circumstances keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case and also the fact that Atma Singh had already undergone a sentence of more than one month during the proceedings and also the fact that the matter has remained pending in this Court for a period of 13 years, I modify the sentence awarded to Atma Singh and reduce it to that already undergone by him. With the above modification, the present petition is disposed of.