Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Arun @ Rakesh Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 July, 2014

               CRR No-2656 of 2013                                              1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                       CHANDIGARH

                                                           CRR No-2656 of 2013
                                                           Date of Decision: 21.07.2014


               Arun @ Rakesh Kumar and Anr.                          ........Petitioners

                                                Vs.

               State of Punjab and Anr.                              ........Respondents

               CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

               Present:-         Mr.Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                 Mr.Luvinder Sofat, AAG Punjab.

                          *****
               R.P. NAGRATH, J. (ORAL)

This revision is against the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the both the Courts below for the offence under Sections 323,325 read with Section 34 IPC in FIR No.172 dated 01.04.2006.

Incident took place on 28.03.2006 about 9:00 p.m. due to some altercation of the previous day. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the conviction recorded by the Courts below on merits and he has confined his argument only with regard to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically refers to the compromise which was reached between the complainant and the petitioners. The appellate Court was directed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.01.2014 to record the statements of both the petitioners and the injured/complainant namely Joginder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar who are the only aggrieved persons and was also directed to find out whether the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without pressure and coercion.

Anil Kumar

2014.07.23 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No-2656 of 2013 2

In fact as per custody certificates, both the petitioners have undergone 1 month and 24 days of the imprisonment out of 1 year of actual imprisonment.

In view of the aforesaid facts and compromise having been reached between the petitioners and aggrieved persons, the sentence awarded by both the courts is set aside as no purpose would be served to send the petitioners to undergo rest of the imprisonment. Instead of undergoing the remaining imprisonment, the petitioners are granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on executing the bond on good conduct in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, for a period of one year undertaking to keep peace and good behaviour in the meanwhile. The amount of fine deposited by them with the trial Court is converted to cost of litigation.

With the aforesaid modification on the sentence part, the revision on merits is dismissed.

(R.P.NAGRATH) JUDGE 21.07.2014 anil Anil Kumar 2014.07.23 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document