Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh @ Jeeta And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 December, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No.3642 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(220)
CRR No.3642 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.12.2013.
Ranjit Singh @ Jeeta and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have faced trial in FIR No.26 dated 25.02.2006 under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala.
Trial court vide judgment/order dated 21.12.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC. Appeal filed by the petitioners against Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3642 of 2013 (O&M) -2- the judgment/order of their conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 08.10.2013. Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Section 325, 323 and 34 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel has submitted that injury falling under Section 325 IPC was attributed to accused Dalip who had since died. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per prosecution case, petitioner Parveen was empty handed and had given slaps to the complainant whereas, Ranjit Singh @ Jeeta had given brick bat injury on the person of Amarjit Kaur. Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioners are not previous convicts and are the only bread-earners of the family.
Notice of the petition was issued to the injured Manjeet Kaur and Amarjeet Kaur but none had appeared on their behalf despite service.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to the period already undergone by them.
Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC is maintained. However, sentence Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3642 of 2013 (O&M) -3- qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Petitioners who are in custody be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 18, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document