Ramesh Kumar @ Chillu & ANR v. State Of Punjab

-1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 1.

Date of decision: 12.2.2015 Ramesh Kumar @ Chillu and another ......Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent 2.

Shunty alias Rahul ......Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Ms. Gurdev Kaur Gill, Advocate for the appellants.

(In CRA-S-2105-SB of 2014) Mr. Neeraj Madan, Advocate for the appellant.

(In CRA-S-2216-SB of 2014) Mr. V.P.S.Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

Respondent No. 2 in person along with Mr. K.K.Garg, Advocate.

**** SABINA, J.

Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of these have arisen out of the same occurrence. Appellants along with their co-accused had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 148, 307,

-2353, 333, 186 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 126 dated 7.9.2009, registered at Police Station City Fazilka. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 12.12.2013/24.2.2014 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 307, 326, 324, 333, 353, 34 IPC. The other co-accused of the appellants were ordered to be acquitted. Hence, the present appeals by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 307, 326, 324, 333, 353, 34 IPC but have submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that appellant Ramesh Kumar alias Chillu has undergone one year and more than two months of actual sentence whereas appellant Mannu has undergone more than one year of actual sentence. So far as appellant Shunty alias Rahul is concerned, he has undergone one year and more than three months of actual sentence. Learned counsel have further submitted that the appellants are the only bread earners of their families. Learned counsel for the complainant, on instructions from the complainant, who is present in person in the Court, has submitted that complainant has no objection if the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants, is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Section 307, 326, 324, 333, 353, 34 IPC is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Appellants, who are in custody, be set

-3at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE February 12, 2015 Gurpreet