Gurjant Singh v. State Of Punjab
#1#
! "#$# %&'(()
* ((((((
# # % + , * * * (((((( $- %. %
& /0 ( ***
!
"
#
$$$ **1( 0
# &
& '( )'
*''+
- . / %!
0
#,
& '1 ') *''2 0
# &
*
/34 & '1 '2 *''*
&
'1 ') *''2 0
& '( )'
*''+
- . / %!
0
5'
'+ *''+ &
** , & /34
#
#2# '1 '2 *''* 3 4 0
, 6!!
0 7 8
* 8
* 6 8 &
8 & 0 !
: ,
4
! 0 7 8
* 8
* 6 8
&
%,
&, &
;
& 6 0 8 8 7 8
* % 4
, # 6 4
& &! & & 4
, # 6
#, ,
# , # 6
4
& ,
, 4
)'
!& &
7 , < 8 "
6 % 4 # '= 5'
& & % &#
5)")+*(
3
# "
6 %
, , 4
#3# &
, # ; ;
"
"
, /& % 4 ,
> &
#!
#! #!
#, # < & &
"
4
# 8 5)")+*(
!
& &
,
#,
,
&
# "
8
5)")+*(
?
3 4 0 # & & & & &
: # &
: @ && A& #,
& !
&, &
: &
6 &
#4# 0
& '1 ') *''2
:
43C3 / 43C3 ,& 5'1 30 ) D 4 )''''C '5 6.
The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa vide judgment dated 06.10.2009 7.
The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.
8.
During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 17.11.2009. 9.
The counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The prosecution witnesses were discrepant in material particulars. Therefore, the present petition was liable to be allowed and the petitioner ought to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. In addition he contends that in case this Court was to come to a finding that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, then keeping in view the fact that the occurrence was of the year 04.08.2002 and the case has come up for final hearing now after a gap of 22 years, the petitioner may be released on probation subject to payment of compensation. 10.
The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed a custody certificate of the petitioner dated 16.12.2024 and the same is taken on record. He contends that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish
#5# the culpability of the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses had deposed as to the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. There were no discrepancies in their statements as has been sought to be argued. Therefore the present petition was liable to be dismissed. 11.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record.
12.
The evidence of the prosecution is consistent with the guilt of the petitioner. The manner in which the occurrence took place has been explained in detail. Merely, because the witnesses were related to the deceased is no ground to disbelieve them as no enmity has been established with the petitioner. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the Lower Appellate Court. Resultantly, the present revision stands dismissed.
13.
& &,
0
!" ## $ $
!"#$%&' (
)
#6#
*
&
+&, ""-
-""#
.
,""
*
/ 0* 0 0 1&
% . %& # '
" 2 3
% . &
0
!
)
4
)
5
5 # 0
*
6 '
* F )1
& &, , *''* &, ** ,
,
, & &
% # ,& & ,& 4 ) ? &
#7# ,
&
'* & )= ,
)B
# &
**
" 23 +'1)
( )
* # + * (), + *