High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/2337/2016disposed of

Mohinder Pal & ANR v. State Of Haryana

2019-05-15Mr. Justice Manoj Bajaj2 pages

CRR-2337-2016 (O & M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2337-2016 (O & M) Date of Decision:15.05.2019 Mohinder Pal and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:

Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

*** MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Petitioners have preferred this criminal revision to challenge the Appellate Court judgment dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, whereby upholding the judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2014 passed by the trial Court proceeded to modify the sentence by releasing the petitioners on probation for a period of 1 year and awarded a compensation of `20,000/- each to be paid to the victim.

After hearing of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offences are punishable under Sections 323 and 325 i.e. offences against human body. The injured Subhash Chand (complainant) appeared as PW-2 and the other injured namely Surinder Kaur appeared as (PW-3) and supported the prosecution case. Dr. Anup Garg was also examined as PW-4, who proved the injuries suffered by the victims. Subhash Chand had suffered 10 injuries, whereas Surinder Kaur Sheetal Gawri 2019.07.01 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh had suffered 9 injuries in the said occurrence.

CRR-2337-2016 (O & M) -2During the course of arguments, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that they had filed a cross-case by way of a complaint. However, the same ended in acquittal. Since the occurrence is admitted and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, therefore, the judgment of conviction has been rightly upheld by the Appellate Court. However, the sentence part has been modified as noticed above, and this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court.

In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference. Petition is dismissed.

15.05.2019 (MANOJ BAJAJ) sheetal JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Sheetal Gawri 2019.07.01 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh