Hardeep Singh Alias Bhola And Others v. State Of Punjab
!"#$%&#'()($*+, , - Hardeep Singh @ Bhola and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
+ ./ ,0
0
0
Present:
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate for the complainant(s). 0
0 1, Present revision petition has been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for setting aside judgment and order dated 21.07.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga, vide which trial Court convicted the petitioners under Sections 326, 323, 324, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years in FIR No. 152 dated 17.09.2006, PS Sadar, Moga and also setting aside the judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga in which First Appellate Court while reducing the sentence of the petitioners under Section 326 IPC to one and a half year, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 2.
Brief facts of the case as stated by prosecution are that present FIR was lodged on the basis of statement of complainantKaur Singh on 17.09.2006. It was submitted by the complainant that on 16.9.2006, there was a congregation of villagers at the common land, cross road (chaurasta) . -1-
of village Agwar for installation of transformer in the common land of the village. Roori (heap of refuse) of petitioners party had been placed in the proximity of the transformer in question and when complainant party requested the petitioners to remove the same, they got into verbal spat with them. Thereafter, petitioners caused injuries to the complainant party by giving and blows.
2.1 On the basis of aforementioned statement of the complainant was sent and the present FIR was lodged against the accused. Investigation was conducted, visual site plans of the place of the occurrence were prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan against above said accused was presented before the Court.
2.2 Upon appearance of the accused, they were supplied with the copies of the police report and other documents appended therewith, as per the mandatory requirement u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a case, accused were charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 326,324,323,148 read with Section 149 of IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.3 After hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners vide order dated 21.07.2014, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, for a period of three years with fine of Rs.500/ each.
. -2-
2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred appeal before learned Appellate Court, Moga, which was dismissed while modifying the sentence as under: "
! "
! #
$% 2.5 Still aggrieved, petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.
3.
Contends that it is a case of version & crossversion. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioners beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Further contends that both the courts below have wrongly relied upon the testimonies of PW1Kaur Singh and PW2 Gurmail Singh being interested witness as PW1 is brother of injured Gurmail Singh. Further contended that private respondents were also accused in cross case and were facing charges under Sections 323 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Also contended that both the Courts below have failed to rely upon MLRs Ex.DX and Ex.DY of the petitioners, which were duly proved by DW2Ram Pal Singh. Lastly contended that matter has been amicably settled between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as complainant before the Mediation Conciliation Centre of this Court. 4.
learned State counsel submitted that both the Courts below have convicted the petitioners on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record. Further submits that testimonies of PW1Kaur . -3-
Singh and PW2Gurmail Singh have been supported by medical evidence. 5.
Learned counsel for the complainant acknowledges the factum of compromise between petitioners as well as complainant.
6.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused paper book. 7.
This Court on 15.04.2024, passed the following order: &'
( $
) ) *
#$+ $+ ,
"$+-$+ $
./$% 8.
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before Learned Mediator and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties on the following terms and conditions: &./
(( (
0$ ! ++ +++1 .0 2 3 / 4
(
0$ ++ +++1 .0 4 / $ 5
( 4
6$ 7 7 !7$+-$+ 0$ -+ +++1 .0 4 3 2 /
6$ - !7$+-$+ 0$ # -+ +++1 .0 6 3 2 / 4
8 6 9:
; < .)/ 9 ( = 6$ !#+-+++!+!! #
$$ ( : ; ( 9:
= 6$ !#+-+++!+!!7! 4
8 6 9:
; < .)/ 9 ) *
>?
4 ( (
( 4$ ./ ( (
4
$
4
. -4-
4 ($ = 4
4 (
!"
6
=
4
$ ./
4 , 4
( *
1 $ .(/
>? >
4 ( 8 $ .(/
( :
( ; $ ' (( : ( $
4 ( 8 $ .(/ 1
( : 4 1 4 4
4 ( 4
$ .(/ 4 @
4
4 ( ( 4
4 ($ )(
:
$ .(/ * 4
(
$ .,/
4 (
$$ 0$ " ++ +++1 .0 4 A 3 /
4
$
:
$ . -5-
.,/
4 (
( * 1
4 ( : 4$ .,/
:
4
$% 9.
It is pertinent to mention here that apart from the present revision against conviction and sentence, the complainant party has also challenged the judgment/order of Courts below by filing CRR1452018 for enhancement of the sentence of the petitioners. Still further, the judgment of learned First Appellate Court dated 21.07.2014 has also been challenged at the instance of petitioners by filing CRMA1474MA2016 (leave to appeal), whereby their complaint was dismissed. All three cases are listed today before this Court and the same have been compromised before the Mediation Centre with free consent of both sides. 10.
Although, it is discernible that both sides suffered injuries, but complainant party in this case was acquitted in complaint filed by petitioners side. It appears that after facing agony of criminal proceedings for about 10 years, now both sides have realised and decided to lead peaceful life for betterment of coming generation. Also noteworthy that vide separate orders, of even date, revision for enhancement of sentence as well as leave to appeal have been withdrawn by both sides i.e. CRMA1474MA2016 and CRR 1452018, respectively.
11.
= , the prosecution was duty bound to explain the origins of injuries sustained by the petitioners herein, but they failed to do so.
. -6-
Learned State counsel is also not able to explain this aspect of the matter; nor she has seriously opposed the compromise effected between the parties.
12.
Taking into consideration the consensus arrived at between both sides and nonconsideration of the MLRs of petitioners as well as the effect of PW1 and PW2, being accused in complaint case (although acquitted), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present revision. 13.
Consequently, revision is allowed.
14.
Impugned judgments and orders dated 21.07.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga and dated 01.08.2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga are hereby set aside. Conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner No.1 Hardeep Singh @ Bhola (since deceased and represented through LRs), petitioner No.2Sukhwinder Singh, petitioner No. 3Tejinderpal Singh and petitioner No.4Gurdit Singh are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Fine paid by petitioners be refunded to them as per law. Bail bonds/surety bonds of petitioners stand discharged.
15.
Parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement noticed herein above.
16.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. , , -
0
0 > < (
5 : C 6 5 C 6 . -7-