Biyas Dev And ANR. v. State Of Punjab

























 






















    
 




  !"#$"%&'&#()**
 &+ '",(-
 


.! !"#$ /(0 1
 


  )  23

* .
.
.


   
 


 



 
 


 




! "
 #$
%%%
.
.

4*

3&
'
 
 


$
 
$


 


 

# 

())*()+,



$

"



 

-
"
. $

# 



 


$

),)*()+/



$
 "
  
0 
1"



- 
"

$

"





$
 


2(3
01

.""
(

'
$ 



 
 

 "
 
 

  

40

5  





 



-$
()),





 

 
.

  

 "


"
.""



 
 
.
"


 

6
(/)/())*

$ 
*()

."

.

. 




 $ 

".

7 
(&


 ".
8 


+&
9
)(
 
  



 

' 



























 




















"
.
2:
3


 "

 


 



.
 
  

""

7 "&
 
 




 ".
9

.

""







 


""
.

;
$  ".
 9

.

""




$9

'

 

 
$".


 



"

 
 


6
 

 

 



"
.
 



2



  


40

  


+,27(&
1 1
.

$


"




' "




$



$

 

 "
  
0 
1"



- 
"
  
Sr.

No.
Imprisonment
Fine
In default of fine imprisonment
1.
Section 326 IPC
RI for 03 years each
Offences under Section
Rs.1000/- RI for 10 days each
each
2.
Section 341 IPC
RI for 01 Month each
_
_
8

  

. 
  


 "


3

'
  



"
$ 
1 "


"
-3/

(/)*()+/
$ 

1 

"



 

- 
"

'
1 
."

"


"











2(3
01

;. 


$ 

.
 
   55"66 (!7#(,&%!&+ '",
 
-
 
4
0
 "


  
+

2(/
01

0

)(
 

6 


+))):

0

+)


(

2(3:23

0

)/
8
8












































01

2

23+
01
0

)+

8
8
Appellant/Convict-Amandeep
Sr.

No.
Imprisonment
Fine
In default of fine imprisonment
1.
Section 324 IPC
RI for 01 year
-
-
2.
Section 326/34 IPC
Offences under Section
RI for 01 Year
Rs.1000/-
RI for 10 Days
3.
Section 341 IPC
SI for 01 Month
_
_
All the aforesaid sentences of both the petitioners were ordered to run concurrently.
5.

The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present revision petition.
6.

The Counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners had been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the complainant was married to the daughter of the petitioner no.1 and had implicated the petitioners so that they do not pursue their case against the complainant. The FIR had been registered after a delay of 08 days. This delay was fatal to the prosecution case. The medical evidence was contrary to the ocular account. The alleged weapon of offence was never sent for forensic analysis. No independent witness was examined to substantiate the prosecution version. He therefore, contends that the petitioners ought to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
7.

The Counsel for the State has placed on record custody certificates dated 02.05.2024 of both the petitioners as per which petitionerBiyas Dev has undergone custody of 05 months out of his awarded sentence of 02 years whereas petitioner-Amandeep has undergone custody of 05 months out of his awarded sentence of 01 year. He contends that no fault












































could be found with the well reasoned judgments of the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. Once the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 324 IPC was also made out on the basis of the evidence recorded, the petitioners could not be aggrieved in any manner. Even otherwise, they had already been convicted for the higher offence i.e. Section 326 IPC. He therefore contends that the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
8.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record.
9.

A perusal of the record would reveal that the instant occurrence took place on account of the estranged relations between the complainant on the one hand and the petitioners on the other. Therefore, the motive is established beyond reasonable doubt. The delay of 08 days in the registration of the FIR stands explained. In fact, the complainant had been declared unfit to get recorded his statement because of which the statement leading to the registration of the FIR was recorded later. The medical evidence is totally in consonance with ocular account. As the complainant himself was an injured witness the requirement of corroboration by an independent witness is not required.
10.

In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali which have been upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.












































11.

As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out that the occurrence pertains to the year 2009. The petitioner-Biyas Dev had undergone custody of 05 months out of his awarded sentence of 02 years whereas petitioner-Amandeep had undergone custody of 05 months out of his awarded sentence of 01 year. They are first time offenders with no other cases registered against them. Therefore, while upholding their conviction, I deem it appropriate to reduce their substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them i.e. 05 months each. However, the sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact.
12.

The revision petition stand disposed of in the above terms.

.
.


         

+4

 


 !

"#

 $% "#