AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 420 wordsHon''ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
Challenge is to the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.8.2011 passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner and his co-accused were convicted and sentenced as under:
Petitioner-Jagvinder Singh
U/S 325 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused-convict shall further undergo RI for one month.
U/S 323 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine the accused-convict shall further undergo RI for 15 days.
Jagraj Singh
U/S 325/34 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused-convict shall further undergo RI for one month.
U/S 323 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine the accused-convict shall further undergo RI for 15 days.
As per the case of the prosecution that on 23.1.2006 at about 4.30 PM in the area of Bathinda, both the accused with their common intention voluntarily caused grievous/simple hurt to Tejinder Singh complainant by means of an iron rod and in this background the FIR was registered against the accused on the statement (Ex.PB) of complainant-Tejinder Singh.
The petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2011. Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the judgment on merits. As per the judgment the petitioner was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and as per custody certificate filed in the Court by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, the petitioner has already undergone 1 month and 16 days till date.
After going through the judgment of both the courts, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. As per custody certificate the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal proceedings except this one. Keeping in view that the petitioner was convicted and have undergone 1 month and 16 days out of total period of one year. The conviction is upheld. It is held that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner-Jagvinder Singh, and it is ordered accordingly.
The criminal revision is allowed.