CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sher Singh and Another vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 25 October 2013 · Citation: (2013) 10 P&H CK 0007

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabina, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
CRR-2565-2013 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

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

6 paragraphs · 320 words

Sabina, J.—Petitioners had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 /325 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) in FIR No. 193 dated 31.5.2007 registered at Police Station Rania. Trial Court, vide judgment/order dated 24/26.9.2012 convicted and sentenced the petitioners qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 /325 /34 IPC. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the said judgment/order was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.7.2013. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioners.

2.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323 /325 /34 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were attributed simple injuries on the person of injured Diwan Singh. In fact, Angrej Singh was attributed grievous injuries on the person of Diwan Singh. However, Angrej Singh was found innocent during investigation and challan was not presented against him.

4.

As per the prosecution case, petitioners and their co-accused Angrej Singh and Maina had attacked Diwan Singh. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they had allegedly inflicted simple injuries on the person of Diwan Singh. Angrej Singh was attributed grievous injuries on the person of Diwan Singh. However, Angrej Singh was not sent for trial.

5.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to the period already undergone by them.

6.

Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 /325 /34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners, as ordered by the Courts below, is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.