254-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SHARANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. HARPREET SINGH BRAR CRM-28764-2016 1. Instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the present revision petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned the application, the same 3. Delay of 48 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned. MAIN CASE 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated Patiala, whereby ju Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has been upheld, however, sentence of even date probation for one year IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SHARANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS V/S PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Mayank Mahla, Advocate and Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 2016 Instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the present revision petition. For the reasons mentioned the application, the same Delay of 48 days in filing the present revision petition is The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, , whereby judgment of conviction dated Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has been upheld, however, of even date has been modified by releasing one year. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-28764-2016 in/and CRR-3339-2016 Date of decision: 18.02.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 48 For the reasons mentioned the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 48 days in filing the present revision petition is The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, dgment of conviction dated 09.06.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has been upheld, however, order of modified by releasing the petitioners on MANISHA 2025.03.01 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-28764-2016 CRR-3339-2016 2. Brief facts of prosecution persons (petitioners herein) wrongfully restrained the complainant/ No.2 on a public place and caused him simple hurt. They also committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant/respondent No.2 with injury to his person and property. Hence, the FIR ( 3. On assessing all the material availab trial Court convicted order of sentence dated 09.06.2014 323/341/34 of IPC before the learned lower Appellate Court which was partly allowed and, the were released on probation for a period of the convicts shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,5 compensation to be payable to the 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that prove his version, the complainant/respondent No.2 examined Sukhwant Singh, who deposed regarding the election held on 13.02.2007 and filthy language used by the petitioners towards the complainant and his family members. He also deposed regarding the injuries inflicted upon the persons of the complainant by the complainant also corroborated the version of complainant/respondent No.2 Thereafter, CW deposed with regard to causing injuries by the accused persons complainant. He also deposed that he and his father Shamsher Singh, Sukhwant Singh 2016 in/and 2016 Brief facts of prosecution case are that persons (petitioners herein) wrongfully restrained the complainant/ on a public place and caused him simple hurt. They also committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant/respondent No.2 with injury to his person and property. Hence, the FIR ( On assessing all the material availab trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners order of sentence dated 09.06.2014 for commission of offence under Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the before the learned lower Appellate Court which was partly allowed and, the were released on probation for a period of one year shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/ n to be payable to the complainant/injured. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that prove his version, the complainant/respondent No.2 examined Sukhwant Singh, who deposed regarding the election held on 13.02.2007 and filthy language used by the petitioners towards the complainant and his family members. He also deposed regarding the injuries inflicted upon the persons of the complainant by the petitioners. Further, CW complainant also corroborated the version of complainant/respondent No.2 CW-3 Gulbahar Singh i.e. eye witness to the occurrence also deposed with regard to causing injuries by the accused persons complainant. He also deposed that he and his father Shamsher Singh, Sukhwant Singh Ex-Sarpanch and Joginder Singh saved the 2 case are that on 14.02.2007, accused persons (petitioners herein) wrongfully restrained the complainant/respondent on a public place and caused him simple hurt. They also committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant/respondent No.2 with injury to his person and property. Hence, the FIR (supra) was registered. On assessing all the material available on the record, the learned petitioners-accused vide judgment and for commission of offence under Sections . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which was partly allowed and, they one year with the condition that all 00/- each (total Rs.10,000/-) as injured. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that in order to prove his version, the complainant/respondent No.2 examined CW-1 Sukhwant Singh, who deposed regarding the election held on 13.02.2007 and filthy language used by the petitioners towards the complainant and his family members. He also deposed regarding the injuries inflicted upon the persons of petitioners. Further, CW-2 i.e. father of the complainant also corroborated the version of complainant/respondent No.2. 3 Gulbahar Singh i.e. eye witness to the occurrence also deposed with regard to causing injuries by the accused persons to the complainant. He also deposed that he and his father Shamsher Singh, and Joginder Singh saved the MANISHA 2025.03.01 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-28764-2016 CRR-3339-2016 complainant/respondent from the clutches of the accused persons. Furthermore, CW of the complainant and deposed regarding the injuries on his person. Thereafter, CW- the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and both the Courts below have passed a well reasoned judgment based on appreciation of evidence available on record. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court petition stands dismissed. February 18, 202 manisha (i) (ii) 2016 in/and 2016 complainant/respondent from the clutches of the accused persons. Furthermore, CW-4 Dr. Parminder Singh has also of the complainant and deposed regarding the injuries on his person. -5 i.e. complainant also deposed the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt Courts below have passed a well reasoned judgment based on appreciation of evidence available on record. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned Court, which warrant interference. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 3 complainant/respondent from the clutches of the accused persons. Parminder Singh has also proved on record the MLR of the complainant and deposed regarding the injuries on his person. 5 i.e. complainant also deposed as per his version. As such, the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt Courts below have passed a well reasoned judgment based on In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned lower which warrant interference. Hence, the instant revision HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.01 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment