The main legal point established in the judgment is the sufficiency and compelling nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the medical examination and the motive behind the assault, in upholding the conviction and sentence.

Headnote:
Conviction - Assault - IPC 341, 323, 325, 201 - The court affirmed the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, convicting the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them. The judgment discusses the evidence presented, the injuries sustained by the victim, the motive behind the assault, and the legal arguments raised by the petitioners' counsel. The court found the evidence overwhelming and upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the criminal revision petition.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an assault on the first informant by the accused, who were his maternal uncles and cousins, due to a land dispute. The victim sustained multiple injuries and was hospitalized for 5 days.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be compelling, including the medical examination and the motive behind the assault. The court dismissed the arguments raised by the petitioners' counsel and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence for the charges, the motive behind the assault, and the quantum of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the medical examination and the motive behind the assault, was compelling and sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence. The court also found that the sentence awarded was neither excessive nor disproportionate.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. Correctness of judgment passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur while convicting the petitioners and sentencing them in the following manner, affirmed in appeal, is being assailed. The sentence awarded is extracted as under:-

Sr. No.	Name of the accused	Under Section	Sentence
1	Pukhraj Singh	341 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		323 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		325 read with Section 34 IPC	To undergo R.I for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 days.
		201 IPC	To undergo R.I for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of one week.
2	Ravinder Singh	341 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		323 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		325 read with Section 34 IPC	To undergo R.I for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 days.
		201 IPC	To undergo R.I for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of one week.
3	Harjit Singh	341 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		323 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		325 IPC	To undergo R.I for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 days.
		201 IPC	To undergo R.I for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of one week.
4	Sukhwinder Singh	341 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		323 IPC	To undergo R.I. for 6 months
		325 read with Section 34 IPC	To undergo R.I for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 days.
		201 IPC	To undergo R.I for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only). In default thereof, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment of one week.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 02.07.2011, first informant-injured-Gurpreet Singh got recorded his statement by stating that he had gone to meet his friend Neeraj Kalra on 02.07.2011 who was residing at Quarter No.220, Housing Board Colony, Sangrur on his motorcycle. His friend Neeraj Kalra asked him to bring milk from Nabha Gate, Sangrur whereupon when he was going on his motorcycle to bring the milk, accused came in a Zen car and blocked his passage and thereafter attacked him. Harjit Singh, petitioner gave a iron rod blow which hit below his left knee. Sukhwinder Singh gave a blow of handle of spade which hit below his right shoulder. Ravinder Singh gave a blow of bat which hit him below his left shoulder and Pukhraj gave a blow of handle of spade which hit him on his back. Two more unknown persons also accompanied the said accused. On receipt of blows, he fell down on the ground and the accused also inflicted more injuries on his body. On alarm being raised, all the accused persons alongwith two unknown persons ran away in the car alongwith their respective weapons and his friend Neeraj Kalra reached at the spot and got him admitted in Civil Hospital, Sangrur after arranging the vehicle. The motive behind the occurrence was that there was some dispute regarding land between him and accused persons who are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2019 Supreme(P&H) 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHANIL KSHETARPAL, J.Pukhraj Singh and others - AppellantsVersusState Of Punjab - RespondentCriminal Revision No. 2617 of 2019Decided On : 16-10-2019

The main legal point established in the judgment is the sufficiency and compelling nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the medical examination and the motive behind the assault, in upholding the conviction and sentence.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Pukhraj Singh and others - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2617 of 2019
Decided On : 16-10-2019