JUDGMENT :

Aman Chaudhary, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of the above-mentioned criminal appeals, as they arise out of the same impugned judgment and order.

2. Challenge in the present appeals is to the judgment/order dated 06.10.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts, which are necessary for adjudication of the present cases are that, one Lakh winder Singh s/o Satpal made statement wherein he stated that on 24.11.2002 at about 12.00 noon, when he, alongwith his brother Surinder Singh and one Jagdish @ Deesa went to the the shop of Kulwinder Kumar for taking photographs of marriage, he refused to give it and started abusing them. The person standing there caught hold of Surinder Singh and accused-Kulwinder Kumar attacked him. He fell down on the ground. In the meantime, accused ran away from the spot. The injured was rushed to Civil Hospital at Hoshiarpur and the FIR in question was registered.

3. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused- appellants. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 307/34 of IPC were framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined as many as 8 PWs. On closure of their evidence, statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances that appeared against them.

5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed in para 2.

6. Aggrieved accused-appellants have preferred the present appeals.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction and prays for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellants on account of the facts, that the matter stands compromised between the parties; appellant Gurmukh Singh had undergone 8 months, whereas appellant Kulwinder Singh 01 year 21 days; are poor persons; sole bread winners of their respective families; not involved in any other case and have been facing the agony of protracted trial since 2002.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant also admits the factum of compromise and submits that she has no objection to the prayer made by the appellants.

9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the present appeal. Though he is unable to dispute the statement of the parties regarding settlement, however, affirms that they are not involved in any other case.

10. Heard and perused.

11. Though, the appellants have not challenged the judgment of conviction, but this Court still deems it appropriate to examine the same. PW-3 Surinder Singh, who was the injured in his deposition specifically named the appellants, having caused injuries to him. His testimony stood corroborated by PW-2 Lakhwinder Singh. Dr.Rajesh Mehta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur proved the MLR of the injured. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded and conclusion arrived at. As such, the conviction of the appellants is upheld.

12. As regards the prayer made for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, in CRM-21222-2019 filed by the appellants the matter stands compromised between the parties, this Court vide order dated 21.07.2023, had directed the parties to appear before the concerned Trial