IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

239 Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Ramanpreet Singh and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jagraon whereby the revisionist-petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Further challenge is also made to the judgment dated

10.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by Tarsem Singh before ASI Tilak Raj. He stated that he, along with his brother Sukhdev Singh, was residing in a joint house and adjoining thereto was the house of his uncle Piara Singh, who had expired about 20 years ago. He had purchased land measuring 4 marlas situated behind his house from Jagnandan Singh vide a registered sale deed. Adjoining the said property, his cousin Ramanpreet Singh had also purchased some land from the same vendor. On 05.11.2013, when the members of his family had gone to meet relatives, he was sitting on a cot near the rear gate of his house at about 12:30 PM. At that time, all the accused, allegedly armed with deadly weapons and acting in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into his house with an intention to cause hurt. Ramanpreet Singh raised a lalkara exhorting others to catch hold of Tarsem Singh to teach him a lesson for purchasing land adjoining their property. It is alleged that Ramanpreet Singh inflicted reverse tokka blows on his left hand and arm, upon which he raised an alarm. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly took him to their house, where accused Sukhmeet Kaur tied him to a fodder-chopping machine with a plastic rope, thereby wrongfully confining him. Thereafter, accused Kulwinder Singh allegedly gave two blows with a baseball bat on his nose and right eye, and Ramanpreet Singh again inflicted a reverse tokka blow on his head. On hearing his cries, his brother Sukhdev Singh and Binder Singh reached the spot and rescued him, whereupon the accused fled away along with their respective weapons.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the criminal law was set into motion. During investigation, the site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused were arrested and the weapons allegedly used in the occurrence were recovered.

Upon completion of investigation, the final report was prepared and presented before the Court for further proceedings.

5. Copies of the documents, as envisaged under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were supplied to the accused.

6. After finding a prima facie case, accused was charged under Sections 452/342/323/34, IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. On completion of the procedural compliances, parties led their respective evidence. The prosecution examined as many as six prosecution witnesses and the evidence was thereafter closed.

8. The entire evidence was put to petitioners and statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. The petitioners denied the same, however, didn’t lead any evidence in their defence.

9. On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon vide judgment dated and sentenced dated 07.02.2020. Appeal against the order of conviction & sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 10.09.2025 Hence, the present petition.

10. After arguing the matter at some length, Counsel for the revisionist-petitioners contends that he does not