IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:11.02.2026 Charat Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. H.S.Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.67 dated 15.08.1999 was lodged in Police Station Raman. Once the FIR was lodged, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the petitioners were sent to the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, to face the trial.

2. The petitioners participated in the above mentioned trial, which by virtue of judgment dated 19.12.2006 culminated into their conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC. Thus, by virtue of order on quantum of sentence, dated 21.12.2006, the petitioners were awarded sentences as under:-

3. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The above mentioned appeal has been decided by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’. The appeal, preferred by the petitioners, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, vide order dated 05.04.2008.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2006 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2006, passed by the learned trial Court, and the judgment dated 05.04.2008, passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gurjant Singh’, who had stated that on 14.08.1999 at about 06.45 A.M. when he and his wife, ‘Hardip Kaur’, were going towards village pond, with their buffaloes, their buffaloes embattled with buffalo of complainant which was purchased by the complainant 15 days ago only. As per complainant, in the wake of above incident, ‘Charat Singh’ armed with soti (wooden handle) and ‘Suba Singh’, ‘Bhura’ and ‘Piara Singh’

armed with gandasa, inflicted injuries on his person near the pond.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint formal FIR in this case was lodged, and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation, when all the necessary formalities were complete and the entire evidence stood collected, the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned trial Court.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside being an outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned trial Court, vis-à-vis the learned Appellate Court, have failed to appreciate the fact and evidence as per the standard required under the law.

9. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held the petitioners guilty and that despite the fact that the deficiencies in prosecution case were pointed out, the abovementioned judgment of learned trial Court has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court and the appeal has been dismissed.

10. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the instant revision petition, the petitioners are not inclined to challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present