STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents along with their co-accused Madan Lal son of Nazir Ram ( declared as a proclaimed offender during trial) were charged under Section 148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. All of them were charged under Section 450 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for committing house tresspass in order to cause injuries to the complainant side. Pali respondent was charged under Section 326 IPC substantively for causing grievous hurt with a sharp edged weapon ( Kirpan) to Mohinder Kaur PW whereas the other respondents were charged under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Ram Lal respondent was charged under Section 308 IPC substantively for causing injury to Amarjit Singh PW, whereas the other respondents were charged under Section 308 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Respondent Mansa Ram was charged under Section 325 IPC substantively for causing grievous injury to Jaswinder Kaur PW with blunt weapon whereas all other respondents were charged under Section 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Similarly Sukha Ram and Mansa Ram were charged under Section 323 IPC substantively for causing simple hurt with blunt weapon to Jaswinder Pal and Resham Kaur whereas the other respondents were charged under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.

(2.) Vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated May 4, 1995, charges under Sections 308/450/326 IPC have been disturbed and instead all the respondents have been convicted under Sections 452/324/323/148 read with Section 149 IPC. They were released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act ( for short the 'Act') with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years. It was further directed that the accused shall remain under the surveillance of District Probation Officer Kapurthala under Section 4(3) of the Act. All the respondents were also ordered to pay Rs. 1,000/- each as costs of the prosecution. Aggrieved by the impugned judgement, State of Punjab has preferred the instant appeal.

(3.) The record reveals that the appeal was admitted on April 23, 1996 and bailable warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against all the respondents to secure their presence. Record further reveals that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, all the respondents had furnished their requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.