- (1.) Heard.
(2.) Challenge in this criminal revision is to the judgement dated 25.08.2014, whereby Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib (for short 'appellate court') has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 49 dated 19.03.2012, which was brought by the petitioners to challenge the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2012, whereby Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib (for short 'trial court') has convicted and sentence the petitioners as under:- JUDGEMENT_450_LAWS(P&H)9_2014_1.html
(3.) Facts and circumstances leading to file an appeal before the learned appellate court as noticed by that Court are as under:- "The prosecution story in brief is that on 11.11.2007, Sheela, complainant made a statement before the police to the effect that on 10.11.2007, she alongwith her husband Butta Singh was going to her parental house near Vijay Rattan Palace and at about 5:00 PM when they reached near the house of Kehar Singh appellant-accused, he was abusing her father in the street and had parked his bicycle in a wrong manner in the street. She requested him not to abuse her father, upon which he went inside his house and brought sua, meant for breaking the ice alongwith his sons Sukha Singh and Baljit Singh, who are armed with dangs. Kehar Singh appellant-accused gave a blow with the sua on the right side of her stomach, Sukha Singh appellant-accused gave a dang blow on her left shoulder and Baljit Singh appellant-accused gave a dang blow on left side of her head. Buta Singh, the husband of the complainant raised the alarm, which attracted her father Makhan Singh, her brother Karnail Singh and her neighbour Jagga Singh at the spot and they all rescued her from the clutches of the above said persons, who ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. The motive behind the occurrence is that the appellants-accused caused injuries to the complainant as she had stopped Kehar Singh from abusing her father. After recording the statement of the complainant, the Investigating Officer made his endorsement thereon and sent the same for registration of the FIR in this case and the investigation was initiated in the matter. The accused were formally arrested on 26.11.2007 and the sua was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by Kehar Singh appellant-accused and its rough sketch was prepared. The same was taken into police possession vide a separate recovery memo. The site plan of the place of recovery of the sua was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation and other necessary formalities, a report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate against the appellantsaccused Kehar Singh, Baljit Singh and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha, but, they failed to appear in the Court and were ultimately declared as proclaimed offenders vide order dated 08.10.2008, passed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. Two separate supplementary challans were presented against accused Sukhdev Singh on 10.11.2008 and against accused Kehar Singh and Baljit Singh on 31.10.2008. On appearance of the accused in the court, the copies of challan and documents etc. as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to them free of costs and the learned Illaqa Magistrate thereby complied with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima-facie case under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the charge was framed against the accused accordingly by the learned Illaqa Magistrate to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its, case the prosecution examined Sheela, the complainant in this case as PW-1; Buta Singh, the husband of the complainant and the eye witness in this case as PW-2; Makhan Singh another eye witness to the occurrence as PW-3; Dr. Madan Gopal Sharma, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sri Muktsar Sahib as PW-4; ASI Joginder Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case as PW-5 and ASI Gurmail Singh as PW-6 and thereafter, the learned APP for the State closed the evidence of the prosecution. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, but, they denied the same stating the case to be false one. The accused, though, opted to lead evidence in their defence, but, closed the same without leading any evidence. After hearing the arguments on both the sides and after appraisal of the evidence on the file, the trial court vide its judgment dated 12.03.2012 convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para No. 1 of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2012, the appellants have filed the present appeal.";