Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga vs The State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2011
Criminal Misc.No.62182 of 2011 1
in
Criminal Appeal No.D-677-DB of 2008
Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga versus The State of Punjab
Present: Mr.Ramandeep Sandhu, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant-Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga
Ms.Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
****
Learned State counsel has filed affidavit of Mr.Surinder Pal Khanna, PPS, Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Criminal misc.application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga, during the pendency of the appeal.
The applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga has been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 392 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 392 IPC. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution case is that Charanpal Singh-complainant on his return from work saw that articles in his house lying scattered in the bed Criminal Misc.No.62182 of 2011 2 in Criminal Appeal No.D-677-DB of 2008 room. Besides, he saw the dead body of his mother Upjinder Kaur lying in a pool of blood with injuries on her forehead, neck, left wrist and navel. A blood stained sword was also noticed near the dead body. He found four gold bangles, a pair of gold rings and a gold chain missing from the house, besides, cash from the purse of Upjinder Kaur. FIR was registered on the statement of Charanpal Singh- son of the deceased Upjinder Kaur. The case is based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga is said to have made an extra judicial confession before Mohan Singh (PW 8). Mohan Singh (PW 8), it was observed by the learned trial Court was a small time fruit seller and used to sell fruits from a 'Rehri' which was on the pavement. It was observed that he could not help the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga in any manner and he did not go to the police for a period of 1 ½ months after the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga is said to have made the extra judicial confession before him. He also accepted that he had a landline telephone and a cellphone with him but despite that he did not inform the police about the confession for a period of 1½ months. The learned trial Court after referring to various case law held that testimony of Mohan Singh (PW 8) did not inspire requisite confidence. However, it was observed that Inspector Gurmeet Singh (PW 9) had recovered an 'Adidas' shoe from the spot. The said shoe was found to be stained with human blood group 'A', which was the blood group of the deceased-Upjinder Kaur. Besides, Inspector Gurmeet Singh (PW 9) had taken in possession the other shoe make 'Adidas' from the house of the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga on 17.03.2006. The shoes had been produced in evidence as Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-24. It was held that it was, therefore, Criminal Misc.No.62182 of 2011 3 in Criminal Appeal No.D-677-DB of 2008 established that it is applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga, who had gone to the place of occurrence and had lost his shoe in the apparent struggle offered by deceased-Upjinder Kaur as was apparent from the nature of injuries noticed on her person in the post mortem report Ex.PP.
The other evidence against the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga is the recovery of Chhura Ex.P-23 and a wrist watch Ex.P- 21, on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex.PZ. The wrist watch Ex.P- 21 was got recovered by the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga and was identified by Charanpal Singh-complainant (PW 7) to be that of his mother. The effect of the circumstantial evidence, which has come on record, is to be considered and gone into at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
In terms of the affidavit of Mr.Surinder Pal Khanna, PPS, Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga has undergone imprisonment for 5 years 6 months and 5 days as on 10.12.2011. This includes a period of imprisonment of 3 years 3 months and 19 days post conviction. Therefore, the guidelines laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Pal versus State of Haryana 1994(4)RCR(Criminal)600 have been fulfilled wherein, it is, inter alia, held that life convicts who have undergone five years of imprisonment, of which three years should be after conviction should be released on bail pending hearing of the appeals.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga, is liable to be suspended.
Accordingly, criminal misc.application is allowed and the Criminal Misc.No.62182 of 2011 4 in Criminal Appeal No.D-677-DB of 2008 sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellant Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga shall, during the pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Jalandhar.
(S.S.SARON) JUDGE (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 13.12.2011 neenu