Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2016
217 CRM No.27525 of 2016 in
CRA No.D-1688-DB of 2015 -1-
Lakhwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab
Present: Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant/appellant No.2-Baljinder Singh.
Ms. Manisha Gandhi, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State.
***
Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Shri Kulwant Singh, P.P.S., Officiating Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant No.2-Baljinder Singh. The same is taken on record.
The Crl. Misc. application has been filed by Baljinder Singh (applicant/appellant No.2) seeking suspension of his sentence of imprisonment during pendency of the appeal. The sentence of imprisonment of Gurmej Singh (appellant No.3) has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2016 passed in CRM No.5005 of 2016. The facts of the case have been recounted in the said order.
According to the complainant-Mahabir Singh; in the incident that occurred on 6.9.2010 while the complainant along with his father Partap Singh (deceased in the case) after having a round of their fields were walking back to their house, they were assaulted by the accused when they had reached near the village pond. At that time grandfather of the complainant namely Dalbir Singh was also following them. Baljinder Singh (applicant/appellant No.2) is attributed the role of inflicting a 'dang' blow to Partap Singh (deceased), father of the complainant. According to the complainant, the blow hit his father on the right side of his face.
In the post-mortem examination on the dead body of 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2016 04:29:01 ::: 217 CRM No.27525 of 2016 in CRA No.D-1688-DB of 2015 -2- Partap Singh, there is, however, an incised wound oblique 2.5 x 2.5 cm on the right cheek, muscle deep.
Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant No.2, in the circumstances, submits that there cannot be an incised injury with a 'dang' blow alleged to have been inflicted on the face of Partap Singh (deceased). It is for this reason that Mahabir Singh, complainant while appearing in Court as PW-1 changed the injury attributed to the applicant/appellant No.2 and instead of stating that Baljinder Singh @ Marra (applicant/appellant No.2) inflicted a 'dang' blow on the right side of the face of his father (Partap Singh deceased), he changed the role to that of inflicting a 'dang' blow on the left side of the face of his father. Besides; Dalbir Singh (PW-2) simply stated that Marra @ Baljinder Singh (applicant/appellant No.2) inflicted a 'dang' blow which hit on the face of Partap Singh, without mentioning the side. It is submitted that injury No.7 on the left cheek of Partap Singh (deceased) is a reddish contusion 4 x 4 cm and is not the cause of death. Dr. Gurpreet Singh Rai (PW-10) gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries No.1, 5 and 10, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. Therefore, the injury attributed to applicant/appellant No.2 is not the cause of death of Partap Singh.
It is further submitted that the applicant/appellant No.2 was found innocent during investigation and was kept in column No.2 of the police report that was filed. He was summoned as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC' - for short). He was on bail during trial. Besides, 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2016 04:29:02 ::: 217 CRM No.27525 of 2016 in CRA No.D-1688-DB of 2015 -3- now there are other such circumstances which entitle the applicant/appellant No.2 to the suspension of his sentence of his imprisonment inasmuch as the father of the applicant/appellant No.2 had pre-deceased him and his brother namely Ranjit Singh died recently on 27.08.2016. Therefore, at his home there are now two widows, that is, of his father and brother, besides, two children of the applicant/appellant No.2 and two children of his brother Ranjit Singh.
Learned Senior Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant/appellant No.2 for suspension of his sentence of imprisonment. It is submitted that the applicant/ appellant No.2 has undergone actual imprisonment of only eight months and three days as on 19.09.2016 and with remissions he has undergone actual sentence of one year, nine months and thirteen days. Therefore, it is too premature to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.2-Baljinder Singh. Besides, the learned trial Court has recorded cogent and convincing reasons for convicting and sentencing him.
We have given our thoughtful considerations to the matter. It is to be noticed that the injury attributed to the applicant/ appellant No.2 in the initial statement on the basis of which FIR was registered is on the right side of the face of Partap Singh (deceased). However, he was carrying a 'lathi' and there is only an incised wound on the right cheek of Partap Singh (deceased). The question of an incised injury being caused by using a blunt weapon like a 'lathi' that applicant/appellant No.2 was carrying may not be possible and would require consideration at the time of final hearing 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2016 04:29:02 ::: 217 CRM No.27525 of 2016 in CRA No.D-1688-DB of 2015 -4- of the appeal. Besides, the question whether the complainant Mahabir Singh (PW-1) while deposing in Court stated that Baljinder Singh @ Marra (applicant/appellant No.2) inflicted a 'dang' blow to his father on the left side of his face and thereby changed the initial position and its effect would also require consideration. The said injury on the left side of the face of Partap Singh (deceased), as already noticed, is a reddish contusion 4 x 4 cm on left cheek. The effect of the contentions as raised would require consideration. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. The applicant/appellant No.2 was on bail during trial, besides, he was found innocent in the investigation and was summoned as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 CrPC.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.2-Baljinder Singh during pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/ appellant No.2-Baljinder Singh shall, during pendency of the appeal remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran.
(S.S. Saron)
Judge
20.09.2016 (Lisa Gill)
A.Kaundal Judge
Note:
1. Whether the order is speaking/reasoned : Yes
2. Whether the order is reportable : No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2016 04:29:02 :::