Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simrandeep Singh Bajwa vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 2013
Crl. Misc. No.39005 of 2012 in
Crl. Appeal No.S-1342-SB of 2012 -1-
Simrandeep Singh Bajwa Versus State of Punjab
Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Priyanka Ahuja, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr.P.P.S.Thethi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for the complainant.
***
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant-Simrandeep Singh Bajwa during the pendency of the appeal.
The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Dr. Avtar Singh father of the injured Pavneet Singh who made his statement before Balkar Singh Inspector SHO Police Station B Division, Amritsar. It is alleged by the complainant that on 25.09.2006, his son (Pavneet Singh injured) disclosed that he had an altercation with Simrandeep Singh Bajwa (applicant/appellant) who had threatened to teach him a lesson. On 26.09.2006 at about 09.15 am, Simrandeep Singh Bajwa (applicant/appellant) armed with a 'sabbal' (sickle), Varinder Singh, Sumit Singh along with three other boys who would be identified if produced before him came in the college i.e. Guru Ramdass Institute, Amritsar. Varinder Singh accused picked up a chair and hit the same on the head of Pavneet Singh injured. Simrandeep Singh Bajwa (applicant/appellant) inflicted a 'sabbal' (sickle) blow on the left side of the head of Pavneet Singh injured above the ear. The blow was given with an intention to kill him. As a Crl. Misc. No.39005 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No.S-1342-SB of 2012 -2- result of the same, the injured Pavneet Singh fell on the floor. Thereafter Sumit Singh along with three other boys started pushing the complainant. Sumit Singh raised a 'lalkara' not to spare Pavneet Singh. Thereafter all the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. The statement of Dr. Avtar Singh was read over to him and he signed the same after admitting it to be correct.
The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has convicted Simrandeep Singh Bajwa (applicant/appellant) for the offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 148 and 307 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 120-B IPC; besides, undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC. In respect of the offence under Section 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years; besides, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. He has also been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim namely Pavneet Singh and in default of payment, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The other co-convicts namely Varinder Singh, Sahil Sehgal, Kuljinder Singh @ Bau @ Boby and Sumit Singh @ Dhadi have also been convicted. Sahil Sehgal and Kuljinder Singh @ Bau @ Boby have been convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The said convictions are in addition to the convictions for the offence under Sections 120-B and 148 IPC. Varinder Singh has been convicted for Crl. Misc. No.39005 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No.S-1342-SB of 2012 -3- the offence under Section 307 IPC. They have also been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the said offences, the maximum being four years imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 or Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The said sentences of imprisonment are also to run concurrently. Besides, Varinder Singh has been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Sahil Sehgal, Kuljinder Singh @ Bau @ Boby and Sumit Singh @ Dhadi have been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for six months.
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant has contended that an unfortunate incident had occurred in the college canteen of Guru Ramdass Insitute where the students are doing their MBBS course. It is submitted that Simrandeep Singh Bajwa (applicant/appellant) in fact is not involved and in any case even if the prosecution version is taken as it is there was no intention on his part to cause the injury on the person of Pavneet Singh injured, which would amount to an offence of attempt to murder. As per the prosecution case, it is submitted that it is a case of sudden fight in the college canteen and, therefore, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC would be applicable and the offence at the most can be said to be one under Section 308 IPC. It is also submitted that the injured Pavneet Singh has completed his MBBS course successfully and is now a qualified doctor and he is pursuing his profession. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, it is submitted, has been deposited and the applicant/appellant would have no objection if the same is withdrawn by the injured and it would not be construed as an acquiescence on his part to raise the Crl. Misc. No.39005 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No.S-1342-SB of 2012 -4- contentions to which he may be entitled to. It is submitted that out of the total sentence of four years that has been imposed by the learned trial Court, Simrandeep Singh Bajwa (applicant/appellant) has undergone imprisonment of one year, five months and about ten days till date. The sentences of imprisonment of the other co-convicts, it is submitted, has been suspended. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant is liable to be suspended.
In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant is the main accused and culprit. The nature of injuries which have been caused to the injured Pavneet Singh it is submitted are very grievous and these clearly make out an offence under Section 307 IPC. A pointed reference has been made to the deposition of Dr.Raminder Sandhu (PW-1) and Dr. Dushyant Thaman (PW-9) to contend that the injury on the head, which is attributed to the applicant/appellant has been opined to be dangerous to life. It is submitted that the medical evidence shows that the brain matter was coming out of the wound and it is with great difficulty that Pavneet Singh injured was saved. At present he is not in a position to lead his life normally. The studies that he undertakes is with the help of co-students and the sentences that he constructs are disjointed. He cannot carry on with his normal life. He walks with great difficulty. The sentence of imprisonment that has been imposed for the offence under Section 307 IPC is grossly inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced. It is also submitted that it is not a case of sudden fight as the assailants had come duly armed with pre-meditation and an Crl. Misc. No.39005 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No.S-1342-SB of 2012 -5- incident had occurred a day earlier even. It is also submitted that in case sentences of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant is suspended, he is likely to abscond and go abroad.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. An unfortunate incident had occurred in the college canteen of Guru Ramdass Institute. Nature of injuries that have been inflicted on the person of Pavneet Singh injured are serious in nature. The appeal filed by the State of Punjab seeking enhancement of sentence has been admitted by a separate order passed today. The questions regarding enhancement of sentence, regarding the nature of injuries and the offence that is made out are, however, to be gone into at the time of final hearing. At this stage, it would be inappropriate to go into the said questions i.e. as to whether the sentence of imprisonment that has been imposed by the learned trial Court is to be enhanced or not, the nature of injuries and as to what offence is made out. Out of the sentence of imprisonment of four years that has been imposed, the applicant/appellant has undergone actual imprisonment of one year, five months and about ten days. There is no other case pending against him. During the period of imprisonment after conviction and sentence, he was granted interim bail and parole for undertaking his examinations. He did not misuse the concession of interim bail and parole and he surrendered in jail in time. During trial of the case, he was on bail. He has now to complete his internship and postgraduation. The injured though it is stated has been rendered Crl. Misc. No.39005 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No.S-1342-SB of 2012 -6- handicapped nevertheless he has completed his MBBS course. In case the applicant/appellant completes his sentence of imprisonment, the purpose of filing the appeal is likely to be defeated. Keeping in view the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant and also the fact that he was on bail during trial, it would be just and expedient to suspend his sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. The applicant/appellant shall not leave the country without the permission of this Court.
The injured may withdraw the amounts of compensation that have been deposited in the trial Court and the same would be released in his favour without prejudice to his rights in any manner in the pending cases.
(S. S. Saron) Judge (S. P. Bangarh ) Judge 31.01.2013 A.Kaundal