Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Alias Raju And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 December, 2011
Author: S.S.Saron
Bench: S.S.Saron, Rameshwar Singh Malik
Crl. Misc. No.63624 of 2011 in -1-
CRA No. D-599-DB of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.63624 of 2011 in
CRA No. D-599-DB of 2008
Date of decision:12.12.2011
Rajinder alias Raju and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Jitender Sehrawat, Advocate for
Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant No.2-Dharmender.
Mr. H.S. Sran, Additional A.G., Haryana.
S.S.SARON, J.
Learned State counsel has filed affidavit of Sh. Rajender Singh, Deputy Superintendent , District Jail, Faridabad, mentioning the period of impriosnment undergone by the applicant/appellant No.2-Dharmender. The same is taken on record.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The applicant/appellant No.2-Dharmender who seeks suspension of his sentence of imprisonment is the son of Ganga Ram (appellant No.4). The sentence of impriosnment of Ganga Ram (appellant No. 4) has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.47431 of 2011. The case of the applicant/appellant No.2-Dharmender is covered by the guidelines laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Pal versus State of Haryana 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) Crl. Misc. No.63624 of 2011 in -2- CRA No. D-599-DB of 2008
600. The applicant/appellant No.2-Dharmender has undergone imprisonment of 05 years, 03 months and 20 days as on 10.12.2011, which includes imprisonment of 03 years, 03 months and 22 days post conviction.
The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Ram Parkash. It is alleged by the complainant that his son Rajesh and also Bhola (deceased) son of Ujagar Yadav and Dev Muni son of Kallu were all working with the Sood Track Company, in which complainant was also working. Hari Shankar son of Rampat Parsad Yadav-brother-in-law of Bhola (deceased) was also a worker of their company. Said Hari Shankar was residing at Ekta Nagar. On 13.08.2006, at around 1.30 p.m., Hari Shankar had gone to the market of Ekta Nagar for purchasing some household articles. On his way home in front of the house of Ganga Ram (appellant No.4) an exchange of hot words had ensued on some matter between Hari Shankar and Jeetu son of Ganga Ram (appellant No. 4). Ganga Ram (appellant No.4) had intervened and settled the matter. The complainant-Ram Parkash stated that Hari Shankar felt offended and narrated the incident to his brother-in-law Bhola Ram. At that time, the complainant-Ram Parkash, his son Rajesh and Dev Muni were also present. On this all four of them accompanied Hari Shankar and went to the house of Ganga Ram and lodged protest with him. Suddenly, Ganga Ram (appellant No.4) and his three sons namely Rajender (appellant No.1), Jeetu alias Jitender (appellant No.3) and Dimple alias Dharmender (applicant/appellant No.2), who were armed with lathis, dandas and iron rods, attacked them. Ganga Ram (appellant No.4) gave two iron rod blows on the head of Bhola, Jeetu (appellant No.3) gave lathi blow on the head of Ram Parkash (complainant) and Rajender (appellant No.1) gave a danda blow on the head of Dev Muni and other blow on his left shoulder. Dimple Crl. Misc. No.63624 of 2011 in -3- CRA No. D-599-DB of 2008 alias Dharmender (applicant/appellant No.2) gave a lathi blow on the left side of face of Rajesh and another blow on his right leg. He also gave a blow on the chest of Bhola (deceased). Raju and Pankaj interevened and saved them from the cluthes of the assailants. Dharmender (applicant/appellant No.2) is attributed lathi blow on the left side of face of Rajesh and another on his right leg, besides, lathi blow on the chest of Bhola (deceased).
According to the appellants, they had acted is in exercise of their right of private defence inasmuch as the complainant party had come to the house of Ganga Ram (appellant No.4). It is also stated that the injuries on the persons of the accused have not been explained. Dr. Lokveer, PW-5 on the day of occurrence at 5.30 p.m. had medico legally examined Ganga Ram (appellant No. 4), Dimple alias Dharmender (applicant/appellant No.2) and Rajinder (appellant No.1) and he proved medical reports Ex.DB. Ex.DC and Ex.DD respectively.
The question whether the appellants had acted in exercise of their right of private defence is to be considered and gone into at the time of final hearing. The injuries suffered by Bhola (deceased) on his head had proved to be fatal. Dharmender (applicant/appellant No.2) is attributed injury on the chest of Bhola (deceased).
The sentence of impriosnment of appellant No.4-Ganga Ram has been suspended by this Court. Besides, the case of the applicant/appellant No.2-Dharmender falls within the guidelines laid in Dharam Pal's case (supra). The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the sentence of impriosnment of applicant/appellant No.2-Dharmender is suspended.
Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and during the Crl. Misc. No.63624 of 2011 in -4- CRA No. D-599-DB of 2008 pendency of the appeal the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.2-Dharmender shall remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicidal Magistrate, Faridabad.
(S.S.SARON)
JUDGE
12.12.2011 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
jyoti 1 JUDGE