Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasdeep Singh Alias Jassu vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2016
CRM-5869-2016 in -1-
CRA-D-1325-DB-2015
Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu Vs. State of Punjab
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr.Advocate
with Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate
and Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr.Advocate
with Mr. A.P.S. Randhawa, Advocate
and Mr. Manish Verma Advocate
for the complainant.
-*-
1.Applicant-appellant Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu who was convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment has moved the present application praying for suspension of sentence and grant of bail having already undergone 4 years and 9 months of sentence as per the custody certificate placed on record by learned counsel for the State.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20/21.4.2011 at about 00:45 am, PW6 Rajbir Singh went in search of his son who did not return to his house. When he reached near Baba Rasoi Dhaba, he found his son Gurkirat Singh alongwith Sukhdev Singh on the main road near the street adjoining the dhaba. All the accused standing there were exchanging hot words with his son. He tried to intervene, but in the meantime, accused Amardeep Singh @ Sunny took out revolver from his dab and grappled with his son whereupon accused Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu and Prince Narula raised lalkara to Ramsimran Singh who took out revolver from his dab and fired on 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 03:06:53 ::: CRM-5869-2016 in -2- CRA-D-1325-DB-2015 the back of his son Gurkirat Singh who fell down on the ground and thereafter all the accused ran away from the scene.
3. The trial Court, having found that the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without premeditation when the accused and the deceased who were friends exchanged hot words with each other, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant- appellant submitted that the applicant had allegedly exhorted the accused Ramsimran Singh who opened fired on Gurkirat Singh. The applicant has already undergone 4 years and 9 months of sentence. The trial Court has disbelieved the alleged dying declaration suffered by Gurkirat Singh to his father PW6 Rajbir Singh. PW10 Sukhdev Singh and PW23 Varun Gumber who were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. PW13 Amardeep Singh who was examined to establish the conspiracy theory as projected by the prosecution was completely disbelieved by the trial Court. It is his further submission that the alleged VIP treatment given to the accused who faced the trial in this case has seized the attention of the authority concerned. The proceedings initiated by PW6 Rajbir Singh, father of the deceased on the allegation that VIP treatment was given in the jail to the accused during trial had been disposed of. It is his submission that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the applicant with the aid of Section 34 IPC when it has already come to the conclusion that the occurrence had taken place in culmination of a sudden fight between the accused and the deceased without any premeditation. In 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 03:06:54 ::: CRM-5869-2016 in -3- CRA-D-1325-DB-2015 other words, the trial Court should not have lawfully invoked Section 34 IPC in the above circumstances to convict the applicant-appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant Rajbir Singh submitted referring to the inspection note recorded by the District & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur that the accused had been given VIP treatment during the course of trial, inasmuch as the accused had got first class facilities in the jail. The undue privilege enjoyed by the applicant-appellant alongwith other accused during trial is a relevant factor to be considered while disposing of the application seeking the relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail. He also brought to the notice that mobile phones had been recovered from the applicant-appellant and other accused. Referring to the judgement of the trial Court, he submitted that PW23 Varun Gumber was summoned for 15 times to appear in the Court as a witness. Even bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued against him, but he did not appear. It is his further submission that only after providing security to him by the Court, he came to the Court to give evidence. Learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant also referred to the observation made by the trial Court that PW23 was under pressure of the accused for not deposing in the Court. Referring to the merit of the case, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that a car which was used by accused for escape from the scene of crime was recovered from the applicant-appellant. Therefore, it is his submission that the applicant- appellant is not entitled to suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 03:06:54 :::
CRM-5869-2016 in -4-
CRA-D-1325-DB-2015
6. Learned counsel for the State adopted the arguments submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant.
7. True it is that learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur during the inspection of Central Jail, Gurdaspur reported that VIP treatment was being given to the accused in the case including the applicant-appellant. It is to be noted that such an inspection was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur way-back on 29.8.2013 long prior to the conviction of the accused-applicant by the trial Court on 3.8.2015. At any rate, learned Single Judge of this Court in the petition filed by the complainant Rajbir Singh in CRM-M No.27335 of 2015 praying for shifting of all the 4 accused from Central Jail, Gurdaspur made an observation in his order dated 25.1.2016 that action in accordance with the law has already been taken for the violations committed by the jail officials and therefore, no further order was required to be passed in the petition. Further, the complainant filed CWP No.26026 of 2015 praying for appointment of a Warrant Officer to visit the Central Jail, Jalandhar and Kapurthala and submit a report. Learned Single Judge having made an observation in his order dated 13.5.2016 that FIR has already been registered against the jail officials held that no further orders were required to be passed in the said petition.
8. Of course, the trial Court had made an observation that PW23 Varun Gumber did not appear before the Court for about 15 hearings for giving evidence as he was under threat of the accused. Totally 4 accused faced the trial. There was no specific reference as to which accused gave threat to PW23 Varun Gumber. Further the accused was a remand prisoner 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 03:06:54 ::: CRM-5869-2016 in -5- CRA-D-1325-DB-2015 at the time when PW23 reportedly received threat.
9. The applicant-appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC by the trial Court, having come to the conclusion that the occurrence had taken place sans premeditation when the accused and the deceased who were friends grappled with each other in a sudden fight in culmination of exchange of hot words between them.
10. On facts, it is found that the applicant-appellant has allegedly exhorted Ramsimran Singh who in-turn took out his revolver and shot down Gurkirat Singh. The applicant-appellant who allegedly exhorted the main accused has already spent 4 years and 9 months of sentence. The appeal which has been filed only in the year 2015 will take some time to mature for final hearing.
11. The trial Court had disbelieved the alleged dying declaration suffered by the deceased to PW6 Rajbir Singh. That apart, star witnesses PW10 Sukhdev Singh and PW25 Varun Gumber who were examined as ocular witnesses to the occurrence never supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution in fact examined PW13 Amardeep Singh to speak about the conspiracy allegedly hatched by all the accused. But the trial Court has disbelieved the conspiracy theory spoken to by PW13 Amardeep Singh.
12. PW6 Rajbir Singh who was allegedly an eye witness never referred to the presence of any car at the scene of crime or escape of the accused through some car parked at the scene of crime.
13. Of course, the complainant aggrieved by the conviction 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 03:06:54 ::: CRM-5869-2016 in -6- CRA-D-1325-DB-2015 of the applicant-appellant and other accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC has preferred an appeal pleading for conviction of accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. But it can never be a ground to reject the plea for suspension of sentence sought for by the applicant-appellant, more especially when the conviction as against the applicant-appellant has been recorded only under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.
14. Therefore, considering the nature of role attributed to the applicant-appellant, the conviction recorded only under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, the sentence of 4 years and 9 months already undergone by the applicant-appellant and the fact that it may take some time for the appeal filed only in the year 2015 to mature for final hearing, we are of the view that the applicant-appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
15. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of applicant-appellant Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu, during the pendency of the appeal is suspended and bail is granted subject to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurdaspur.
(M. JEYAPAUL)
JUDGE
September 8, 2016 (SNEH PRASHAR)
Gulati JUDGE
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 03:06:54 :::