Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2031 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab

2008-12-03

S.S.SARON, SABINA

body2008
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J 1. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh Saggu, P.P.S.-I, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) by way of the Crl. Misc. application seeks suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the appeal. 4. In the incident that occurred on 12.11.2004, the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) was armed with ‘kahi’ (spade). He is attributed a ‘kahi’ blow on the head of Upinder Singh. Doctor Satish Tiwari (PW-2) observed injury No.2 which is attributed to the applicant-Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) to be an incised wound 2 x . 5 cm present on the top of the head just on mid line of middle part of skull. The nature of the said injury has not been mentioned. However, since the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) has inter alia been convicted for the substantive sentence under Section 324 IPC, it is evident that the same is simple in nature. The main accused Kulwant Singh (non-applicant/appellant No.1) was armed with .12 bore single barrel gun with which he fired and caused the murder of Jaswant Singh (deceased). The entire family of Inder Singh has been involved in the case. Kulwant Singh (appellant No.1) is the son of Inder Singh, Ranjit Singh and Mehal Singh (appellants No.2 and 3 respectively) are the sons of Kulwant Singh (appellant No.1). Mal Singh (appellant No.4) who has been granted bail vide order dated 17.9.2008 is the son of Kartar Singh son of Inder Singh. It may be noticed that Upender Singh to whom injury is attributed to the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) has not been examined as a witness. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the period of imprisonment undergone is of a very short duration. Besides the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) had come armed with ‘kahi’ (spade) on the land of the complainant Harjinder Singh and he was digging a khal (water course). 6. In terms of the Custody Certificate, the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) as on 15.11.2008 has undergone imprisonment of one year, eleven months and twenty-two days. As on date he has undergone two years of imprisonment. 6. In terms of the Custody Certificate, the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) as on 15.11.2008 has undergone imprisonment of one year, eleven months and twenty-two days. As on date he has undergone two years of imprisonment. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Besides, the role attributed for which the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) has been convicted for the substantive offences is that of causing injury with a ‘kahi’ (spade) on the head of Upinder Singh and has been sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC which would mean that it is a simple injury. The involvement of the applicant with the aid of Section 34 IPC for the other offences would more appropriately be considered and gone into at the time of final hearing. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Crl. Misc. No. 48597 of 2008 is allowed and the sentence of the imprisonment of the applicant Mehal Singh (appellant No.3) shall during the pendency of the appeal remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar.