Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2205 (PNJ)

Satpal v. State of Haryana

2011-12-13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, S.S.SARON

body2011
JUDGMENT Affidavit of Sh. Rajender Singh Siwach, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant-Satpal filed in Court today is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The Crl. Misc. application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant Satpal during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant/appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years; besides, to pay a fine of `5000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year for committing an offence punishable under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. The applicant/appellant Satpal earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. 21985 of 2011 seeking suspension of sentence and stay of recovery of fine. This Court vide order dated 20.10.2011 observed that keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that post conviction incarceration of the applicant/appellant was very less, it was of the considered view that the applicant/appellant was not entitled to suspension of sentence at that stage. It was observed that deceased-Smt. Sushila wife of the applicant/appellant-Satpal had made a dying declaration before the Duty Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak in which it is stated that the applicant/appellant-Satpal and her mother-in-law Santosh (accused No.2) had set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on her. The learned trial Court vide order dated 16.2.2011 acquitted the applicant/appellant Satpal and Santosh (accused No.2) of the charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the applicant/appellant Satpal was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. This Court vide order dated 20.10.2011, however, inadvertently observed that the applicant-appellant Satpal was convicted under Section 304-B IPC, in fact he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of four years. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant /appellant Satpal has submitted that the order in the earlier criminal Misc. application was reserved on 20.5.2011 when arguments were heard and it was pronounced on 20.10.2011. Therefore, till date the applicant/appellant Satpal has undergone further imprisonment of about ten months of imprisonment after his conviction. It is for the said reason that this Court issued notice in the present Crl. Misc. application on 21.11.2011 for today. In terms of the affidavit of Sh. Therefore, till date the applicant/appellant Satpal has undergone further imprisonment of about ten months of imprisonment after his conviction. It is for the said reason that this Court issued notice in the present Crl. Misc. application on 21.11.2011 for today. In terms of the affidavit of Sh. Rajender Singh Siwach, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, the applicant/appellant Satpal has undergone imprisonment of one year, eleven months and twenty-nine days as on 2.5.2011 and till date he has undergone imprisonment of about two years and seven months out of the sentence of four years. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant Satpal as in case he completes his sentence of imprisonment, the purpose of filing the appeal is likely to be defeated. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant Satpal, 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 Rohtak.