Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1881 (PNJ)

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-12-21

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, S.S.SARON

body2012
JUDGMENT CRM No.70576 of 2012 1. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Sh. D.K. Sidhu, PPS Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant Gurpreet Singh. The same is taken on record. 2. The applicant/appellant Gurpreet Singh in the incident that occurred on 21.6.2008 at about 5.30 p.m. is said to have inflicted a ‘sota’ blow on the left side of the head of Manjit Kaur near her ear. Manjit Kaur raised an alarm which attracted her husband Makhan Singh, her son Avtar Singh and also Boor Singh at the spot. They saved her with a great difficulty from the assailants. The applicant/appellant Gurpreet Singh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. His co-accused namely Balbir Kaur, Gurdev Kaur and Gura Singh have been acquitted. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. In terms of the affidavit that has been filed, the applicant/appellant has undergone imprisonment of one year, seven months and six days as on 29.11.2012. Initially, the applicant/appellant had filed Crl. Misc. No.64357 of 2012 for providing treatment for his eyes disease. Thereafter, on examination by the Medical Board it has been opined that the applicant/appellant is blind from both the eyes and is unable to perform daily routine work and other activities. Therefore, the present Crl. Misc. application has been filed for his suspension of sentence of imprisonment. A perusal of the report of the Medical Board, it has found on examination of the applicant/appellant as follows:- “On examining there is Pseudophakia both eyes (Intraocular lens implanted in both the eyes. 1. Vision : Right Eye Perception of light is doubtful and inaccurate that means right eye is blind. Left Eye Perception of light is accurate only. Hand movements close to face recognized only making him seriously visually handicapped. 2. Intraocular pressure raised in both the eyes indicating Glaucoma; a kind of blindness. Right Eye – 22.4 mm of Hg Left Eye – 21.9 mm of Hg High Intra Ocular Presssure means Glaucoma Both Eyes. Fundus : Retina shows both eyes having optic atrophy with central retina damaged (Maular scar) which comes under the category of 100% visually Handicapped i.e. Blind from both eyes. Right Eye – 22.4 mm of Hg Left Eye – 21.9 mm of Hg High Intra Ocular Presssure means Glaucoma Both Eyes. Fundus : Retina shows both eyes having optic atrophy with central retina damaged (Maular scar) which comes under the category of 100% visually Handicapped i.e. Blind from both eyes. Clinical Diagnosis : Optic atrophy both eyes with secondary Glaucoma (Seriously visually handicapped) which comes under the category of Bilateral Blindness & is not likely to improve. Prognosis and Outcome : Bilateral Blindness not likely to improve. Patient is unable to perform his day to day activities. He needs an attendant to help him mobility and daily routine work and other activities.” 4. A perusal of the above report shows that the applicant/appellant is indeed blind and unable to perform his daily routine work. Therefore, keeping in view the medical handicap of the applicant/appellant, it would be just and expedient in the facts and circumstances to suspend his sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant Gurpreet Singh shall during the pendency of the appeal remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ferozepur. CRM No. No.64357 of 2012 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that in view of the order passed today in CRM No.70576 of 2012 suspending the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant, he does not press the present Crl. Misc. application. 7. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. No. 64357 of 2012 is dismissed as withdrawn. ---------0.B.S.0------------