Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 226 (PNJ)

Jagdish Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-02-08

M.JEYAPAUL, S.S.SARON

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Learned State counsel has filed an affidavit of Shri Gurpal Singh Sarowa, PPS Superintendent, District Sudhar Ghar, Nabha mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant No. 2 - Baljinder Kaur w/o Jagdish Singh. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No. 2 – Baljinder Kaur during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The FIR in this case has been registered on the statement of Bhupinder Singh son of Surjit Singh who has inter alia alleged that on 23.6.2009 at about 5.30 p.m. Jagdish Singh (appellant No. 1) was armed with ‘Kahi’ while Baljinder Kaur (applicant/appellant No. 2) was armed with a stick. It was alleged that Baljinder Kaur gave blow with her stick to Sohan Singh (deceased), uncle of the complainant – Bhupinder Singh. It is, however, not mentioned as to on which part of the person of Sohan Singh (deceased) was he hit with the stick blow of Baljinder Kaur. Kahi blows from the sharp side on the head and face with intention to kill are attributed to Jagdish Singh (appellant No. 1). 5. Dr. Dushyant Satyapal (PW-13) has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sohan Singh. He found two lacerated wounds were present over the body, one over the right arm and other over the left knee and also a lacerated wound extending from chin to left mastoid; besides, this there was contusion seen over the scalp in the right side of size 6 x 5 cm. 6. Ranjit Singh (PW-9) in his deposition alleged that Baljinder Kaur (applicant/appellant No. 2) gave a dang blow on the person of Sohan Singh. He further stated that she gave dang blow on his shoulder and back. However, Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) stated that Baljinder Kaur (applicant/appellant No. 2) gave two dang blows on the head of Sohan Singh, deceased and he fell down. 7. There are arguable points in the appeal which would require consideration at the time of final hearing. There do appear to be some discrepancies in the depositions of Ranjit Singh (PW-9) and Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) with regard to the role attributed to Baljinder Kaur (applicant/appellant No.2). 8. 7. There are arguable points in the appeal which would require consideration at the time of final hearing. There do appear to be some discrepancies in the depositions of Ranjit Singh (PW-9) and Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) with regard to the role attributed to Baljinder Kaur (applicant/appellant No.2). 8. The applicant/appellant No. 2 has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC; besides, she has also been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. She has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for having committed the offence under Section 304 Part-1 read with Section 34 IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for having committed offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences, however, were ordered to be run concurrently. 9. In terms of affidavit of Shri Gurpal Singh Sarowa, PPS Superintendent District Sudhar Ghar, Nabha, the applicant/appellant No. 2 has undergone imprisonment of 2 years 6 months and 8 days as on 14.12.2011. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as also that there are arguable points in the appeal which require consideration, besides the fact that applicant/appellant No. 2 has undergone more than 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment out of the sentence of 10 years that has been imposed, it would be just and expedient that the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No. 2 during the pendency of the appeal, is suspended. 11. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No. 2 during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended subject to her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. -------------