Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 423 (PNJ)

Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-03-05

M.JEYAPAUL, S.S.SARON

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Mr. Rachhpal Singh, P.P.S., Superintendent Central Jail, Amritsar, mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant no.4-Amrik 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 applicant/appellant no.4-Amrik Singh, during the pendency of the appeal. 4. In the incident that occurred on 29.3.2007 at 8.00 p.m., no role has been attributed by complainant Surjit Singh in the F.I.R., to applicant/appellant no.4-Amrik Singh. However, Jagtar Singh (PW3) in his deposition in Court stated that Amrik Singh (applicant/appellant no.4) gave a ‘dang’ blow on his person. According to the prosecution case, the accused Mohinder Singh (appellant no.2), Gian Singh (appellant no.3), Amrik Singh (applicant/appellant no.4) and Karamjit Singh (appellant no.5) were members of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object with Kulbir Singh (appellant no.1) in the commission of the murder of Ranjit Singh and as such they were held liable for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment of co-accused namely Mohinder Singh (appellant no.2) and Gian Singh (appellant no.3) was suspended by this Court vide order dated on 20.12.2011, passed in Criminal Misc.No.60951 of 2011. 5. In the incident that occurred on 29.3.2007, no role has been attributed to applicant/appellant no.4-Amrik Singh by the complainant Surjit Singh. Jagtar Singh (PW3) has stated that Gian Singh (appellant no.3.) gave a ‘dang’ blow on his head and face, Amrik Singh (applicant/appellant no.4) gave a ‘dang’ blow on his body and Mohinder Singh (appellant no.2) also gave a ‘dang’ blow on his body. Dr.Maninder Singh (PW8) had medico legally examined Jagtar Singh (PW3). He found eight injuries on his person. However, Jagtar Singh (PW3) was examined by Dr.Maninder Singh (PW8) on 10.4.2007 i.e. after about 11 days of the incident. The injuries no.1 to 8 on the person of Jagtar Singh (PW3) were caused by blunt weapon and injury nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 were declared simple in nature whereas injury no.4 was kept for dental opinion. Injury no.4 was opined to be grievous but the duration of the injury could not be ascertained. The said injury no.4 in any case is not attributed to Amrik Singh (applicant/appellant no.4). 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 were declared simple in nature whereas injury no.4 was kept for dental opinion. Injury no.4 was opined to be grievous but the duration of the injury could not be ascertained. The said injury no.4 in any case is not attributed to Amrik Singh (applicant/appellant no.4). Amrik Singh is said to have hit with a ‘dang’ on the body of Jagtar Singh (PW3). According to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant no.4, the applicant/appellant no.4 was granted anticipatory bail during trial. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be ascertained at the time of time final hearing of the appeal as to whether the applicant/appellant no.4 had shared the common object with Kulbir Singh (appellant no.1) in committing the murder of Ranjit Singh. As regards the injuries inflicted with a ‘dang’ on the person of Jagtar Singh (PW3), it may be noticed that an injury on the head of Jagtar Singh was attributed to Mohinder Singh (appellant no.2). The said injury being simple in nature, his sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by this Court. 7. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. In terms of the affidavit of Mr.Rachhpal Singh, P.P.S., Superintendent Central Jail, Amritsar, the applicant/appellant No.4 has undergone imprisonment of 10 months and 26 days as on 29.2.2012. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.4-Amrik Singh, during the pendency of the appeal. 8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No.4-Amrik Singh, 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, Amritsar. ---------0.B.S.0------------