Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 578 (PNJ)

Arjun Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-04-18

M.JEYAPAUL, S.S.SARON

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Mr.Raj Kumar, Superintendent, District Jail, Kaithal, mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant no.5- Ompati. 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.5-Ompati, during the pendency of the appeal. 4. In the incident that occurred on 18.08.2009, it is alleged by the complainant Suresh that his brother Randhir Singh alias Dheera (deceased) was convicted in a murder case of village Karora police station Rajound 12 years ago. He had come on parole for the last 12 days. They had taken a plot from Arjun son of Thakur Dass resident of Afghan Patti after paying him Rs.25,000/- but there was no writing to that effect. However, they had started residing in the said plot along with their parents. They had also raised construction of their house and had been residing for the last three years. Arjun son of Thakur Das and his brother Ram Kishan etc. were pressurizing them to vacate the said plot which alleging that they had got the same without making any payment to them. On the date of the incident i.e. on 18.08.2009, Suresh-complainant along with his brother Randhir Singh alias Dheera (deceased), Bhim Singh (deceased) and his mother Chameli (PW2) had gone to the said plot for cleaning it. At about 9.00 a.m. Arjun son of Thakur, Ram Kishan son of Thakur, Dilbag and Pappu sons of Arjun armed with ‘Gandasis’, Ompati (applicant/appellant no.5) wife of Arjun, Guddi wife of Ram Kishan armed with ‘lathis’ came there raising ‘lalkara’ saying that the complainant side be taught a lesson for not vacating their plot. The said persons started abusing the complainant side. This was resented by the complainant side. In the altercation that ensued, both the parties reached out in the street near the house of Rati Ram son of Puran Chand. Arjun inflicted ‘gandasi’ blow on the left side of the head of Suresh (complainant), Pappu son of Thakur inflicted injuries with ‘gandasi’ and gave a blow on the head of Randhir Singh (deceased), Dilbag inflicted ‘gandasi’ blow on the knee of Chameli (PW2). Arjun then asked his son Dilbag to bring his gun and shoot them. Arjun inflicted ‘gandasi’ blow on the left side of the head of Suresh (complainant), Pappu son of Thakur inflicted injuries with ‘gandasi’ and gave a blow on the head of Randhir Singh (deceased), Dilbag inflicted ‘gandasi’ blow on the knee of Chameli (PW2). Arjun then asked his son Dilbag to bring his gun and shoot them. Dilbag son of Arjun brought the licensed gun of his father and fired 4-5 shots on Bhim Singh and Randhir Singh alias Dheera. As a result of which Bhim Singh and Randhir Singh alias Dheera died at the spot. Saroj wife of Randhir Singh, Nirmala wife of Bhim Singh had come at the spot and they were slapped and given fist blows. Guddi wife of Ram Kishan and Ompati (applicant/appellant no.5) wife of Arjun also inflicted injuries with ‘lathies’ on the person of Chameli (PW2). A number of persons had gathered at the spot. On seeing, them, the assailants fled away with their respective weapons. 5. The role that has been attributed to the applicant/appellant no.5 Ompati is that she inflicted injuries with ‘lathies’ on the person of Chameli (PW2). No injury has been attributed to her on the persons of the deceased Bhim Singh and Randhir Singh. The applicant-appellant no.5 has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section149 IPC. 6. According to learned counsel for applicant-appellant no.5, the applicant-appellant no.5 has been implicated only to inflate the prosecution case. It is submitted that in fact the complainant side was the aggressor, besides, the prosecution has failed to explain the genesis of the occurrence. It is submitted that the medical evidence shows the false implication of applicant-appellant no.5. Chameli (PW2) to whom injuries were allegedly caused by the applicantappellant no.5. As per the medico legal report (Ex.PX), Chameli (PW2) had suffered four injuries. Two of the injuries are complain of pain and tenderness on the right shoulder, and left upper arm and shoulder besides incised wound on the right knee and an abrasion on the dorsal aspect of left hand. It is not specifically mentioned as to which injury applicant-appellant no.5 had inflicted although she is said to be armed with a ‘lathi’ and is alleged to have given ‘lathi’ blows to Chameli (PW2). 7. It is not specifically mentioned as to which injury applicant-appellant no.5 had inflicted although she is said to be armed with a ‘lathi’ and is alleged to have given ‘lathi’ blows to Chameli (PW2). 7. In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant-appellant no.5 is too less, besides it is a case of two murders. It is submitted that applicant-appellant no.5 has raised a plea of alibi but the same has not been established. The common intention of the convicts to commit murder has been held to have been proved by the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is submitted that no ground is made out for suspending her sentence of imprisonment. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. 9. In terms of affidavit of Mr.Raj Kumar, Superintendent, District Jail, Kaithal, the applicant/appellant No.5-Ompati has undergone imprisonment of 10 months and 26 days as on 17.04.2012. However, the role attributed to her is that she caused injuries on the person of Chameli (PW2), who is mother of the complainant Suresh. It is not mentioned as to which specific injury was caused by the applicant-appellant No.5 on the person of Chameli. In any case admittedly she is not attributed to have caused any injury on the persons of deceased Bhim Singh and Randhir Singh. The question whether she had the common intention to commit murder of Bhim Singh and Randhir Singh and also as regards to the possession of the plot are to be considered and gone into at the time of final hearing of this appeal. The learned trial Court has held that the plot in dispute was in possession of the complainant side. But according to learned counsel for the applicantappellant no.5, the same would require consideration. It may be noticed that applicant-appellant no.5 is a lady and in the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 19.08.2003 it is mentioned that she was 62 years of age. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of her imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal. 10. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of her imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of applicant/appellant No.5-Ompati, 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, Kaithal. ---------0.B.S.0------------