Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2465 (PNJ)

Manish v. State of Haryana

2016-09-06

LISA GILL, S.S.SARON

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the State has filed custody certificate verified by Shri Tej Singh, Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Rohtak mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by applicant/appellant-Manish. 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-Manish during pendency of the appeal. 4. FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Raj Kumar @ Raju Jain (complainant), father of the deceased Shubham Jain. The complainant made his statement before SI Pritam Singh, Incharge Police Post, Arya Nagar, Rohtak on 22.04.2009. According to the complainant, his younger son Shubham Jain (deceased in the case) was a student of 10+2 Commerce at MGM School, Arya Nagar, Rohtak. He was aged 17 years. He used to go his school at 7.30 am and return by 11.30 am. The complainant used to go to his shop at 9.00 am and return by 8.00 pm daily. The complainant on 22.04.2009 went to his shop as usual. His wife Poonam Jain informed him on telephone at about 7.20 pm that she had gone to meet her mother-in-law Shanti Devi at Shastri Nagar, Rohtak at about 5.15 pm. Shubham Jain (deceased) was sleeping in his room at that time. When she returned at about 7.15 pm, then she found the gate and window were open; besides, door of the drawing room was also open. Shubham (deceased) was lying in the lobby in a pool of blood. There were injuries on his face, neck, chest, arms. It seemed that these injuries were inflicted with a knife, besides, there were fire arm injuries. Some unknown person had committed the murder of his son by entering in the house. The mobile phone of Shubham (deceased) and keys of the house were found missing. The mobile number of Shubham was given. On this complaint, formal FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 449, 201 read with Section 34 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. 5. During investigation, one Ganpat gave a statement to the effect that on 22.04.2009 Lalit and Manish (applicant/ appellant) were seen coming out from the house of Shubham Jain (deceased) at about 6.00 pm. 5. During investigation, one Ganpat gave a statement to the effect that on 22.04.2009 Lalit and Manish (applicant/ appellant) were seen coming out from the house of Shubham Jain (deceased) at about 6.00 pm. He was a witness of last seen of the accused, who were seen coming out of the house of Shubham Jain (deceased) on 22.04.2009. However, Ganpat was not examined during trial of the case. 6. Jagjit Singh (PW-5) deposed in Court that about two years earlier to his deposition, Police officials came to him one day and showed him his identity proof against which some one is stated to have obtained a SIM card. The ID was a copy of his ration card, which was with the police but on the form shown to him, there was a photograph of some other person. He stated that he did not know as to on whose name the said SIM had been issued. He did not know how that person had obtained copy of his ration card. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and he did not support the prosecution case. 7. A mobile phone was recovered from Manish (applicant/ appellant) in pursuance of his disclosure statement, from his house. Manish (applicant/appellant) faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC with regard to production of fake identity of Jagjit Singh (PW-5), which was produced by DSP Yashpal Singh (PW-24). However, Jagjit Singh (PW-5) as already noticed did not support the prosecution case. 8. In pursuance of disclosure statements of the accused, recovery of suit-case, weapon of the offence knife, ‘sua’ (ice-pick), articles in the suit-case, blood stained cloth, ‘chappal’ (slippers) etc. were effected. The learned trial Court in its impugned order observed that both the accused had totally denied the fact of recoveries in pursuance of their disclosure statements and they did not explain the recoveries that were effected from them. This was held to be an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. However, according to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant- Manish, the joint disclosure statements alleged to have been made by Manish (applicant/appellant) and Lalit (accused No. 1) led to the recovery of suitcase and mobile phone of the deceased in fact were foisted and in any case not liable to be read in evidence. However, according to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant- Manish, the joint disclosure statements alleged to have been made by Manish (applicant/appellant) and Lalit (accused No. 1) led to the recovery of suitcase and mobile phone of the deceased in fact were foisted and in any case not liable to be read in evidence. It is submitted that the present case is one of blind murder and circumstantial evidence, which the prosecution has failed to prove. 9. The parents and younger brother of the deceased Shubham Jain namely Raj Kumar (PW-7), Poonam (PW-8) and Ayush (PW-9) appeared in the case but they admittedly are not the eyewitnesses and they did not name any one as the person who committed the murder of Shubham Jain. 10. In terms of the affidavit that has been filed in Court today, the applicant/appellant-Manish has undergone actual imprisonment of seven years, four months and eight days as on 05.09.2016. The case is on the regular board of this Bench. However, its turn is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. 11. In the case of Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 316 (DB) (P&H), it has been held that listing of an appeal on Board, of a particular Bench, should not be an impediment for exercise of the concession of bail. 12. Therefore, keeping in view the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant-Manish and the fact that the appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant-Mansih during pendency of the appeal. 13. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/ appellant-Manish shall, during pendency of the appeal remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.