Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1152 (PNJ)

Ram Kishan Gujjar v. State of Haryana

2017-05-10

INDERJIT SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Inderjit Singh, J. CRM No. 12702 of 2017 The applicant-appellant has filed this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Notice of the application was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the application. 3. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant argued in detail on the points that there is no cogent evidence on the record to prove the criminal conspiracy qua present applicant Ram Kishan Gujjar. He further argued that applicant-appellant was not charged under Section 120-B IPC and the findings given by the Court below that accused has not led any evidence to rebut the prosecution evidence, are against the law. He argued that accused has right to keep silent during the trial and the prosecution is to prove its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant shown the findings given by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, qua this argument where the Court held that the accused has not led evidence to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. He next argued that even in the FIR got registered by the deceased, there was no mention that other accused have chased or gave beatings to him at the instance of applicant Ram Kishan Gujjar, who was MLA at that time. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer, is incomplete and not signed or thumb marked by the deceased and in that dying declaration, it is stated by the deceased that for his this condition, accused Ram Kishan Gujjar is responsible but when the Investigating Officer was cross-examined, he admitted that father of the deceased was coming to the room where deceased was admitted, time and again and telling the patient to specifically name Ram Kishan Gujjar only and the Investigating Officer asked the doctor to restrain him from coming inside the room. It is next contended that as regarding other suicide note stated to be written by the deceased, no Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert has been examined to compare the handwriting of deceased with his standard handwriting. It is next contended that as regarding other suicide note stated to be written by the deceased, no Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert has been examined to compare the handwriting of deceased with his standard handwriting. Only one witness has been examined, who is cousin of the deceased but his cross-examination shows that he was not familiar with the handwriting and signatures of deceased nor he deposed that he is familiar with the handwriting of the deceased or has seen him writing and signing. It is also argued that this witness was even not knowing that upto which class, the deceased has studied and they had not studied together in the school. This witness also not worked with the accused or resided together. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant argued that there is no evidence of criminal conspiracy on the record to show the involvement of present applicant. The allegations in this case are only that other main accused gave beatings or harassed the deceased at the instance of present applicant. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that no strong motive has been alleged by the prosecution against the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant argued that other co-accused namely Ajit Aggarwal and Vijay Aggarwal have harassed the deceased at the instance of present-applicant. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and after going through the record, I find that main appeal petition has been admitted on 23.03.2017, which is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, and in view of the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and from the perusal of the record, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of applicant-appellant during the pendency of appeal shall remain suspended and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ambala. CRM No.10031 of 2017 8. CRM No.10031 of 2017 8. The applicant-appellant has filed this application under Section 357 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for stay of recovery of compensation from the applicant-appellant during the pendency of the appeal. 9. Notice of the application was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the application. 10. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant argued that learned trial Court has granted the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the victim without discussing anything as to how the Court reached to the conclusion of granting above compensation. The Court below has not discussed the age of the victim to whom the compensation was granted nor any other circumstance, like income etc. has been taken note of. Therefore, he argued that the recovery of compensation amount being excessive should be stayed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the applicant-appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs out of Rs. 5 lakhs within 10 days from receiving of certified copy of this order, before the trial Court as ordered, and learned trial Court will disburse the compensation to the victim after taking surety. The remaining compensation amount of Rs. 3 lakhs shall remain stayed till the decision of the appeal. 13. The application stands disposed of accordingly.