Kewal Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Amol Rattan Singh, J.—Three applicants-appellants in this appeal are seeking suspension of the one year sentence imposed upon each of them, for an offence punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 IPC, for causing injuries to two persons, with sharp edged weapons. The sentence had been ordered to be suspended by the learned trial court itself, for a limited period, in order to enable them to file the present appeal. The case arises as a cross version to the FIR registered at the instance of appellant No. 1, Kewal Singh, against Jagtar Singh and others, on account of the injuries caused by the said persons to the person of the appellants and their brother Hansa Singh, who succumbed to such injuries, resulting in the FIR being registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/341/324 read with Section 34 IPC against the said persons.

All the said persons have been convicted for the above stated offences and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with lighter sentence for lesser offences.

Though the present application is only for suspension of sentence for an offence punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 IPC, the matter was heard and reserved in order to determine the exact role of each person in the case registered vide the FIR, as also its cross-version.

Learned trial court held that the occurrence was a free fight and neither of the sides caused injuries to other in the exercise of the right of self defence. In fact, being armed with ''gandasas'' and rods, they were all liable, though obviously, the culpability of the other side (opposite to the present appellants), was of extreme nature, as it resulted in the death of the brother of the appellants.

A perusal of the judgment shows that, other than the injuries caused on deceased Hansa Singh, the injuries on the persons of the appellants, as also the accused in the FIR, are of similar nature, having been caused by the sharp edged weapons in the region of the head. As such, the sentence otherwise would not deserve to be, in my opinion, suspended at this stage.

However, since it is a sentence of one years'' imprisonment, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharth Jain Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi through Commissioner of Police and has vehemently argued that in normal circumstances, upon admission of the appeal, a sentence of upto 3 years imprisonment, should be suspended.

In view of the above, the sentence of the appellants is suspended during the pendency of the appeal. They would continue to remain on bail on the bail bonds already furnished by them before the trial court. The application is, accordingly, allowed.