Kuldip Singh and another vs State of Punjab

Learned State counsel has filed affidavit of Shri Surinder Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant No. 2-Daljit Singh. The same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No. 2-Daljit Singh during the pendency of the appeal.

In the incident that occurred on 21.10.2006 at about 9.30 pm, it is alleged by the complainant-Davinder Singh that his son Satpal Singh (deceased) had come at village Jandoke on the 10th of the previous month. On the 10th of evening, Satpal Singh (deceased) and younger son of the complainant namely Jasbir Singh also visited the village. The complainant and his sons namely Satpal Singh (deceased) and Jasbir Singh, brother Sukhdev Singh and nephew Charanjit Singh were talking amongst themselves while Kuldip Singh (appellant No. 1) came in front of their house and started raising a noise. They all came out and objected to his doing so. Then Kuldip Singh (appellant No. 1) ran towards his house and after some time he came armed with a ''datar'' along with Sahib Singh (since acquitted) carrying a ''gandasi'', Amandeep Singh (since acquitted) empty handed. Daljit Singh (applicant/appellant No. 2) had a ''kirpan'', Partap Singh (appellant No. 1 in Crl. Appeal No. D-1055-DB of 2007) was carrying a ''dang'' came there and all of them started making a noise in front of their house. The complainant asked them not to raise a noise. At that time Amandeep Singh @ Soni (since acquitted) raised a ''lalkara'' saying that they would teach them a lesson for raising a noise. Sahib Singh (since acquitted) gave a ''gandasi'' blow to the complainant-Davinder Singh on his left arm and palm from its reverse side. Partap Singh (appellant No. 1 in Crl. Appeal No. D-1055-DB of 2007) gave a ''dang'' blow to Jasbir Singh on his forehead. Sukhdev Singh brother of the complainant and Charanjit Singh nephew of the complainant saved them from the accused. In the meanwhile, Raja (appellant No. 2 in Crl. Appeal No. D-1055-DB of 2007) gave a ''dang'' blow to Charanjit Singh on his right arm. All the accused dragged Satpal Singh (deceased) son of the complainant and then Daljit Singh (applicant/appellant No. 2) gave a ''kirpan'' blow to Satpal Singh on his right leg and he fell down. Then Kuldip Singh (appellant No. 1) gave a ''gandasi'' blow on his left leg. Raja (appellant No. 2 in Crl. Appeal No. D-1055-DB of 2007) gave dang blow to Satpal Singh on his back. Sukhdev Singh, Charanjit Singh and Jasbir Singh raised an alarm of being killed and then all the accused ran away with their respective weapons. The complainant brought Satpal Singh to his house. After arranging a vehicle, the complainant got Satpal Singh admitted in a Hospital at Tarn Taran where he died.

As per the deposition of Dr. Ranbir Singh Dhillon (PW-3) who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Satpal Singh, he found four/five injuries on his person. Injury No. 5 on the right leg had resulted in cutting of major blood vessels of the leg resulting in hemorrhage and shock. The death is opined to be as a result of said injury No. 5 which was on the back of knee joint and it was a cut of palatial region of the right leg and large vessels had been cut. The applicant/appellant No. 2-Daljit Singh was convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC while the others namely Kuldip Singh, Partap Singh and Jagtar Singh were convicted for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The offence u/s 148 IPC has been held to be not made out. Amandeep Singh and Sahib Singh were acquitted. Partap Singh and Jagtar Singh who were armed with ''dang'' were held guilty for the offence u/s 323 IPC; besides, Kuldip Singh (appellant No. 1) and Daljit Singh (applicant/appellant No. 2) were held guilty for the offence u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

The role attributed to Daljit Singh (applicant/appellant No. 2) is that he had inflicted the fatal injury on the right leg of deceased Satpal Singh. However, according to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant No. 2, the applicant/appellant No. 2 has undergone imprisonment of more than five years which includes more than four years post conviction. Therefore, his case is covered by the parameters laid down in the case of Dharam Pal versus State of Haryana 1999 (4) RCR Cri 600 (DB) (P & H): besides, it is submitted that even if conviction is not set aside and the applicant/appellant No. 2 is not acquitted, his case in any case is liable to be considered for the offence u/s 304 IPC as there is no prior enmity and the injury inflicted is a single injury on a non-vital part i.e. on the right leg of the deceased Satpal Singh.

In response, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant/appellant No. 2 is the main accused as it is due to the injury caused by him that Satpal Singh died.

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the applicant/appellant No. 2 has undergone imprisonment of five years, two months and thirteen days as on 27.07.2012; besides, he has undergone imprisonment of four years two months and eight days post conviction. Therefore, the case of the applicant/appellant No. 2 is covered by the guidelines laid down in Dharam Pal''s case (supra). There are arguable points in the case which would require consideration at the time of final hearing. The question regarding Section 304 IPC in case the conviction is not to be set aside may also require consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Therefore, it would in the facts and circumstances be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No. 2 during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant No. 2-Daljit 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, Tarn Taran.