High CourtsSingle Bench

Ram Asra and Another vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 P&H CK 0063

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Saron, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 149, 307, 323, 326
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. 1769 of 2011 in CRA No. 2571-SB of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 690 words

S.S. Saron, J.—Affidavits of Sh. Daljit Singh Bhatti, Superintendent District Jail, Roopnagar mentioning the custody period of the Applicant-Ram Asra (Appellant No. 1) and Applicant- Jaspal Singh (Appellant No. 2) filed in court today are taken on record.

2.

Heard counsel for the parties.

3.

The Applicants/Appellants Ram Asra and Jaspal Singh seek suspension of sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal.

4.

Both the Applicants/Appellants have been convicted on 23.9.2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar for the commission of offence punishable u/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC; besides, Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 323 IPC. Vide order dated 25.9.2010 they have been sentenced to undergo various periods of sentences of imprisonment, the maximum being rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence u/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC; besides, to pay a fine of `2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The fine, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants/Appellants if not paid, shall be paid.

5.

In terms of the custody certificates, both the Applicants/Appellants upto 10.3.2011 have undergone imprisonment of 5 months and 13 days out of the sentence of 5 years. As on date, they have undergone imprisonment of about 7 months. There is no other case pending against them.

6.

In the incident that occurred on 12.9.2004, Gurbax Singh, complainant had a dispute with Joginder Singh whose land adjoins that of the Applicants/Appellants. Joginder Singh had brought the Halqa Patwari and Kanungo for carrying out demarcation. Gurbax Singh, complainant along with Bhag Singh, Panch, Sukhdev Singh, Panch and his son Sucha Singh were present in the fields at the time when demarcation proceedings were being conducted. One of the sons of Joginder Singh was also accompanying him. Surjit Singh, Ram Asra (Appellant No. 1) and Jaspal (Appellant No. 2) were present at the time of demarcation. The time was about 3.15 p.m. of 11.9.2004 when the demarcation was about to start. At that time, Sucha Singh son of Gurbax Singh, complainant claimed that one kanal of land belonging to them should be given to them. On this, the son of Joginder Singh (whose name was not known) hurled abuses for claiming as to how Sucha Singh was related to carrying out the demarcation work. Then said son of Joginder Singh took out a dagger from his waist pocket and gave blow on Sucha Singh which he warded off by raising his left hand, but the same hit on the thumb of his left hand. Sucha Singh was about to run away but he was apprehended by Surjit Singh, Ram Asra (Appellant No. 1), Jaspal (Appellant No. 2) and Joginder Singh. Thereafter, Joginder Singh (later named as Parminder Singh) gave a dagger blow on the chest of Sucha Singh with intent to kill him. After receipt of the blow on the right side of the chest of Sucha Singh, he fell unconscious on the ground. He was kicked while he lay on the ground. The complainant raised an alarm and in the meanwhile Sukhdev Singh, Panch and Bhag Singh, Panch also reached at the spot. Sucha Singh was saved by Sukhdev Singh and Bhag Singh, Panches. Thereafter, the assailants fled away in their car with their respective weapons. The vehicle was arranged for Sucha Singh and he was taken to PGI for treatment. The incident was occurred on account of the dispute regarding demarcation.

7.

There are arguable points in the appeal which would require consideration the time of final hearing. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. The Applicants/Appellants have undergone more than 7 months of imprisonment out of the sentence of 5 years.

8.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the Applicants/Appellants as has been imposed by the learned trial Court shall, during the pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roopnagar.