Lalchand And Ors vs State

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Canvassing for bail to the appellants during pendency of the appeal, Mr. J.S. Khichi, learned defence counsel, vehemently and fervently urged that the

entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Smt. Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1), the sole prosecution eye-witness, was not even present at the spot when

the incident took place and she arrived later. The appellant-applicants herein were charged for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and are

not the principal offenders. The fatal sharp weapon injury inflicted to the deceased Balvindar Singh was assigned to Palaram. The recoveries effected

at the instance of the accused applicants are fabricated. He, thus, urges that the applicants deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of the

appeal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Khichi. He urges that the eye-witness

Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1) herself received injuries in the very same incident. She correctly identified the accused-applicants as being the assailants, who

caused innumerable injuries by blunt weapons on the head and facial region of her husband Balvindar Singh, in addition to the fact that Palaram

inflicted blow by a sharp weapon to Balvindar Singh. Drawing the court’s attention to the statements of medical officers Dr. Vijay Sharma

(P.W.13) and Dr. Priyanka Sharma (P.W.17), the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as many as 5 injuries (4 blunt and 1 incised) were

noticed by the medical officers on the head and facial region of the deceased, all of which were grievous in nature and cumulatively proved sufficient

to cause death. Thus, he urges that it is the case in which vicarious liability of the applicants is well-established for the murder of Balvindar Singh and

hence, they do not deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is apparent that there is

direct testimony of the first informant Jagveer Kaur against the appellant-applicants that they inflicted repeated blunt weapon injuries on the head and

facial region of the deceased. As per the medical evidence of the two medical officers Dr. Vijay Sharma (P.W.13) and Dr. Priyanka Sharma

(P.W.17), as many as five injuries, of which four were blunt and one was incised, were noticed on the head and face of the deceased, all of which

were associated with fractures. As per the evidence of Dr. Priyanka Sharma (P.W.17), the cumulative effect of these injuries resulted into death of

Balvindar Singh.

In this background, whether or not the recoveries would corroborate the involvement of the accused appellants would be for the court to consider at

the stage of final decision of the appeal, but presently, keeping in view the testimony of the injured eye-witness and the medical officers and looking to

the gravity and nature of the allegations, we are not inclined to suspend the sentences awarded the appellant-applicants. Accordingly, the application is

dismissed.