PRITHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN error which is being repeatedly noticed by us in various decisions has occurred in the instant case. In criminal trials this can create problems as indeed, a few days ago it was brought to our notice that a typographic error by the Trial Court has resulted in a convict set free on his appeal being allowed gained his freedom a week later when it was brought to our notice that the Trial Judge had wrongly typed the name of the accused and had not bothered to cross-check the same with reference to the challan filed. In the instant case the memo of parties of the impugned decision types the name of accused No.1 as Prithipal Singh, which name actually is Prithvi Pal Singh. This is the name recorded by the investigating officer in the charge-sheet and indeed is the name signed by the accused on all the recovery memos signed by Prithvi Pal Singh as also his arrest memo and the disclosure statement.

(2.) WE shall be issuing necessary directions in the concluding para so that in future such kind of mistakes do not occur. We would also highlight that while depositions are being recorded by learned Trial Judges, we are noting incorrect typing of the names of accused, victims and witnesses. The same is creating problem in appreciating the facts.

(3.) THE instant decision shall set to rest the fate of Crl.Appeal No.75/2004 filed by accused No.1 Prithvi Pal Singh who has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2003 passed by the learned Trial Judge convicting him and other co-accused Kailash Singh Bist, Rajiv Kumar@ Raju and Sonu for various offences under Sections 365/302/120-B IPC pertaining to the kidnapping and murder of Hemant Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). Vide order on sentence dated 22.12.2003, all the accused have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and have been directed to pay a fine in sum of Rs.5000.00 each for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine the accused have been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. For the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC, the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1000.00 each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. For the offence punishable under Section 120-B the accused have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine in sum of Rs.2,000.00, in default to undergo imprisonment for six months.