SURJIT SINGH ALIAS BAGGA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of applicant-appellant Surjit Singh alias Bagga. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the applicant-appellant has undergone 5 months of imprisonment out of the sentence of 3 years; besides, the material witness Surjit Singh (PW-7) who was driver of the Qualis vehicle did not support the prosecution version. A reference has been made to his statement (Annexure-A.2). In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the applicant-appellant in all respects and at this stage the applicant-appellant is not entitled to the concession of suspension of sentence.

(2.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of Cr. Misc. No.32620 of 2010 in the learned counsel for the parties. It may be noticed that FIR in the case was registered on the basis of secret information received by the Police personnel who were present at G.T. road, Barmalipur headed by SI Balwinder Singh. The information was to the effect that Surjit Singh (appellant-applicant) and Amar Singh alias Raju were habitual of stealing cars and both of them were travelling in a Toyota Qualis vehicle. The information was found to be reliable and a memo was sent to the Police Station for registration of a FIR for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. A check-post was set-up and during checking the Qualis vehicle of which information was given came and it was signalled to stop. The accused-Surjit Singh (appellant-applicant) and Amar Singh alias Raju were sitting in the vehicle. On being asked to produce proof regarding ownership of the vehicle, they could not produce. Both of them during interrogation admitted that they had stolen the vehicle with the help of Shanti Devi and Sarswati. They further disclosed that they had hired the vehicle for going from Chandigarh to Ludhiana and Phagwara but on the way near Samrala they stopped on a Dhaba where some intoxicant was administered to Surjit Singh (PW-7) driver of the vehicle by mixing it in his cold drink. The owner of the vehicle Pawan Kumar had already got FIR No.155 dated 16.7.2004 registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana against his driver Surjit Singh (PW-7).

(3.) During investigation, Pawan Sharma (PW-2) identified his vehicle and he took the vehicle on spurdari. He stated that Surjit Singh (PW-7) was employed by him as driver on 2.12.2004. Pawan Sharma (PW- 2) along with Randhir Singh had gone to Police Station Payal when he came Cr. Misc. No.32620 of 2010 in to know that the vehicle had been recovered by the Police. The vehicle at that time had a fake number. The vehicle was identified through its engine and chassis numbers. The fact that Surjit Singh did not support the prosecution case is not of much significance as the vehicle was recovered from the possession of the appellant-applicant and his co-accused Amar Singh alias Raju. The appellant-applicant had administered some poisonous substance to Surjit Singh (PW-7) driver of the vehicle. However, it may be noticed that FIR No.155 dated 16.7.2004 was registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana against Surjit Singh (PW-7). Therefore, in case he did not support the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the applicantappellant is entitled to the suspension of sentence at this stage. The period of imprisonment undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case would not entitle the appellant-applicant to suspension of sentence at this stage.