KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the applicant-appellants have sought suspension of sentence as they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 341 all read with Section 149 IPC and the maximum sentence awarded was imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.

(2.) The allegations in FIR No.224 dated 27.11.2011 under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 341 all read with Section 149 IPC registered at Police Station City, Sunam, District Sangrur were that on 26.11.2011, a message was received on the telephone in the Police Station that the fight had taken place among the students of SUS College, Sunam. The police went there and found that one person had suffered injuries, who had been taken to the hospital. That person was Karamjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, whose statement could not be recorded, as the medical opinion was that he was not fit to make the statement. His brother Sumanjit Singh made statement to the police that on the relevant day, he along with his cousin Ram Singh went to meet his brother Karamjit Singh in SUS College, where he was the President of the Students' Union. All of them and one Avtar Singh were talking when at about 11.30 am, Mukesh Kumar alias Glodru, Hardev Singh alias Seetu, Anil Kumar, Pala, Billu and Kuldeep Singh, who were armed with rods, came there. They surrounded Karamjit Singh and injured him seriously with the intention to kill him.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant-appellant Anil Kumar argued that the said appellant was neither convicted nor held guilty but was sentenced and, therefore, the matter should be remanded to the trial Court. He referred to para 71 of the judgment where Jaspal Singh, Hardev Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Preet Pandit and Balwinder Singh alias Billu were held guilty and convicted for the offences mentioned above. Also Section 323 was typed twice instead of 323 in the one place and 324 in the other. Counsel submitted that the same was typographical error. It is seen from the tenor of the judgment that a detailed discussion was made that the court was convinced about the role of the assailants and the order of sentence also shows that the name of Anil Kumar was specifically mentioned and the sentence awarded to him for all the offences was mentioned in detail. Even though the sentence for all the convicts was the same, name of each person was mentioned along with the sentence. It is, therefore, clear that the name of Anil Kumar not finding mention in para 71 of the judgment was an inadvertent omission and it does not constitute any ground for remanding the case.