IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA- ___________of 2024

MEMO OF PARTIES

Sumit aged about 26 years son of Satbir Singh Resident of Village

Buana Lakhu, Police Station Israna, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat

(Now confined in District Jail Panipat)

…Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CHANDIGARH (AJAY KRIPAL SINGH)

DATED:10.02.2024 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA- ___________________of 2024

Sumit …Appellant
Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

INDEX
SR.
PARTICULARS DATED PAGES
NO.
1. Urgent Form 25.01.2024 --
2. Application U/s 482 for Stay of Fine. 25.01.2024 4-6
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C seeking 25.01.2024
3. exemption from filing Certified/True 7-8
typed/more legible copies.
5. Opening Sheet 25.01.2024 9
6. Grounds of appeal 25.01.2024 10-26
7. Memo of parties 25.01.2024 27
8.
Judgment and Order of sentence
29.11.2023
passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, 28-78
04.12.2023
Gurdaspur

ANNEXURE-A1
01.12.2021
9. (Copy of the deposition of 79-82
31.01.2022
Complainant/PW1 Amarjit Singh)
ANNEXURE-A2
09.12.2021
10. (Copy of Testimony of PW2 Jatinder 83-87
31.01.2022
Singh)
ANNEXURE-A3
22.12.2021
11. (Copy of Deposition of PW3 Manjit 88-91
09.03.2022
Kaur )
ANNEXURE-A4
01.06.2018
(Copy of the deposition of PW4 Dr.
12. 92-94
Amrinder Singh and PW5 Dr. Raj 09.03.2022
Masih)
ANNEXURE-A5
28.08.2021
(Copy of Deposition of PW13
13. 07.06.2023 95
Sudesh kumar along with copy of
05.10.2023
Inquiry report)
ANNEXURE-A6
14. (Copy of Deposition of DW2 18.10.2023 96
Charanjit Singh)
15. POWER OF ATTORNEY --- 97

Note: Similar case of any : Nil

Any Sitting/Former MP/MLA Involved : No.

CHANDIGARH (AJAY KRIPAL SINGH)

DATED:10.02.2024 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA- ___________________of 2024

Sumit …Appellant
Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

Total Court Fee Rs.

_______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

CHANDIGARH (AJAY KRIPAL SINGH)

DATED:10.02.2024 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
 IN THE HON’BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH

To

The Addl. Registrar,

High Court, Chandigarh.

TITLE OF CASE

CRA- ___________________of 2024

Sumit …Appellant
Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying petitions as an urgent

one in accordance with the provision of Rule 9, Chapter 3-A, Rules
and Order High Court, Volume V.

1. The grounds of urgency are:

Yours faithfully,

CHANDIGARH (AJAY KRIPAL SINGH)

DATED:10.02.2024 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM_____________ of 2024

In: CRA- ___________________of 2024

Sumit …Appellant
Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C. FOR STAY OF FINE

IMPOSED UPON THE APPELLANT.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by the appellant before

this Hon’ble Court along with appeal filed by the applicant/appellant

assailing the order of conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2023 passed by

Ld. Trial Court/ Ld. Sessions Judge Panipat whereby the appellant has

been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinafter below in case FIR

No. 581 Dated 07.10.2022 U/S 323, 325, 307 read with 34 IPC registered

at P.S. Israna District Panipat which likely to succeed on the grounds

mentioned therein.

2. That the appellant has been sentenced by the Ld. Trial Court as follows:-

Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of

payment of fine

323 r/w Rigorous Rs.5000/- Rigorous

section 34 of imprisonment each imprisonment of six

 IPC for one year months

325 r/w Rigorous Rs.5000/- Rigorous

section 34 of imprisonment each imprisonment of six

IPC for three years months

307 r/w Rigorous Rs.10,000/- Rigorous

section 34 of imprisonment each imprisonment of one

IPC for seven years year

All the aforementioned sentences were directed to run concurrently and

the period of imprisonment undergone during the investigation, Inquiry or

trial of the case was directed to be set off against the substantive sentence

of imprisonment as per law.

3. That the appellant is a poor person having old aged parents. The appellant

is the only bread earner in the family.

4. That the appellant is not in a condition to deposit the amount of fine

imposed upon him as he has no source of income.

5. That if the fine imposed upon the appellant is not stayed then the appellant

will suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any

manner.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present application may

kindly be accepted and the fine imposed upon the appellant may kindly be

stayed, in the interest of justice.

Note: Affidavit is not necessary as the appellant is in custody.

CHANDIGARH (AJAY KRIPAL SINGH)
DATED:10.02.2024 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. That the present appeal is preferred against the judgment of order of

conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2023 passed by Ld.

Sessions Judge, Panipat in case FIR No.581 dated 07.10.2022

under sections 323, 325, 307 & 34 of IPC registered at P.S.

Israna, District Panipat .

2. That the appellant has been sentenced by the Ld. Trial Court as follows:-

Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of

payment of fine

323 r/w Rigorous Rs.5000/- Rigorous

section 34 of imprisonment each imprisonment of six

IPC for one year months

325 r/w Rigorous Rs.5000/- Rigorous

section 34 of imprisonment each imprisonment of six

IPC for three years months

307 r/w Rigorous Rs.10,000/- Rigorous

section 34 of imprisonment each imprisonment of one

IPC for seven years year

All the aforementioned sentences were directed to run concurrently and

the period of imprisonment undergone during the investigation, Inquiry or

trial of the case was directed to be set off against the substantive sentence

of imprisonment as per law.

3. That the judgment under appeal whereby the appellant has been convicted

is not sustainable as the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate and

examine the material on record in correct, legal and factual perspective.

It is apparent from close scrutiny of the judgment of conviction under

appeal and the material on record, that the seriousness of the charge has

clouded the objectivity and resulted in unwarranted conviction of the

appellant.

4. That the judgment under appeal is not sustainable as neither the issues on

facts nor those on law have been correctly examined. Neither the case of

the defense has been examined in a correct legal perspective while

evaluating the story as a whole nor have the different facts of the case

been scrutinized with the required objectivity and detachment. The

failure of the Ld. Trial Court to critically evaluate the prosecution

version in the light of the evidence on record has resulted in the failure

of justice.

5. That the Ld. Sessions Judge, Panipat has convicted the present appellant

in this case without appreciating the evidence on record and the defense

arguments have not been dealt with in the correct manner and

perspective by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order of

conviction and sentence against the present appellant. The impugned

judgment/order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eyes

of law and is liable to be set-aside on the grounds mentioned herein

below:-

a) That the case of the prosecution is based upon the statement suffered

by PW1 Bilender had made a statement to the Police that on

06.10.2022, when he was present in his fields, Sumit and Vinod came
 there and started taking liquor. He restrained them to do so, Upon

which they got enraged and left the spot. After some time they again

came to the sport. Vinod was carrying a Bitta while Summit was

carrying a knife. Vinod gave blows with Bitta on his head and Sumit

gave knife blows on his head. Vinod shouted upon which 2 or 3 more

persons caused him injuries with Dundas. Thereafter Vinod and his

accomplices gave him injuries repeatedly. Summit gave a brick blow

on his head. He became unconscious.

b) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that appellant has been

falsely implicated in the present case by PW-1 Billender Singh, PW- 2

Sahil in connivance with PWD-3 Sukrampal. Moreover, their

statements are contradictory and are not credible which creates a

shadow of doubt on the story of the prosecution case.

c) That it is apposite to mention here that the injured PW-1 Bilender went

to his fields on his bike in the month of October in the evening and it

was informed to his son PW-2 Sahil by PW-3 Bilender that his father

is lying unconscious in the fields in the morning, it is highly

unbelievable a family member who was not returned to home timely

was not tried to be searched by the family members. This story of the

prosecution creates a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version.

d) That it is apposite to mention here that as per the statements and cross-

examination of PW-2 and PW-3 who were stated to bring the injured

PW-1 Bilender to the Oscar Hospital it is pertinent to mention here

that the injured Bilender was found unconscious and in a pool of blood

even then PW-2 and PW-3 did not took him to the nearest hospital i.e.

P.G.I. Khanpur which is just 10 KMs from the place of occurrence, in

such situation the safety of life of a family member is of paramount

 consideration but PW-2 and PW-3 also not admitted him in the N.C.

Medical College, Israna which is only 5 KMs and on the way to

Panipat, nor they admitted him in the Civil Hospital Panipat which is

also on the way and prior to the Oscar Hospital Panipat.

e) That it is also pertinent to mention here that the MLR was conducted

in a private hospital as far as case of the prosecution with regard to the

injuries allegedly suffered by the victim Bilender being dangerous to

life was not based on reliable evidence as the opinion as to nature of

the injuries was obtained by the investigation officer from the doctor

of a private hospital while it should be sought from a Medical Officer

of a Civil Hospital.

f) That the Ld. Trial Court had erred in taking into consideration the

disclosure statements suffered by the Appellant were not admissible in

the eye of Law and in furtherance of the said disclosures the recoveries

of Knife and Binda which were effected are planted recoveries as from

where the recoveries were effected is an accessible place to all.

g) That the Ld. Trial also erred while taking into consideration that the

grave error was committed by the investigating agency as no blood

earth was lifted from the spot. The blood stained clothes of the injured

were not sent to FSL, the weapons which are allegedly used in the

commission of crime were not found blood stained and never sent to

FSL.

h) That apart from the bald evidence of complainant PW-1 as mentioned

herein-above, there are number of discrepancies in the statement of

prosecution witnesses such that the allegations against the accused

person/Appellant in the statement given by PW-1 Bilender are

extraneous as compared to the evidence which has been led by the

 prosecution because throughout the said evidence there is not even a

single evidence which would point out towards any motive of the

appellant to have caused the injuries to the victim. The case of the

prosecution rested merely upon the statements of the interested

witnesses, as there was no independent witnesses were ever joined and

nothing was collected by the prosecution which can corroborate the

statemeents of interested witnesses.

i) That the Ld. Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that there

is nothing with the prosecution or independent evidence to corroborate

the statements of the police witnesses as to recovery of Knife and

wooden Danda specially in the absence of FSL Report, opinion of

Government Hospital and any other scientific report.

j) That the Ld. Trial Court has also failed to put all the incriminating

evidence led by the prosecution to the appellant while recording his

statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C which caused a material prejudice to the

appellant. The appellant is totally innocent and deserves to be

acquitted on the basis of the facts brought forth before this Hon’ble

Court.

5. That no such or similar appeal has been filed by the appellant either in

this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

In view of the submissions made above it is respectfully prayed that

the present appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the

charges in the interest of justice.

Note: Affidavit is not necessary as the appellant is in custody.

CHANDIGARH (AJAY KRIPAL SINGH)
DATED:10.02.2024 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER