APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
RESPONDENT
.IN
WITH
APPELLANT
EL
VERSUS
AW
RESPONDENT
IV
STATE OF PUNJAB
.L
JUDGMENT
W
W
AMITAVA ROY, J.
The appellants, two out of the six persons, convicted
under Sections 364A, 395, 412, 471, 120B IPC and the
appellant-Harpal Singh @ Chhota in Criminal Appeal No.2539
of 2014 also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, hereby impeach
the affirmation of their conviction by the High Court by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2016.11.21
17:04:27 IST
Reason:
the
appellants
were
indicted
of
the
charges
AW
2.
.IN
Mr.
EL
IV
3.
.L
W
W
duty,
he
received
secret
information
that
on
No.10
dated
11.01.2008
under
the
.IN
AW
EL
had kidnapped him, tied his hands and bundled him in the
IV
.L
ransom and took him in the house of Rupinder Pal Singh from
He claimed to have
W
W
identified the places where he had been kept captive and also
the places to which he had been shifted in between.
The statements of the victim and his father Subhash
Mahendru were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On
pursuing the investigation, the police also visited the place
from where the victim had been kidnapped.
98151-58151
98151 58161
EL
AW
.IN
IV
.L
W
W
.IN
AW
EL
IV
.L
The
W
W
the
completion
of
the
investigative
drill,
.IN
467, 468, 471, 474, 120B IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms
As hereto before
AW
stated, Gurinder Singh @ Ginda died during the trial and the
EL
IV
94636-12914 had
.L
W
W
to
alleged political vendetta to frame him in the case and that the
police had raided his house and had forcibly lifted Rs. 25 lakhs
appellants
and
their
co-accused
under
the
above
.IN
AW
EL
5.
IV
.L
W
W
suggested that the caller ought to get in touch with his father,
the
latter
insisted
for
necessary
discussion
with
him.
persons came in a Innova car and thereafter the victim and his
.IN
friend along with two persons proceeded in the car of the victim
AW
to survey the land. After the visit, they parted. The witness
deposed that thereafter on many occasions, the same caller
EL
.L
discussions.
IV
W
W
colony where the owner i.e the aunt referred to, used to reside.
The witness stated that he took the vehicle to the place as
directed. The person sitting by his side then pointed a revolver
on his ear. Almost immediately thereafter, a Honda City car,
driven at a high speed, pulled up in front of his car, wherefrom
4-5 persons alighted and attacked the victim.
The witness
placed on his face and a tape was pasted on his mouth. After
some time, his hands were also tied and he was forcibly put
.IN
into the dickey of the Honda City car. As the victim resisted,
After
AW
EL
hole in the rear seat of the car and the victim was asked to
IV
.L
victim talked to his father and acquainted him with his state
W
W
10
.IN
AW
EL
case, after his let off, he would disclose about the incident to
IV
.L
was intimated, that they had strong political links and even if
they were arrested, they would come out of custody soon and
W
W
11
by which
his hands were tied and the tape roll by which his mouth was
muzzled.
In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the
.IN
AW
EL
IV
.L
He
W
W
Sukhmeet Singh and Deputy was one and the same person.
He also conceded qua his earlier statement that at the time of
his release at Nakodar Chowk, he had not seen the appellant
Sukhmeet present there. He also admitted that there was no
test identification parade held and that he as well did not
furnish the physical features of the miscreants to the police.
12
.IN
Section
164
Cr.P.C.
AW
that
the
same
EL
is
The
IV
.L
Happy Bhajji,
Ginda,
W
W
deposed that at the time of the incident, his son was in real
estate
He admitted
that
13
morning for the said purpose. That on the same day, his son
had left for
stated by him.
.IN
Rs. 5 crores was demanded for his release. The witness stated
AW
that the caller also threatened him that if the money demanded
was not arranged, his son would be killed. Thereafter,
on his
EL
IV
.L
The witness
W
W
14
.IN
AW
EL
IV
witness
.L
W
W
train
15
.IN
when the train would slow down near an over-bridge, 3/4 k.m.
AW
EL
The abductors also assured them to release the victim after the
IV
.L
the place indicated, they threw away the two bags containing
W
W
The
16
was in
the
on 5/6 packets
AW
trial,
.IN
EL
IV
.L
W
W
He however
otherwise
identified
denominations thereof.
the
currency
notes
from
the
He
17
He reiterated that
AW
.IN
11.1.2008,
on
that the
IV
Jaspreet
EL
.L
W
W
by them. Vis-a-vis,
He further
18
The witness stated that the cash as well as the other articles
recovered/seized were duly deposited in the malkhana.
He further deposed that on the basis of another secret
information received on 18.1.2008, appellant Harpal Singh @
Chhota was arrested and acting on his disclosure statement,
cash together with one country made pistol and
.IN
cartridge wrapped in a
one live
The
AW
of
IV
car HR 16 F 7337
EL
.L
W
W
He referred to
19
discovery of Rs. 3.5 lakhs from the almirah of his house. That
a Qualis Car bearing number PB 10 AY 4144
was
also
.IN
AW
EL
that
IV
his signature
.L
W
W
course of the
Kashmir
Singh,
Finger
Expert
and
20
fitted
prints and had compiled the report on the basis thereof which
he proved Ex. PW5/A.
.IN
AW
available on the glass surface and he did not rule out any other
type of print. He also stated that the prints collected were of the
He also did not enquire as to who
EL
IV
Phillaur,
.L
W
W
21
On the
.IN
AW
EL
The
IV
.L
W
W
recovered.
respectively
Similarly,
was also
22
recovered on a
later
.IN
AW
EL
IV
.L
W
W
The
driving licence in the name of the victim were recovered from the
dickey of the car.
That a hole
was also detected in the rear seat of the car was mentioned in
particular by the witness.
23
.IN
AW
EL
and identified
IV
.L
W
W
therewith.
the victim
24
.IN
AW
EL
not of any added significance and further have also not been
IV
.L
PWs 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 are those, who on oath, stated
W
W
had been to elicit from them that there was nothing in writing
to endorse such loan and that there was no transaction routed
through the bank as evidence thereof.
PW23 H.C. Kamaljit Singh deposed that on 23.1.2008
25
Singh @ Chhota present in the court and who was then in police
custody,
AW
.IN
EL
IV
In cross-examination,
.L
W
W
proved
the
the
26
Singh
r/o
VPO
Malsian
Patti,
Saltan
Nagar,
Jalandhar.
proved
computer
generated details of the said cell phone for the period 9.1.2008
.IN
AW
was the true extract of the relevant data created in the usual
and ordinary course of business and stored in the hard disc of
EL
IV
PW25/C.
.L
W
W
were inadmissible
in
that
law due
of
the
with regard to
the
in
the
name
of
Davinder
Kumar,
27
to these
.IN
AW
EL
server.
IV
.L
admitted that though the tower numbers qua the calls were not
W
W
Soaravdeep
Singh,
Nodal
Officer,
Spice
to
mobile
98148-81082
(recovered
98553-64086
(recovered
from
from
SIM
numbers
98140-60441,
accused
Gurinder)
and
appellant
Sukhmeet)
and
28
the
.IN
issued by him from the computer which was under his control and
AW
The
EL
witness clarified that the calls were computer generated which did
IV
.L
the call details did refer to cell I.D. indicating the tower location.
by the
W
W
police from him under his signature. He admitted as well that the
documents produced by him do not bear the date of their
preparation and further there was no reference of the server
therein as well.
6.
apposite it would be
to briefly
defence witnesses.
DW1 Gurdeep Singh, who was then the
Senior
29
.IN
AW
on 21.12.2007 to Jarnail
EL
IV
.L
W
W
fabricated document.
DW3 Jarnail Singh, father of the appellant Sukhmeet
Singh in substance testified that the false implication of his son
in the case was motivated by political rivalry. He deposed that
on 14.1.2008, the police raided his house and and had taken
away Rs. 25 lakhs which he had kept for purchasing land near
Jalandhar. According to him, out of the said amount, Rs. 10
30
lakhs had been withdrawn by him from the bank and that the
rest had been deposited with him by way of advance money for
selling his land to Naginder Singh and Manmohan Singh.
According to him, the agreement for sale of his land had been
scribed on 6.12.2007 on the stamp paper purchased by him.
DW8 Sushil Kumar on oath stated that he belonged to
.IN
AW
IV
witness,
EL
7.
.L
W
W
in
in the
The
31
Chhota together with the recovery of cash or fire arm and the
Honda City car does not in any way establish any nexus with
.IN
him and the crime perpetrated, the calls details of the cell
AW
EL
IV
.L
accused persons sent up for trial and in absence of the TIP, their
W
W
The
learned
senior
counsel
was
particularly
did not
maintained
32
According to Mr.
.IN
same.
AW
EL
IV
.L
this Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others (2014)
W
W
10 SCC 473.
the
appellant
supplementation
in
Criminal
Appeal
No.
388
of
2015
in
the victim that the appellant Sukhmeet was known to him from
before the incident, reference about him by his nick-name Deputy,
renders his testimony to this effect wholly untrustworthy.
The
33
learned
senior
counsel
has
similarly
dismissed
the
.IN
AW
EL
IV
.L
According to the
to
W
W
contra,
the
learned
counsel
for
the
urged
that
the
prosecution
has
been
successful
in
34
the currency
notes, seized from the house of Jarnail Singh, the father of the
appellant Sukhmeet Singh from the ransom money paid, he is not
.IN
AW
8.
EL
based thereon. Admittedly, the only eye witness to the actual act
IV
.L
W
W
father.
and is privy too, to the ransom claim made by his abductors to his
161 Cr.P.C. though had outlined the whole incident in the bare
essentials, his version under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at the trial
are
35
.IN
AW
IV
testimony, in
EL
.L
PW2, reveals that the first caller to initiate the negotiations for the
W
W
Ginda.
land deal to which the victim was drawn, was Gurinder Singh @
in the
not betray any haste on their part and designedly took their time
36
has projected
AW
only
.IN
substantially even
IV
course whereof
EL
their company and under their surveillance for almost two days in
.L
closely followed his conversion with his father on more than one
occasion on the aspect of ransom. Apart from the fact that there
W
W
37
recovery of the currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda City car etc.
.IN
effect
AW
EL
IV
.L
W
W
the defence.
the Act but also noticeably has not been very seriously disputed by
have been produced and
38
The witnesses
.IN
of almost two days in the scary company of his abductors and the
AW
EL
note
their
IV
.L
had intimidated the victim as well as his father that if the ransom
W
W
39
.IN
9.
AW
fire- arms, the cars and the seizures of various articles therefrom
have been on the basis of disclosures made by the accused
EL
.L
City car
IV
offence was traced out being parked near the well of the accused
W
W
in the appropriate
40
fact discovered as
.IN
given relate distinctively to the fact, as had been held by the Privy
AW
EL
.L
IV
W
W
is
unnecessary,
in
view
of
such
settled
41
of the information
the
fact
thereby
discovered,
the
irresistible
.IN
AW
EL
11.
IV
.L
W
W
the
42
this Court
has to be held
.IN
AW
inadmissible in evidence.
EL
IV
.L
W
W
This
stand proved beyond reasonable doubt even sans the call details.
To reiterate, the gravamen of the imputations levelled against
43
As it is,
on
.IN
AW
EL
mental state.
that
IV
.L
W
W
44
is
.IN
AW
co-conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes
EL
In a later pronouncement in
IV
.L
ruled in the same vein that while drawing an inference from the
W
W
obtain
direct
evidence to
The
following extract from the decision in Mohd. Amin Vs. CBI (2008)
15 SCC 49 was quoted with approval:
74. The principles which can be deduced from
the above-noted judgments are that for proving
45
.IN
AW
EL
it is also not
IV
.L
the stratagem till the end, the determinative factor, being unity of
object or purpose
and
W
W
of an
Having regard to
and
imputations levelled
46
and sentence
recorded against them. The appeals thus fail and are dismissed.
Registry is directed to transmit the original record to the Trial
.IN
Court immediately.
.L
IV
EL
AW
...........................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
W
W
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 21, 2016.
..........................................J.
(AMITAVA ROY)
47
ITEM NO.1A
(For Judgment)
COURT NO.3
SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I N D I A
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondent(s)
.IN
For Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
.L
IV
EL
AW
Date : 21/11/2016
Hon'ble
Mr.
Justice
Amitava
Roy
pronounced
the
W
W
reportable judgment.
(Chetan Kumar)
(H.S. Parasher)
Court Master
Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)