Criminal Appeal No. 116-SB of 1996 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 116-SB of 1996
Date of Decision: 15.1.2009
Dhian Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
2. Criminal Appeal No. 190-SB of 1996
Sukhdev Singh alias Sukkha and Another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
3. Criminal Appeal No. 301-SB of 1996
Kashmir Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
AND
3. Criminal Appeal No. 302-SB of 1996
Kala
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 116-SB of 1996 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate
for the appellants (In Criminal Appeal Nos.116-SB,
190-SB and 301-SB of 1996)
Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate
for the appellant (In Criminal Appeal No. 302-SB
of 1996)
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab, for the State.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
By this common judgment, four Criminal Appeals bearing Nos.
116-SB of 1996 titled as “Dhian Singh and Others v. State of Punjab“,
190-SB of 1996 titled as “Sukhdev Singh alias Sukkha and Another v.
State of Punjab”, 301-SB of 1996 titled as “Kashmir Singh v. State of
Punjab” and 302-SB of 1996 titled as “Kala v. State of Punjab”, shall be
disposed off.
Criminal Appeal No. 116-SB of 2006 has been preferred by
Dhian Singh, Jarnail Singh, Ajit Singh and Amrik Singh, who have been
numbered as accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 in the impugned judgment.
Criminal Appeal No. 190-SB of 1996 has been preferred by
Sukhdev Singh alias Sukkha and Nirmal Singh, who have been
numbered as accused Nos. 3 and 8 in the impugned judgment.
Criminal Appeal No. 301-SB of 1996 has been preferred by
Kashmir Singh, who has been numbered as accused No.6 in the
impugned judgment.
Criminal Appeal No. 302-SB of 1996 has been preferred by
Criminal Appeal No. 116-SB of 1996 3
Kala, who has been numbered as accused No.7 in the impugned
judgment.
The appellants were nominated as accused in case FIR No.
15 dated 29.1.1991, registered at Police Station Lopoke, under Sections
148, 395, 506, 336 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the
Arms Act.
After conclusion of the investigation, a report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The appellants were charged for an offence
under Section 148 IPC, under Section 395 /149 IPC for taking away a
sum of Rs.12,700/- belonging to Gurbax Singh, PW.1. They were also
charged for an offence under Sections 506/149 IPC and 336/149 IPC.
The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Briefly stated, it was stated by complainant Gurbax Singh in
the FIR that on the intervening night of 30.11.1990 and 1.12.1990 at
about 10.00 P.M. five armed persons, who wore wrapping sheets of
clothes entered in the village. It has been further stated that they went to
the house of Jhamma Singh. They had entered into the house of
complainant Gurbax Singh and told that “Baba Jafarwal” had come in his
house. They demanded from the complainant to provide fire arms.
They started beating him. To save himself, complainant Gurbax Singh
handed over Rs.12,700/- to them and prayed that his life be spared.
Then these persons took him into his shop and gathered the change
(coins lying there). Again he was brought to his house and he was given
beatings. They demanded ornaments. They also caused beatings to his
wife. Then they took Gurbax Singh outside the village towards drain.
There five/six persons were standing to whom the complainant stated
Criminal Appeal No. 116-SB of 1996 4
that he can identify them later. One of them fired shot in the air and
threatened to kill him. They threw the complainant in the drain.
Complainant made further request that he has got a widow daughter.
There is nobody to support her and her four children except the
complainant. The accused told him that his life can only be spared if he
can arrange for Rs.1,00,000/-. They also attempted to push a stick into
his rear private part. Thereafter two accused took him and left him in the
house. According to complainant, accused were named as Sukha Singh,
Nimma Majhbi, Santokha Majhbi and Kala. He further stated that he can
recognise other persons. Thereafter, he went to the village. Thereafter
on 5.1.1991 and 12.1.1991 he contacted them and stated that he could
not arrange for the funds. Thereafter, complainant contacted the Central
Reserve Police Force Camp at Ajnala. According to complainant, the
persons who were standing in the street were Dhian Singh, Jaila, Jit
Singh and Amrik Singh. Thereafter, FIR was recorded on the statement
of complainant Gurbax Singh on 29.1.1991.
In support of the FIR, Gurbax Singh complainant appeared as
PW.1. His testimony was corroborated by his wife Bhajan Kaur, who
appeared as CW.1. The testimony of these witnesses are to be
evaluated and appreciated in the context of peak days of terrorism
which were prevailing in the State of Punjab. It was a common
knowledge that in the interior villages of Amritsar there was a curfew like
situation. The rule of law was not prevailing. The terrorists would come
at their wish, loot and run away. Here is one man who mustered
courage and stood up. The testimony of this witness in the Court reveal
that under the threat of terrorists he has to leave his village and reside in
Criminal Appeal No. 116-SB of 1996 5
a city at Jalandhar along with his family. This Court has to take into
consideration the fact that against all odds, one citizen had mustered
courage to stand. Therefore, normal stereo-typed arguments that FIR
has been delayed, names of the witnesses have not been given at first
instance and statement given to the Central Reserve Police Force is not
coming forward, raised by counsel for the appellants cannot be taken
into consideration.
I have read the testimony of Gurbax Singh, PW.1, again and
again. There is something which tells that there is truth in the version of
Gurbax Singh, PW.1. Gurbax Singh, PW.1, when made his testimony in
the Court, was 85 years old. The wife who was examined as a Court
witness has stated that she was trembling at the time of occurrence.
Therefore, I am of the view that trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellants. However, taking into consideration the fact that
the appellants have suffered a protracted trial of more than 18 years,
sentence awarded upon the appellants is reduced from five years to two
& a half years.
With the observations made above, all the appeals are
disposed off.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
January 15, 2009
“DK”