Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996
Date of decision : 11.8. 2008
*****
Inderbir Singh
............Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...........Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mr. P.S Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S Sidhu,
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. P.S Grewal, AAG, Punjab.
*****
JORA SINGH, J.
This single judgment of mine will dispose of Criminal
Appeal No.162-SB of 1996 filed by Inderbir Singh and Criminal
Revision No.473 of 1996 filed by Jarnail Singh against impugned
judgment/order dated 12.1.1996 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Amritsar in Sessions case No.1 of 1994 bearing First
Information Report No.129 dated 14.11.1993 registered under
Sections 364/307/34 IPC at Police Station `B’ Division, Amritsar.
Vide impugned judgment/order, Inderbir Singh, appellant-
accused was convicted under Sections 363/323 IPC and was
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 2
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 363 IPC. In default of payment
of fine, he was directed to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
three months. He was further sentenced to RI for six months under
Sections 323 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently. Jarnail Singh through the instant revision petition
requested to set aside the judgment/order and sentence the
appellant-accused under Section 364/307 IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Jarnail Singh,
complainant, is the father of Kamaldip Singh. On 14.11.1993, at
about 10:00 A.M, betrothal ceremony of the sister’s son of the
complainant was being celebrated at Swaran House, Sultanwind
Road, Amritsar. Family members of the complainant including his
son Kamaldip Singh aged about 6 years were present to attend the
ceremony. Jaswant Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant and his
sister, Jaspal Kaur and his son-in-law Sukhdev Singh had also
attended the ceremony. Inderbir Singh and his friend, Buta Singh
were also present at Swaran house to attend the ceremony. At
about 3:00 P.M, when the complainant-party was to take their meals,
they enquired about Kamaldip Singh, but he was not traceable.
Complainant-party came out of the Swaran house and then sighted
the accused, Inderbir Singh and Buta Singh while carrying Kamaldip
Singh on the moped. Moped was driven towards Sultanwind Road,
Amritsar. Complainant and his son-in-law, Sukhdev Singh suspected
foul play and had followed the accused but failed to apprehend them.
There was business rivalry amongst the complainant and the
accused party. Due to business rivalry, Kamaldip Singh was
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 3
abducted by the accused with a motive to cause harm to them. At
5:30 P.M, complainant lodged report with the police. His statement
was recorded. Statement was read over and explained to the
complainant, who signed the same in token of its correctness.
During night time also, Kamaldip Singh could not be traced. On the
next date, complainant along with the police party was present near
the Bus Stand of Gurudwara Baba Deep Singh. Accused were seen
while waiting for the bus. Accused were arrested and were
interrogated. Accused suffered disclosure statements separately to
the effect that after causing injuries to Kamaldip Singh, he was
thrown in the bushes and trees in between the Chatiwind canal and
minor. In pursuance of the disclosure statements Ex.PB and Ex.PC,
Kamaldip Singh was got recovered. Wounds were noted on the
person of Kamaldip Singh. Kamaldip Singh was taken to hospital
where he was medically examined. On 16.11.1993, he was
produced before the Magistrate and his statement was recorded.
Rough site plans with correct marginal notes of the place of
occurrence as well as of the place of recovery of the child were
prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
After the completion of the investigation, challan was
presented.
Copies of the challan were supplied to the accused and
the same were found to be correct after scrutiny.
Vide order dated 3.1.1994 passed by Judicial Magistrate,
Ist Class, Amritsar, the case was committed to the Court of Session
for trial.
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 4
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and
the defence counsel for the accused, trial Court opined that a prima
facie case is made out to frame charge under Sections 364/307/34
IPC. Charge was accordingly framed to which the accused did not
plead guilty and claimed trail.
In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined
PW-1, Jarnail Singh, PW-2, Sukhdev Singh, PW-3, Harjit Singh, PW-
4 Kamaldip Singh, PW-5 Ashok Kumar, Head Constable, PW-6, Dr.
Rattanjit Singh, PW-7, Gurbax Singh, Inspector.
PW-1, Jarnail Singh and PW-2, Sukhdev Singh, on oath,
stated that they along with their relatives and Kamaldip Singh were
present at Swaran House on 14.11.1993 at about 10:00 A.M.
Kamaldip Singh was six years old. Inderbir Singh and Buta Singh
were also present to attend the ceremony. At about 3:00 P.M, when
they were to take their meals, then enquired about Kamaldip Singh,
but he was not found. Then they came outside the Swaran House.
Inderbir Singh and Buta Singh were seen while going on a moped
with Kamaldip Singh. Accused had gone towards the Sultanwind
Road, Amritsar. They made an effort to apprehend the accused, but
they could not be apprehended. In the evening at about 5:30 P.M,
they lodged a report Ex.PA in the police Station. The statement was
read over and explained to Jarnail Singh. He signed the same in
token of its correctness. During night time, they failed to trace
Kamaldip Singh. On the next date, they along with the police party
were present near the Bus-stand of Gurudwara Baba Deep Singh.
There both the accused were sighted while waiting for the bus.
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 5
Accused were arrested and were interrogated. As per disclosure
statements, suffered by the accused, Kamaldip Singh was got
recovered. Injuries were noted on the person of Kamaldip Singh.
They had business rivalry with the accused. Due to enmity,
Kamaldip Singh was abducted.
Kamaldip Singh also appeared as PW-4 and stated on
oath that he was present at Swaran House to attend the engagement
ceremony. He was taken away by the accused on a moped.
PW-3, Harjit Singh, Principal, Shaheed Baba Partap
Singh, Memorial High School, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, on oath
stated that Kamaldip Singh was the student of Shaheed Baba Partap
Singh Memorial High School. Date of birth certificate of Kamaldip
Singh as per admission register is 21.9.1987.
PW-5, Ashok Kumar, Head Constable stated that on
18.11.1998, he was with the party of SI, Gurbax Singh. Inderbir
Singh was interrogated. As per disclosure statement suffered by
Inderbir Singh, moped was recovered.
PW-6, Dr. Rattanjit Singh had medico-legally examined
Kamaldip Singh on 15.11.1993 at 9:15 P.M. Injuries were noted on
the person of Kamaldip Singh. But injuries were found to be not
dangerous to life.
PW-7, Gurbax Singh, Inspector is the Investigating officer
who had recorded the statement of the complainant and had
apprehended the accused. Accused were interrogated and in
pursuance of the disclosure statements, Kamaldip Singh was
recovered. Kamaldip Singh was got medically examined.
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 6
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the
accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied
all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that Kamaldip Singh
was not abducted by them. Case was registered due to professional
rivalry.
In defence, DW-1, Manmohan Singh was examined.
Manmohan Singh, on oath, stated that complainant is his real uncle.
Jarnail Singh deals in the manufacturing of Shatranj. His father also
carries on the same business. They were being pressurized by the
complainant not to carry on the business of Shatranj independently
but to carry on the business under his control. On 14.11.1993, he,
along with his father, brother, Inderbir Singh and brother’s wife were
arrested by the police. Moped was also taken into police possession.
Buta Singh was already present in the police station. False case was
registered. Story qua abduction of Kamaldip Singh is false. Security
proceedings were initiated at the instance of the complainant. They
were discharged in the proceedings.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and
defence counsel for the appellant-accused, trial Court opined that
appellant-accused had committed an offence punishable under
Section 363/323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment
as aforesaid.
Defence counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that
story is not natural one. There are number of discrepancies.
Presence of the witnesses is doubtful. Occurrence had taken place
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 7
in the month of November 1993. At that time, appellant was 23 years
old. Appellant-accused remained in custody for about 8 months. If
the learned Court is of the opinion that the crime was committed then
the appellant may be directed to undergo imprisonment already
undergone.
Learned counsel for the State argued that discrepancies
are not fatal. Discrepancies occur with the passage of time.
Presence of the witnesses at the time of occurrence is natural.
First submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-
accused was that presence of the witnesses at the time of
occurrence is not natural. Secondly, there are number of
discrepancies.
I have gone through the evidence on file and of the
opinion that the discrepancies are not material rather occurred with
the passage of time. Presence of the witnesses at the time of
occurrence is natural. PW-1, Jarnail Singh stated that he came out
of the Swaran House then sighted the accused while taking away his
son on a scooter. PW-2, Sukhdev Singh stated on oath that while
attending the engagement ceremony of his cousin at Swaran House,
at about 3:00 P.M, Kamaldip Singh was found missing. They tried to
locate him but he could not be traced. He then sighted the accused
while taking away the boy. He also admitted that Kamaldip Singh
migh have been abducted by the accused. Occurrence is dated
14.11.1993. Witnesses appeared in Court after the expiry of
sufficient period. Appellant-accused is related to the complainant-
party. Appellant-accused and the complainant-party had gone to
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 8
attend engagement ceremony. No case of the appellant-accused
that he had not gone to attend the ceremony.
Defence version of the appellant-accused is that due to
professional jealousy, he has been falsely implicated in this case.
But there is nothing on the file that complainant-party had
professional jealousy with the appellant-accused. Boy aged about 6
½ years was abducted. If complainant-party had professional
jealousy, then, injuries could easily be caused to the appellant-
accused. Two injuries were noted on the person of minor boy i.e, an
abrasion on the front side of neck and second abrasion on the left
side of the neck. Appearance of discrepancies rather shows that
story is natural one because no human being can recollect all the
facts which had happened much earlier. When a small child is
abducted, then close relatives are not supposed to be implicated by
leaving the real culprit. Jarnail Singh, PW-1, and Sukhdev Singh,
PW-2 had attended the function. Appellant-accused had also
attended the function. Boy was found missing from Swaran House.
At the time of taking meals, the family members of Kamaldip Singh
tried to locate him but he was found missing. Complainant-party
came out of the Swaran House, then sighted the accused while
taking away the minor boy. No other relation had appeared in
defence to state that complainant-party and the appellant-accused
did not attend the function.
DW-1, Manmohan Singh on cross-examination admitted
that ring ceremony of Raju was performed in Swaran house. Inderbir
Singh had also attended the function. Complainant-party had also
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 9
attended the function. Regarding abduction of Kamaldip Singh,
information was given by the elder brother of Jarnail Singh. On the
same day, police party came to know about the recovery of boy. Boy
was also brought to the police Station. Complaints were sent to
higher authorities, but no complaint on the file. Lastly, stated that he
did not file any complaint that Inderbir Singh was falsely implicated.
Manmohan Singh, DW-1 is related to the appellant-accused.
Statement of Manmohan Singh shows that prosecution story inspires
confidence.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel was that
occurrence had taken place on 14.11.1993 and at that time,
appellant-accused was 23 years old and remained in custody for
about eight months. Requested to reduce the sentence. Learned
counsel for the State did not raise any objection if lenient view is
taken.
Admittedly, occurrence had taken place on 14.11.1993.
Appellant-accused is related to the complainant-party. Appellant-
accused was 23 years old at the time of occurrence. Ends of justice
would be fully met if lenient view is taken because appellant-accused
is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. Appellant-accused
is to become hard criminal if sent to jail for undergoing imprisonment
as ordered by the trial court.
In view of the nature of offence and the antecedents of
the appellant-accused, instead of directing the appellant-accused to
undergo imprisonment as per impugned judgment, appellant-
accused is directed to undergo imprisonment as already undergone.
Crl. Appeal No. 162-SB of 1996 10
With this modification on the point of sentence, appeal
and revision being without merit, are hereby dismissed.
August 11, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE