Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996
Date of Decision: 22 - 1 - 2009
Ravi Kumar and Others
...Appellants
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Rajiv Sharma,Advocate
for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been filed by Ravi Kumar son of
Kishan Chand, Harnek Singh son of Naurang Singh, Bilinder Kumar son
of Kishan Chand and Rajinder Singh son of Amrik Singh. They have
been convicted by the trial Court. Relevant portion of imposition of
sentence is reproduced below.
“5. In an endeavour to squarely balance the
scale of justice, the accused are sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the
offence under Section 365 IPC. In default of
payment of fine, they will further undergo rigorous
Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996 2imprisonment for one month. For the offence under
Section 367 IPC, the accused are sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default
of payment of fine, the defaulting accused shall
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months. With regard to the offence under Section
325 IPC, the convicts are ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine,
defaulting accused shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month”.
Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been
filed.
The appellants were nominated as accused in case FIR No.
39 dated 12.3.1992 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh,
under Sections 367, 365, 325 & 120-B IPC. The FIR was exhibited as
Ex.PE/1.
Statement of Raj Kumar Ex.PE was recorded by Dhan Raj
Sub Inspector at P.G.I. It was stated in FIR by Raj Kumar that he is
resident of village Mandori, Police Station Rai District Sonepat. He was
employed as Development Officer in National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development, office of which is situated in Sector 17, Chandigarh.
He along with his friend Avtar Singh who is residing along with him in
House No. 741, Sector 40-A had gone out for a walk at 9.00 P.M. When
they reached near the crossing of Sectors 37-38-40-41, then suddenly
Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996 3
an Ambassador car No. PUR 9555 came and stopped. Out of the car,
four persons alighted, three of whom were Sikhs and one was Hindu.
They started the car and boarded the same and proceeded. Raj Kumar
and Avtar Singh also continued walking. After some distance car
stopped. Those persons stopped the car, picked up Avtar Singh and
took him in the car. Hue & cry was raised by the complainant. But those
four persons paid no need to the noise raised by the complainant.
Complainant ran to the S.T.D. Booth and dialed number 100. Dhan
Raj, Sub Inspector came there and recorded statement of Raj Kumar
Ex.PE. The accuse decamped from the spot in car along with Avtar
Singh.
The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was submitted.
Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
Judge, Chandigarh.
All the four appellants were charged for offence under
Sections 365 IPC on the ground that on 12.3.1992 in furtherance of
common intention they kidnapped Avtar Singh for secretly and
wrongfully confining him. The appellants were also charged for the
offence under Section 367 for putting Avtar Singh in danger of being
subjected to grievous hurt. They were also charged for the offence
under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous injuries to Avtar Singh.
The appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined Dr.P.D. Jain, Radiologist, as PW.1 who
stated that on 13.1.1992 Avtar Singh was referred by Dr. M.P. Singh,
Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. He conducted
Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996 4
radiological examination of Avtar Singh and found fracture of the nasal
bone.
Dr.M.P. Singh, Medical Officer, appeared as PW.2. He stated
that on 12.3.1992 at about 11.50 P.M. he examined Avrtar Singh and
found eight injuries. The injured complaint pain in his left thumb but
there was no external mark of injury. Injury No.2 is contusion on right
deltoid region 4″ X 5″. Injury No.3 was complain of pain in his abdomen
but no mark of external injury was found. Injury No.4 was a contused
abrasion on the lower back of scapular region about 3″ X ½”. Injury
No.5 was hemorrhage of left eye. Injury No.6 was swelling of nose with
over lying contusion and injury No.7 was multiple contusion over both
cheeks and forehead. Injury No.6 was declared as grievous. Injury No.6
was caused with blunt weapon.
Complainant Raj Kumar appeared as PW.3. He reiterated the
allegations that on 12.3.1992 he had gone for a walk at night along with
Avtar Singh. Three Sikh gentlemen and two Hindu persons came there.
They had kidnapped Avtar Singh and he informed the police by giving a
call at number 100. He further stated that at about 10.15 or 10.30 P.M.
the car appeared from the side of Mohali. It was stopped by the police.
Avtar Singh was raising noise by “BACHAO BACHAO” from the car. All
the four accused and Avtar Singh came out of the car.
Avtar Singh, injured, appeared as PW.4. He also stated that
he was taking a walk along with Raj Kumar at 9.00 P.M. when car came.
Four persons alighted from the car. He was pushed in the car and was
taken away by them. He further stated that after he was lifted by the
accused in the car he was manhandled, beaten and humiliated. The
Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996 5
cause of the grudge was that Ravi Kumar told him that few days ago
Avtar Singh had quarreled with him and had snatched a chain.
Rajbir Singh, Constable, appeared as PW.5 and proved copy
of Daily Diary Report No. 46 which was exhibited as Ex.PG.
Dhan Raj, Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.6. He stated that
he stopped the car, arrested the accused and found Avtar Singh and
had recorded the statement of complainant.
Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence.
Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. were
recorded. They denied all the incriminated circumstances put to them
and they stated that they are innocent and they had old enmity with
Avtar Singh.
Accused Balinder Kumar, Rajinder Singh and Harnek Singh
stated that they have been falsely implicated. Balinder Kumar is owner
of the truck. Harnek Singh was Driver and Rajinder Singh was Cleaner
of the truck. They were picked up from their village on 12.3.1992.
Accused examined Avtar Singh as DW.1 to state that on
12.3.1992, Chandigarh Police had taken in the evening three persons
from the village namely Rajinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Harnek
Singh.
Sukhdev Singh, Lambardar, appeared as DW.2. He also
reiterated what has been stated by Avtar Singh, DW.1.
Mr.Goel appearing for the appellants has drawn my
attention to the statement of Avtar Singh PW-4 wherein it has been
stated that a nalla passes through Dara Studio where the accused
Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996 6
took him after kidnapping. He further stated that he never knew
any of the accused prior to the occurrence. Accused Ravi Kumar
was asking him that he had stolen his chain. The witness has
further stated that he never knew whether Ravi Kumar was
wearing chain or not. He further stated that that it was correct that
when Ravi Kumar was arrested, he was wearing the chain which
was recovered by the police from Ravi Kumar. Mr.Goel state that
it was trivial dispute over the gold chain and the beatings have
been given to Avtar Singh and no kidnapping had taken place. It
has been further contended that prosecution has failed to prove
identity of the accused. In the present case, accused-appellants
were arrested at the spot. Therefore, the argument that
identification parade was not carried will pale into insignificance as
at the time of occurrence, the victim was also found with the
accused.
Mr.Goel has further stated that in the present case, the
occurrence had taken place on 12.3.1992 and a period of 17 years
is going to elapse, therefore, the appellants should be given the
benefit of protracted trial and they should be released on
probation. He has further submitted that during the last 17 years,
appellants have committed no offence and have been leading a
life of honest peaceful citizen. He submit that keeping in view the
aforesaid, the appellants be released on probation as one of the
accused, namely, Ravi Kumar is in Government service and is
Criminal Appeal No. 166-SB of 1996 7
likely to loose his job.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made by Mr.Goel. Besides conduct, gravity of the
offence is also to be considered. In the present, appellants have
been convicted for offence under Section 365 IPC, therefore, they
cannot be released on probation. However, taking into
consideration the protracted trial, their sentence is reduced from
three years to one year.
In view of the modification in order of sentence,
the present appeal stands disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
January 22, 2009. JUDGE
DK/RC