Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharambir vs State Of Haryana on 10 October, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRA-S-1462-SB of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(608)
CRA-S-1462-SB of 2012
Date of decision: 10.10.2013.
Dharambir
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.317 dated 29.08.1992 under Sections 120-B, 364, 507 and 347 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Samalkha.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.08.1992 at about 3.00 p.m., Jagdeep Singh, son of complainant Dharam Singh had gone to play with other children. However, Jagdeep did not return home. Complainant searched for his son and could not locate him. Complainant was informed at about 5.00 p.m. by one of his co- villagers that Jagdeep had been taken away by four - five young Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.22 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1462-SB of 2012 -2- boys in a Maruti car after he was brought by one young boy on a motorcycle from the village. The car had then left towards Samalkha side. On 29.08.1992 at about 3.00 p.m., when the complainant reached home at Samalkha, he saw an envelope lying near the door of his house. When the complainant opened the envelope, he found that there was a writing in the envelope asking him to arrange for ` 6 lakhs for release of his son. Complainant reported the matter to the police. Jagdeep, son of the complainant was recovered after 10 days from the date of his kidnapping.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused.
Appellant absented during the trial. Statements of nine prosecution witnesses were recorded. Accused Gurudutt and Satpal who had faced the trial were convicted and sentenced by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 16.09.2000/18.09.2000 under Sections 120-B, 364, 347 and 507 IPC. Appellant was arrested and was produced before the trial court on 29.01.2011. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. The trial court vide judgment/order dated 11.04.2012 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 120-B, 364, 347 and 507 IPC. Hence, the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Appellant had been Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.22 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1462-SB of 2012 -3- falsely involved in this case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Crl. Appeal No.933-SB of 2000 and Crl. Appeal No.1070-SB of 2000 filed by accused-Satpal and Gurudutt respectively against their conviction and sentence were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2012. Appellant was the main accused.
In the present case, complainant Dharam Singh appeared in the witness-box as PW-4 and deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Victim Jagdep was examined as PW-3. He is the star witness of the prosecution. The said witness deposed that PW-6 Rattan Singh was younger brother of his father and used to reside with them. Dharambir-appellant used to visit his uncle Rattan Singh as both were wrestlers. About four years back, at about 3.00 p.m., he was playing in the street when appellant came on a motorcycle and took him towards Samalkha by telling him that he would give some toffees. Appellant took him to a place where a car was parked and four persons were sitting in the car including Gurudutt and Satpal accused. Appellant did not give him any toffees but handed him over to the other accused sitting in the car and himself left the spot. He started crying but the accused were not bothered about the same. He insisted that he should be taken to his house but he was brought to a kotha in the fields. He was kept in that kotha by all the accused. Appellant reached there at night time. Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.22 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1462-SB of 2012 -4- In the morning, he was taken to different places by the accused in the car. He was taken to a number of places in the same car for about 10 days and thereafter, he was taken towards railway line in the area of village Samalkha. Accused were apprehended by the police. His uncle Rattan Singh and PW-5 Satbir were present there.
PW-5 Satbir and PW-6 Rattan Singh corroborated the statement of the complainant on material aspects. Sub-Inspector Rameshwar Dass was examined as PW-10. He deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on 29.08.1992, he had recorded formal FIR on the statement of Dharam Singh. On 04.09.1992, accused were arrested. On personal search of the appellant, one knife was recovered. The abducted child Jagdeep was taken from the custody of the accused and was handed over to his father. Maruti car bearing No.DL 4C 7498 was also taken in possession. Appellant, during interrogation, suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered his motorcycle and the same was taken in possession.
Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Appellant was known to the family of the victim Jagdeep and due to this reason, the child accompanied the appellant on his motorcycle on the allurement given by the appellant that he would give him toffees. However, the victim was then handed over by the appellant to his co-accused who took him to the fields in a car. Appellant also reached there at night. Victim was recovered Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.22 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1462-SB of 2012 -5- after ten days. Complainant had also proved on record letter received by him asking for ransom.
There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that no offence under Section 364 IPC could be said to have been made out in this case.
Section 364 IPC reads as under:-
"Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
In the present case, the fact that the kidnappers had demanded ransom from the complainant leads to the inference that the minor child had been kidnapped with a view to put his life in danger. A perusal of Exhibit PE, the ransom letter reveals that the complainant was asked to pay ` 6 lakhs for the safety of his child and it was also stated that in case, complainant failed to pay the said amount, then his son would be killed. In these circumstances, the Court below rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 120-B, 364, 347 and 507 IPC.
There is also no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence qua imprisonment Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.22 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1462-SB of 2012 -6- of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him as by now, appellant has undergone more than four years of actual sentence out of seven years. A perusal of the custody certificate of the appellant reveals that he has been convicted in two criminal cases and seven criminal cases are pending against him. In these circumstances, no ground for reduction of the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant to the period already undergone by him is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 10, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.10.22 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document