Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Mohan vs State Of Haryana on 16 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007CRILJ4055
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: Uma Nath Singh, A.N. Jindal
JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals i.e. CRA Nos. 234-DB, 247-B, 255-DB of 2005 and CRA No. 171-DB of 2007. All the appeals having arisen out of the same judgment (i.e. judgment dated 21-2-2005) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide which, four accused-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) namely, Lovepreet Kaur, Parminder Mohan, Manjit Singh alias Mithu and Lohit Kaushal were convicted under Section 364A, 342 read with Section 120B, IPC and accused Manjit Singh alias Mithu was also convicted under Section 411, IPC and they were sentenced as under:
Under Section 364A read with All the four appellants were sen-
Section 120B, IPC tenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; Under Section 342 read with All the four to undergo rigorous Section 120B, IPC imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months: Under Section 411 Accused Manjit Singh alias Mithu to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in defult of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The case explores its sordid story relating to the abduction of three year old girl Arshdeep from Sector-12, Panchkula for ransom.
3. The allegations in nutshell are that accused Lohit Kaushal, the main preparator of the crime was the Saddu (wife's sister's husband) of Harjit Singh (brother of Saravjit Kaur, mother of Arshdeep). Sukhjit Singh (father of Arshdeep) being Engineer in a private factory was earning about 40-45 thousand per month and Saravjit Kaur (mother of Arshdeep) while working in Government College was drawing handsome salary to which Lohit Kaushal was attracted. He having received set back in his business, planned to encash the abduction of Arshdeep who used to stay with Mahinder Kaur, mother of Saravjit Kaur during the day after coming from school. He in conspiracy with accused Manjit Singh alias Mithu, Parminder Mohan alias Pammi and Lovepreet Kaur, sent them to the house of Mahinder Kaur. On 25-2-2002 at about 1.30 p.m. when Sukhjit Singh and Saravjit Kaur were away on their respective duties and Mahinder Kaur and Arshdeep were in the courtyard of the first floor of their house, Lovepreet Kaur and Parminder Mohan alias Pammi went to the house and asked about Sukhjit Singh and Saravjit Kaur on the pretext that they had come to deliver the sweet box as Parminder Mohan was blessed with a son, sat there and asked Mahinder Kaur to serve them a glass of water, whereupon, Mahinder Kaur brought a glass of water and served Parminder Mohan. In the meantime, two other persons, out of whom, one was Manjit Singh, also asked for water. When she again went to kitchen, then Manjit Singh followed her, caught hold of her and brought her in the bed- room. Parminder Mohan alias Pammi caught hold of her arm, Manjit Singh put cloth in her mouth and tied her with a dupatta. The fourth accused caught hold of her with another arm. Accused Parminder Mohan then tied both her hands, dragged her in another room and tied her with a bag. Thereafter, they fled away with Arshdeep and after stealing a VCP (video cassette player) from the house.
4. On telephonic message given by a neighbour Harjinderpal Singh to the police, Sub Inspector Avtar Singh, Station House Officer Police Station Sector-19, Panchkula arrived at the spot, recorded the statement of Mahinder Kaur, on the basis of which FIR No. 25 was registered at the aforesaid police station by Sub Inspector Om Prakash. Lohit Kaushal along with his wife Satnam Kaur alias Sernmi after hearing the news regarding the completion of the work, came to the house. Inspector visited the site of occurrence, got the place of occurrence photographed and sent Mahinder Kaur to General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula for medical examination. He raided the premises of Parminder Mohan at Dhuri and Sangrur. On 27-2-2002 on the information delivered by Inspector Mange Ram that the accused were demanding Rs. 60 lacs as ransom and they had decided to free the child near Gurudwara Dukhniwaran, Patiala and the matter was settled at Rs. 21 lacs, he went to the disclosed place at about 1.00 p.m. on 27-2-2002, where Lovepreet Kaur along with the child reached the STD booth as determined between the accused and Sukhjit Singh. They got freed the child and arrested Lovepreet Kaur at the spot. Satnam Kaur (acquitted accused) was arrested on 28-2-2002. In pursuance of the interrogation and statement, of Satnam Kaur on 28-2-2002, accused Lohit Kaushal was arrested along with Maruti Car No. CHO1-4565, which was used for abducting the child. On 4-3-2002, Tata Sumo No. HR01E-7582 was produced, which was driven by Sharwan Singh, owner of the vehicle, which was also taken into possession, by the police. On the same day, Parminder Mohan alias Pammi, Manjit Singh alias Mithu (both appellants), Nand Kishore alias Nitu and Sunil Kumar (both acquitted accused) were apprehended. On 3-3-2002, Lovepreet Kaur got recovered the clothes belonging to Arshdeep, which she had changed in the STD at Dhuri. Manjit Singh accused also got recovered a VCP along with remote vide memo Ex. PJ. P.W. 14 Dr. Aruna Ohingia, who medico legally examined Mahinder Kaur on 25-2-2002 found four injuries on her person. She observed that cloned blood was present over both the lips. She advised dental opinion and attested the MLR Ex. PU. She further observed that all the injuries could be caused by hands.
5. Besides, the aforesaid evidence, P.W. 1 Mahinder Kaur and P.W. 2 Sukhjit Singh, the maternal grandmother and father of Arshdeep, respectively appeared to support the prosecution case. P.W. 3 Swaran Singh stated that on 25-2-2002, Manjit Singh alias Mithu had taken away his Tata Sumo at 9.30 a.m. Bearing Reg. No, HR01E-7582 on the condition that he will return the vehicle on the same day at about 5.00 p.m. P.W. 4 Arvind Kumar is the photographer. P.W. 5 Sub Inspector Om Prakash, P.W. 6 ASI Balwant Singh, P.W. 7 ASI Mahi Pal, P.W. 8 ASI Raj Kumar, P.W. 9 Constable Manohar lal draftsman, P.W. 10 Sub Inspector Babu Ram, P.W. 11 Sub Inspector Avtar Singh, P.W. 12 Inspector Mange Ram and P.W. 13 ASI Pardeep Kumar are the persons, who investigated the case.
6. On completion of the investigation, chalian against the accused was presented in the Court. Consequently, Lovepreet Kaur, Par minder Mohan alias Pammi, Manjit Singh alias Mithu and Lohit Kaushal (all appellants) were charged under Sections 342, 384A, 380 read with Section 120B, IPC, to which I hey pleaded not guilty and claimed trial However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 4-2-2003 discharged accused Satnam Kaur alias Semmi, Nand Kishore alias Nitu and Sunil Kumar alias Rinku from the aforesaid offences.
7. In their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants while pleading innocence, alleged their false implication in the case. However, accused Parminder Mohan and Lovepreet Kaur further added that they were simply implicated in the case on the ground of suspicion. It is pertinent to mention here that none of the accused pleaded any bias or mala fide on the part of Sukhjit Singh, Saravjit Singh or Mahinder Kaur for implicating them in the case, Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction of the appellants. Hence, this appeal.
8. The factum of kidnapping, recovery and demand of ransom as alleged by the prosecution stand fully established from the evidence led by the prosecution. Mahinder Kaur, the star witness in the case is an old lady of 60 years. On the day of occurrence, she along with Arshdeep was present in her house i.e. H.No. 527, Sector-12-A, Panchkula and she was to be taken by her parents in the evening after their duties were over. While appearing as P.W. 1 Mahinder Kaur has torn out her abdomen while vomiting the facts in detail and identifying the accused, who had entered her house. She has also categorically attributed the role played by each appellant. While deposing that at about 1.45 p.m. one lady and one boy carne to her house. She identified both; Lovepreet Kaur and Parminder Mohan by pointing a finger towards them and stated that they were the first entrants to her house with sweets box. She stated that they made enquiries about Sukhjit Singh; Lovepreet Kaur asked her to bring a glass of water and in the meantime, they sat in the drawing room;, when she came back after fetching the water, two more persons came in the drawing room and they also demanded water. She identified one of them as Manjit Singh alias Mithu. She also testified that Manjit Singh dragged her to the bed room. Parminder Singh alias Pammi threatened her with knife, which he was carrying in his hands. Manjit Singh (appellant) put a piece of cloth into her mouth and tied her mouth with a dupatta. The third accused caught hold of her and Parminder Mohan tied her hands. Thereafter, they fled away with the VCP as well as Arshdeep. No finger has been raised to challenge her conduct and falsity in the evidence. She had no enmity or grudge against any of the appellants. Despite scorching cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited from her testimony to shatter veracity of this witness. Rather, she while giving the minute details continued to depose that she untied her hands after rubbing the same with the bed and, thereafter, jumped to the house of her neighbour and raised alarm. When she along with other neighbours came to her house, she found Arshdeep and the VCP missing. Information was given to the police through telephone. She also disclosed that Lohit Kaushal was behind the show. Thus, the kidnapping of Arshdeep and theft stand duly established. It is also established that all the four accused came in a planned manner for committing this organised crime. Thus, the factum with regard to the kidnapping of minor from the lawful guardianship of Mahinder Kaur stand fully established.
9. Now, the other factor for completion of the offence which has to be determined is, as to whether the accused actually kidnapped Arshdeep and that too for ransom? To establish this fact, Sukhjit Singh (P.W. 2), father of Arshdeep has stepped into the witness box. While disclosing the story with regard to leaving Arshdeep in the custody of Mahinder Kaur (P.W. 1), he has stated that on receipt of the telephonic call, he reached his house and came to know about the incident. The police was already present there in the house. In the meantime, Lohit Kaushal also came there and thereafter, he received a telephonic call from the accused demanding ransom and ensuring the safety of the minor. While giving minute details, he stated that at the time of call, which he had received at 6.45 p.m. he was not informed about the ransom, but later on he again received a call in which it was disclosed that he should withdraw the police. The caller also gave his mobile number as '98141-31764". Thereafter, he went to his house along with his wife and mother-in-law, whereas, Lohit Kaushal, his wife, Harjit Pal Singh and some other relatives remained at the place of kidnapping. After some time, the caller conveyed him about the demand for a sum of Rs. 60 lacs as ransom. However, the police told him to continue bargaining with the caller. Later on, the deal was struck at Rs. 21 lacs. On 26-2-2002, he was told to reach Patiala in the morning of 27-2-2002 for delivery of cash and in return the child. Ultimately, an ambush was held at Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib near an STD booth, (the place indicated by the kidnappers). When, Lovepreet Kaur along with the child reached there, she was arrested and recovery of the child effected. This witness has also been grilled at a great extent, but her testimony could not be impeached in any manner. His testimony also stands corroborated by ASI Balwant Singh (PW 6) and Sub-Inspector Avtar Singh (PW 11) Investigating Officer, who also consistently stated that Arshdeep was recovered from Lovepreet Kaur in front of Dukhniwaran Gurudwara, Patiala. Thus, this clear and clinching evidence with regard to the demanding of ransom by the accused and the recovery of the child from the custody of Lovepreet Kaur also stand fully established.
10. Besides the aforesaid evidence, the recovery of Tata Sumo, which was used in the commission of crime is also proved on the record. Swaran Singh, owner of the said Tata Sumo bearing Reg. No. HRO1E-7582 has stated that on the day of occurrence, Manjit Singh (accused) had taken the said vehicle at about 9.30 a.m. on the pretext of going to Rajpura and had returned the same on the same day at 5.00 p.m., which also synchronises with the time of commission of crime. The recovery of clothes of Arshdeep in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Lovepreet Kaur on 3-3-2002 from the STD booth owned by Parminder Mohan (accused) indicates that after Arshdeep was kidnapped from Panchkula, she was taken by Parminder Mohan and Lovepreet Kaur to the STD booth situated at Dhuri, where Lovepreet Kaur changed her clothes. That also adds to the chain of circumstances in the commission of crime. The recovery of the VCP got effected by Manjit Singh from House No. 114, Ward No. 13, Dhuri in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PN not only establishes the fact that Manjit Singh was accompanying the other accused persons to the place of occurrence, but also proves his link with the other accused and he also accompanied accused to Dhuri along with abducted child (Arshdeep). The recovery memo Ex.PJ of VCP with remote has been duly established on the record. The other piece of evidence which also clinches the whole story and completes the link is the medico legal report of Mahinder Kaur (complainant), vide which four injuries were found on her person. Nothing has been said regarding the injuries on the person of Mahinder Kaur. No bias or prejudice has been alleged against her for fabricating the said injuries. The duration of injuries also synchronises with the time of occurrence. The recovery of mobile along with charger from the accused Parminder Mohan alias Pammi also supports the prosecution case. As regards the participation of Lohit Kaushal, it is duly established that he is saddu of the brother in law (sala of Sukhjit Singh). It is also established on the record that Lohit Kaushal along with his wife sneaked into the house of Mahinder Kaur to keep a watch over the complainant and the activities of the witnesses and, thereafter, when they were interrogated by the police, they absconded from the place of occurrence as they had come to know that the police had suspected them. Be that as it may, Satnam Kaur was not knowing the activities of her husband, but the recovery of the Maruti Car No. CH01-4565 used by Lohit Kaushal also indicates that he had used the said car for going to the house of the complainant and approaching the other accused. As such, the trial Court rightly held him to be a kingpin and the only man behind the show, who install men ted the other three persons for committing the crime.
11. Mere fact that PW2 Sukhjit Singh in his statement dated 27-2-2002 recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. did not mention about the demand of ransom by the accused, but his testimony cannot be discarded on this account alone as on 25-2-2002, he had disclosed that the accused had abducted Arshdeep for ransom. On 27-2-2002, his statement was recorded only regarding the recovery of Arshdeep from the Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib. The fault committed by the Investigating Officer could not be shouldered upon Sukhjit Singh. Not only this, Avtar Singh Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer (PW11) and Balwant Singh ASI (PW6) as well as Inspector Mange Ram (PW12) had supported the fact that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs. 60 lacs to free the child and ultimately after bargaining it was settled at Rs. 21 lacs. There-alter, they along with Sukhjit Singh went to the place identified by the accused and apprehended Loverpreet Kaur and took the custody of the child. Unlike a civil case, a criminal case is based on preponderance of probabilities. The witnesses may tell lie, but the circumstances don't. Sometimes, the (acts as established on the record from the evidence led by the prosecution, speak for the inferences and impel the Court to determine the same. Sukhjit Singh and his wife Saravj it Kaur were well off and they were earning more than Rs. 60,000/- per month. The accused Lohit Kaushal, who had suffered losses in his business being a distant relative of Sukhjit Singh was attracted towards the bounty, which would be received by getting undue benefit of the simplicity, innocence, extreme love and affection towards their daughter. The abduction of the child in the absence of the couple and her wrongful confinement for three days and her safe return, thereafter, and no previous enmity with the appellants to falsely implicate them, could lead us to no other conclusion than that they wanted to make bounty out of it. It is something different that they failed in their evil designs.
12. Consequently, the inevitable conclusion, which can be drawn from the scrutiny of the evidence, led by the prosecution on the record, is that the trial Court has rightly held all the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 342 read with Section 120B, IPC and further more appellant Manjit Singh alias Mithu under Section 411, IPC. We do not differ with the aforesaid finding based on good reasons and appreciation of evidence in right perspective.
13. On examining the quantum of sentence, while taking note of the evidence and keeping in view the enormous increase in the cases relating to abduction and kidnapping, we are of the view that the trial Court has already taken a lenient view and ho sentence less than what has been awarded by the trial Court in the given circumstances of the case, could be appropriate or adequate.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to upset the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeals being without merit, are hereby dismissed.