Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 October, 2011
Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003
Date of decision: October 5, 2011
Chandan Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. RS Ghuman, Advocate, for
for the appellant.
Mr. APS Brar,DAG, Punjab.
GURDEV SINGH, J.
The appellant/accused--Chandan Singh son of Shri Hari Singh @ Teg Singh, has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, vide which he convicted the appellant/accused and his co-accused Vinod Kumar for the offence under Section 364 IPC and sentenced them to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
The present appellant/accused, alongwith his wife Manmohan Kaur @ Mohni @ Manjit Kaur and Vinod Kumar, was sent up for trial by the officer in-charge of City Police Station Nawanshahr, for the offences under Section 364 and 120B IPC, in respect of which FIR No. 64 dated Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 2 13.6.1999 was recorded in that police station. This accused was also sent up to stand his trial for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for brevity--'the Act') in respect of which FIR No. 84 dated 21.7.1999 was recorded in that police station but he was acquitted of that offence, vide the aforesaid judgment.
According to the prosecution, Reena Rani, complainant (PW-4) was married to one Vijay Kumar, who was residing in Philippines, and they had one son, named, Lovely Sandhu, who at the time of the occurrence was 10-12 years old and was a student of second class of Red Rose School, Nawanshahr. On 13.6.1999 at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant took her son to the house of Sunita (PW-9), sister of her husband. Both of them were sitting on the roof of the house, while talking to each other, whereas Lovely Sandhu and Pankaj, son of Sunita, were playing outside the house in the street. In the meanwhile, Chandan Singh and Vinod came to that place on a scooter and kidnapped Lovely Sandhu. The complainant and Sunita raised an alarm but the accused succeeded in taking away the child. The complainant, accompanied by Sunita and Jaswinder Kumar, was proceeding to the police station to lodge the report when Makhan Singh, ASI (PW-11) met her on the way. She made her statement Ex. PB about this occurrence and the ASI, after making his endorsement Ex. PO on the statement, sent the same to the police station and on the basis thereof FIR Ex. PP was recorded by Sukhdev Singh, ASI (PW-2). Makhan Singh, ASI (PW-11) came to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. PQ with correct marginal notes and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The police searched for the kidnapped child at different places but failed to trace him. Telephone No. 20479 was installed in the house of Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 3 the complainant, whereas telephone No. 25025 was installed in the house of Sunita. Provision was made for recording the voice of any person making call on those telephones. On 14.6.1999, a call was received on telephone No. 25025 and the caller demanded a ransom of Rs. 2 lakhs for releasing that kidnapped child. On verification from the telephone exchange, it was found that the said telephone call was made from the PCO of one Manjit Lal, who was joined in the investigation, but no clue was found regarding the person who made the call. The voice of the caller was recorded on the audio cassette, which was taken into possession by way of evidence. On 21.6.1999, another call was received on that telephone number and the caller asked, if the money had been arranged. On verification from the telephone exchange, it was found that the said call has been received from Ropar. Thereafter, the PCOs at Ropar were checked but the police did not find any clue regarding the person who made that call. On 22.6.1999, the kidnappers threw one audio cassette and a letter in front of the house of the complainant and those were produced before the police and were taken into possession. On 11.7.1999, one call was received on the above said telephone and the caller told that the person should come with money at Belongi near Ropar. On the same day, one letter and a part of birthday card were thrown by the kidnappers near the flour mill of village Korakpur, which were taken into possession by the police. The kidnappers continued to make calls on the telephone, asking for the ransom amount. On 21.7.1999, another letter was thrown by the kidnappers at the flour mill of Korakpur in which they mentioned that the money be brought at about 12 noon on the footpath of the canal near Banga road. After receipt of the letter, Jaswinder Singh, SI (PW-6A) joined Vinod Kumar ASI (PW-5), Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 4 Surinder Mohan (PW-6) and others in the investigation and constituted different parties in order to nab the kidnappers. While this police party was present on the bridge of Kariha, Chandan Singh and Vinod Kumar came there on a scooter. They were stopped and apprehended. When the personal search of Chandan Singh was taken, one portion of the birthday card was recovered and when the same was placed side by side with the portion of the birthday card, which was with the ASI, it was found that these were the two portions of the same card. Thereafter, those were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PT. On further search of this accused, one country made pistol of .32 Ex. P.1 and four live cartridges Exs. P.2 to P.5 were recovered. In respect of the recovery of these fire arm and ammunition FIR No. 84 was got registered. The scooter on which the accused had come and the registration certificate thereof were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PE. On interrogation, Chandan Singh suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PAA that he and his co-accused kidnapped the child on 13.6.1999, who was kept by them in a rented house situated in Sarafan Bazar Rahon and could get him recovered from that place. Similar statement was made by Vinod Kumar and in pursuance of those statements, the accused got recovered the child, regarding which memo Ex. PG was prepared. The SI prepared rough site plan Ex. PBB of the place of recovery. Two notes book Exs. PEE and PFF, letter PGG and letter pad Ex. PHH were recovered from the house of Chandan Singh accused and those were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJJ. On 22.7.1999, Chandan Singh accused was produced before the SDJM, Nawanshahr, and an application was moved for obtaining his specimen signatures and handwriting, which he agreed to give and the SDJM passed order Ex. PUU. Thereafter, his Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 5 specimen handwriting and signatures Ex. PE were obtained. Those specimen hand writing and signatures alongwith the above said letters as well as two portions of the birthday card Mark A were sent to FSL on 8.7.1999 through Shri Shangara Ram, Constable (PW-19). After examination, it was reported by the Deputy Director of that laboratory, vide his reports Exs. PWW and PXX, that the disputed and specimen hand writing were in the hand writing of the same person and that both the portions of the card were part of one and the same document. In the course of investigation, Manmohan Kaur @ Mohni accused was arrested on 15.10.1999. Necessary sanction under Section 39 of the Act Ex. PA for prosecution of Chandan Singh accused for the offence under Section 25 of the Act was obtained from the District Magistrate, Nawanshahr. After completion of the investigation, two challans were put in before the SDJM, Nawanshar. He committed both those challans to the Court of Session, on the ground that the offence under Section 364 IPC was exclusively triable by that Court.
On appearance of the accused, in the Court, mandatory provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with by supplying them with the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution and sent alongwith the police report. From the perusal of those documents and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the accused in person, the Additional Sessions Judge found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and in addition to that Chandan Singh committed offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 6
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Bahadar Singh (PW-1), Sukhdev Singh (PW-2), Sucha Singh (PW-3), Reena Rani, complainant (PW-4), Vinod Kumar, ASI (PW-5), Surinder Mohan (PW-6), Jaswinder Singh, SI (PW-6A), Baldev Singh (PW-7) K. L. Sikka (PW-8), Sunita (PW-9) Sukhdev Raj (PW-10) Makhan Singh, ASI (PW-11), Raj Kumar (PW-12), Surinder Kumar (PW-13), Paul Singh, ASI (PW-14), Jagbinder Singh (PW-15), Husan Lal, HC (PW-16), Nirmal Singh (PW-17), Dr. Indu Mehta (PW-18) and Shangara Ram (PW-19) and tendered in evidence reports of Exs. FSL PWW, PXX and PYY.
After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence and false implication. They were called upon to enter on their defence and they examined Sohan Singh, Constable (DW-1) in their defence.
After going through the said evidence and hearing Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused, the trial court acquitted Manmohan Kaur @ Mohni and convicted and sentenced the other accused, as aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused, while challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court, submitted that the trial court committed an illegality, while placing reliance upon the statement of Vinod Kumar, ASI (PW-5). According to that witness, he was posted in Police Post Jadla, which was in the limits of Police Station Sadar Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 7 Nawanshahr and on the alleged date he had come to Police Station City Nawanshahr, and thereafter had accompanied the SHO. It has been proved on the record that no such report of his arrival was found in the DDR of Police Station City, Nawanshahr, nor he made any report of his departure in Police Post Jadla. In these circumstances, his presence at the time of the alleged arrest of the accused becomes highly doubtful. He further submitted that Reena Rani (PW-4) and Sunita (PW-9) for the first time identified the present accused and Vinod Kumar accused in the court as the same persons who had kidnapped the child. They never disclosed their names nor their description in the FIR/statement. That identification made in the court for the first time in the absence of test identification parade is totally irrelevant and no reliance can be placed upon the same. He also submitted that the prosecution witnesses have made totally contradictory statements as to the time at which the child is said to have been got recovered by the accused. It is very much apparent from the statement of the police officials that the child was got recovered after 5/6 p.m., whereas according to the grand father of that child; namely, Sukhdev Raj (PW-10), he was told by the police at 2.30 p.m. itself that the child had been recovered and immediately thereafter he had seen the child in the police station. That is a material contradiction, which renders the statement of the police officials regarding the recovery of the child from the custody of the accused doubtful. In the last, he submitted that the accused was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 25 of the Act, in respect of fire arm and ammunition, alleged to have been recovered at the time of his arrest. If that part of the story has been disbelieved, then how reliance can be placed upon the other part of the story relating to the recovery of the child from the Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 8 custody of the accused. He prayed for setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the accused. He also prayed that in case the conviction of the accused is to be maintained, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone; which is almost four years, as no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars after such a long period and when the courts are adopting reformatory theory.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that merely on account of omission of making report in the DDR of the police post or the police station regarding the departure or arrival of Vinod Kumar, ASI, cannot be made a ground for disbelieving his otherwise trustworthy statement. His statement was to be appreciated otherwise and after due appreciation the trial court came to the correct conclusion that he was present at the spot and is a truthful witness. There is no ground for discarding his testimony. There is no rule of law that the identification of the accused in the court for the first time in the absence of test identification parade is totally irrelevant. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to how much reliance is to be placed thereon. In this case, the complainant and the other witnesses had sufficient opportunity to watch the accused at the time they kidnapped the child and, therefore, were in a position to identify them in the court. The test identification parade is a part of investigation and non conduct of that parade cannot be made a ground for discarding the evidence, which is otherwise admissible. The discrepancy regarding the time of the recovery of the child from the possession of the accused alone is not sufficient for disbelieving the otherwise trustworthy statements of the police officials, who categorically stated that the accused in pursuance of their disclosure Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 9 statements got recovered the child. The acquittal of the offence under Section 25 of the Act cannot be a ground for disbelieving the other part of the prosecution story. He further submitted that the prosecution proved on record that the letters were being sent by the accused to the complainant asking for ransom for releasing the kidnapped child and when the handwriting of those letters was got compared with the specimen handwriting of the accused, obtained before the Magistrate, from the document expert, the same were found to be of the same author. That is very material piece of evidence and which points towards the guilt of the accused and corroborates the other evidence produced by the prosecution. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, the guilt of the accused stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt. He was rightly convicted by the trial court. He also submitted that there is no question of reducing the sentence so imposed upon the accused to the period already undergone by him, as in fact, he committed offence punishable under Section 364A IPC, which is more severe and is liable to be dealt with deterrently. The sentence of 7 years so imposed upon the accused cannot be said to he on the higher side.
In the court, the prosecution story was unfolded by Reena Rani, complainant (PW-4). She stated that on 13.6.1999 at 6.30 p.m. she and her sister-in-law Sunita were sitting on the roof of her house when her son Lovely and son of Sunita, Pankaj, were playing outside the house. In the meanwhile, both the accused came there on a scooter, picked up Lovely and drove away at a high speed. Both of them, after climbing down of the roof chased that scooter, while raising alarm, but the accused escaped. Her statement was fully corroborated by Sunita (PW-9). It was admitted by both Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 10 of them, during the cross-examination, that they never identified the accused by joining any test identification parade. It is very much apparent from their statements that after the occurrence they saw the accused in the court for the first time. Question arises, whether reliance can be placed upon this identification made in the court for the first time, in the absence of any test identification parade? In Malkhan Singh and others. v. State of M.P. (2003)(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 550, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 11 parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration. (See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1958 SC 350, Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A.P. AIR 1960 SC 1340, Budhsen v. State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 128 and Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K. (1971) 2 SCC 715)"
Now, it has been recently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself in Sheo Shankar Singh versus State of Jharkhand and another 2011 (2) Recent Apex Judgments, 452, as under:-
"It is fairly well-settled that identification of the accused in the Court by the witness constitutes the substantive evidence in a case although any such identification for the first time at the trial may more often than not appear to be evidence of a weak character. That being so a test identification parade is conducted with a view to strengthening the trustworthiness of the evidence. Such a TIP then provides corroboration to the witness in the Court who claims to identify the accused persons Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 12 otherwise unknown to him. Test Identification parades, therefore, remain in the realm of investigation."
It was further held as under:-
"The Code of Criminal Procedure does not oblige the investigating agency to necessarily hold a test identification parade nor is there any provision under which the accused may claim a right to the holding of a test identification parade. The failure of the investigating agency to hold a test identification parade does not, in that view, have the effect of weakening the evidence of identification in the Court. As to what should be the weight attached to such an identification is a matter which the Court will determine in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In appropriate cases the Court may accept the evidence of identification in the Court even without insisting on corroboration."
Therefore, identification of the accused for the first time in the court is not totally irrelevant evidence though it may be a weak type of evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the persons making the identification, that evidence regarding the identification can be duly considered even in the absence of any test identification parade. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat 2000 (1) Apex Court Journal 201:1999 Crl. L.J. 5013, that absence of test identification parade does not render the evidence of eye witness, identifying the accused, as inadmissible or totally useless. Whether such evidence deserve credence or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Again it was held by the Hon'ble Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 13 Apex Court in Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris etc. vs State of Maharashtra 1998 (2) Apex Court Journal 12 (S.C.) that identification of accused at trial is relevant piece of evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, though the same is inherently of weak character. Evidence of identification in test identification parade is not substantial evidence and is only a corroborative evidence. It was within the realm of investigation The substantive evidence that statement of the witness made in the court identifying the accused by a witness, if he had an opportunity to interact with him to notice his distinctive features lends assurance to his testimony in Court and that the absence of corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade would not be material.
It is very much clear from the statements of both these witnesses that the accused kidnapped the child in their full view and they were sitting in the advantageous position, being the roof of the house. They had sufficient opportunity to note the distinctive features of the accused so as to enable them to subsequently identify them. A mother on account of her affinity with the child cannot forget the look of a person kidnapping her child in her full view. In view of the above discussed position of law, reliance is to be placed upon the statements of these witnesses regarding identification of the accused, though it was for the first time that they identified the accused in the court.
It was stated by Jaswinder Singh, SHO (PW-6A) that on 21.7.1999, Des Raj, maternal grand father of the child, told that the accused had sent a message that they should meet them on the bridge of Kariha with the ransom amount of Rs. 2 lakh. He, accompanied by the other police officials, went to that place in civil dress. In the meanwhile, Chandan Singh Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 14 and Vinod Kumar came to that place on a scooter. From the possession of Chandan Singh, one revolver Ex. P.1 and cartridges Exs. P.2 to P.5 were recovered and thereafter he suffered disclosure statement Ex. PAA that he himself, his wife and Vinod Kumar has kept the child in a rented house situated in Sarafan Bazar Rahon and could get him recovered from that place. Thereafter, this accused led the police party to the disclosed place and got the child recovered. This statement of the Investigating Officer has been fully corroborated by Paul Singh, ASI (PW-14) and Vinod Kumar, ASI (PW-5). In addition to that, he also stated that when Satnam Singh took the personal search of Chandan Singh one half portion of greeting card was got recovered from left pocket of his trousers and the other part of the greeting card was with the ASI and when those were placed in juxta position, it was found a complete greeting card. The statement of the Investigating Officer regarding recovery of the pistol and cartridges has been corroborated by Surinder Mohan (PW-6).
It was stated by Vinod Kumar, ASI (PW-5), during his cross- examination, that he had made departure entry in the police record at about 11/11.30 a.m. As already said above, according to him, he was called to the police Station City Nawanshahr on 21.7.1999 in connection with the investigation of this case. The DDR which used to be maintained in the police post was never produced by the prosecution for corroborating his statement that such report regarding his departure was recorded in the same. The accused examined Sohan Singh (DW-1) in defence, who produced in the court the DDR dated 21.7.1999, which was maintained in the Police Station City Nawanshahr. He stated that there was no entry in that DDR regarding the departure, arrival or return of Vinod Kumar, ASI. According Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 15 to the said ASI, the police party was headed by Satinder Singh, DSP and, as per this Constable, there was no such entry of arrival or departure of said DSP in the DDR. No doubt, as per the police rules, such entries were required to made in the DDR but an omission to make those entries outrightly cannot be a ground for discarding the statement of Vinod Kumar, ASI, which is to be scrutinized and interpreted independently, by keeping in view the omission of the entry in the DDR. After having scrutinized his statement, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I have come to the conclusion that he is truthful and trustworthy witness, having no animus to depose against the accused. It cannot be said that being a police official, he was bound to support the prosecution case. The accused was afforded an opportunity to test the veracity of the witness and truthfulness of the statement made by him, on the touchstone of the cross- examination. In the present case, the accused cross-examined this ASI at length but in that process, he has not been able to impeach his credibility nor has been able to elicit any such fact on the basis of which it may be held that he was not present at the spot and has been introduced in the picture subsequently. He and other witnesses examined regarding this recovery have made consistent statements inter-se and have stood the test of judicial scrutiny. The learned trial court did not commit any illegality, while placing reliance on their testimony. From the statements of all these witnesses, it stands proved that both the accused were intercepted by the police party on 21.7.1999 after the police was informed that they had asked the complainant party to come to the disclosed place with the ransom money and that the child was got recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused. That was possible only if it were the accused who kidnapped Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 16 the child. Merely on account of acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act in respect of fire arm and ammunition, effected at the same time, it cannot be held that the other part of the story of the prosecution is also to be disbelieved. The courts are meant for separating the truth from the falsehood and if in that process, one part of the story is disbelieved the other part of the story can still be believed.
The other corroborative evidence has also been produced by the prosecution for proving the guilt of the accused. As already discussed above, it is in the statement of Vinod Kumar, ASI (PW-5) that from the possession of this accused half portion of the greeting card was recovered and the other half was already with the Investigating Officer and those parts were found forming one greeting card. As per the prosecution evidence, the portion of the greeting card which was with the Investigating Officer was in fact thrown by the accused in front of the door of the house of the complainant. The recovery of the other portion from the possession of the accused shows that he was in possession of the portion thereof and it was he who had thrown the same at the door step of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, the accused had been sending the writings to the complainant party asking for ransom for releasing the kidnapped child. It was stated by Sukhdev Raj (PW-10) that on 11.7.1999, he had received a letter vide which he was asked to reach Belongi alongwith Rs. 2 lakhs and the child would be freed after 8 hours of the receipt of that amount. It was testified that the said letter is Ex. PLL. He also stated that on 21.7.1999 at about 5 a.m., he found a polythene envelop in his flour mill which contained letter Ex. PNN and it was written in that letter that in case they would not bring the ransom money on the bridge of the canal of village Malpur Arkan Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 17 at 12, they would receive the head of the kidnapped child. That letter was produced before the police and was taken by the police into possession, vide memo Ex. PC/1. It was stated by Jaswinder Singh, SI (PW-6A) that from the house of the accused, two notes book Ex. PEE and PFF, one letter Ex. PGG and a letter pad Ex. PHH were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PJJ.
The prosecution examined Nirmal Singh, Reader of the Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr, as PW-17, who used to work as Ahlmed with Shri Jai Karan Mattu, Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr. He identified the signatures of that Magistrate on order Ex. PUU and the specimen writing Ex. PE. This order Ex. PUU was passed on the application filed by the investigating agency for obtaining the specimen signatures and handwriting of this Chandan Singh accused and the same were taken after he had agreed to give the same. Mark E is the specimen writing so furnished by the accused. This specimen writing and the above said letters were sent to FSL in the same condition and that fact stands proved from the statement of Shangara Ram, HC (PW-19). According to him, the sealed envelop containing those documents were given to him on 8.7.1999 by MHC Surinder Kumar and he delivered the same in FSL on the same day. The Deputy Director of that Laboratory, after examining those documents, gave his report Ex. PXX, which is admissible under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of the similarities found in the hand writing of those letters and the specimen writing, it was opined by him that those were of common authorship. From this evidence, it stands proved that the letter so proved on record were in the hand writing of Chandan Singh accused. From this evidence, it is very much apparent that it was the accused who kidnapped Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 18 the child and had demanded the ransom for releasing him.
From, all this evidence of the prosecution, the guilt of the accused stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt. A correct finding to that effect was recorded by the trial court and there is no ground for upsetting that well reasoned finding. Therefore, the conviction of the accused is upheld.
In this case, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made by the counsel for the accused for reducing the sentence of imprisonment of 7 years to the period already undergone by him. In fact, as per the facts proved on record by the prosecution, the offence is made out under Section 364A IPC. It stands proved on the record that the accused kidnapped Lovely Sandhu and threatened to cause his death and asked for ransom for his release. The offence under Section 364A IPC is punishable either with the death or imprisonment for life. In the absence of any appeal or revision by the State, the conviction cannot be converted from Section 364 to 364A IPC. However, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment provided for the same, there is no ground for reducing the sentence of 7 years so imposed upon the accused. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence so imposed upon him.
This judgment be certified to the trial court for taking necessary steps.
October 5, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE