Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ahsan And Others vs State Of Haryana on 29 October, 2013
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003
Date of decision 29 .10.2013.
Ahsan and others
...... Appellants.
versus
State of Haryana .
...... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.S. 1629 SB of 2003
Intazar
...... Appellant.
versus
State of Haryana .
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment? yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
Present :- Mr. Pawan Hooda, Advocate for the appellant(s) in both
Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 2
appeals.
Mr. Amit Kaushik, Senior DAG, Haryana.
K.C.PURI, J.
By this common judgment I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 titled as Ahsan and others versus State of Haryana and Criminal Appeal No. S. 1629 SB of 2003 titled as Intazar versus State of Haryana, as both these appeals have arisen out of the same incident, judgment and order. For convenience facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 titled as Ahsan and others versus State of Haryana.
2. Appellants have directed the present appeals against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2003 passed by Shri A.S.Narang, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which accused Intazar was held guilty under Section 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 363 of the IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 365 of the IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused Intazar was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 343 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Intazar was further Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 3 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 346 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
3. Further accused Furkan, Amir Abbas and Ahsan were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 343 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 346 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. However, all the accused were acquitted under Sections 364- A of the IPC whereas accused Nand Kishore was acquitted from the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt.
4. Briefly stated the present set of appellants along with Nand Kishore were sent to stand trial for offences under Sections 365 and 364-A read with Section 34 and 120-B of the IPC by Station House Officer Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat.
5. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.3.1996, Rajinder Prasad (complainant) got recorded his statement to ASI Subhash Chander in which he has stated that he was carrying on business under the name and style of Hans Textile Mills at Sonali Road, Panipat. He had two sons and one daughter. Pardeep Kumar his son aged eleven years was his youngest child. Master Pardeep Kumar had appeared in the 4th standard examination. There was a park near his house and his son, Pardeep used to go to that park often to play. On 27.3.1996 at about 10.00a.m., his son Pardeep Kumar had gone to the park for playing. Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 4 Pardeep Kumar was wearing a red colour pant and a full-sleeved striped white shirt and rubber chappals. Pardeep Kumar used to come back to the house at around 11.30p.m., to have his meals. However, he did not come back on that day. His wife Ramrati started searching him but he could not be found. A report was lodged with the police. Complainant has stated that he has searched for his son in relatives but in vain. He suspected that some one had kidnappaed his son. On the basis of his statement FIR was recorded. However, on 28.3.1996 Roshan Lal uncle of Pardeep Kumar got recorded his statement that Pardeep Kumar had been kidnapped by accused Billu and Intzar in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched with Nand Kishore. On 5.4.1996, an information was received from SHO, Police Station Charthawal (UP) that Pardeep Kumar had been apprehended with accused Ahsan, Amir Abbas, Intzar, Furkan and Zeenat Fatima. SHO, Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat reached Police Station Charthawal where Pardeep Kumar was found. The accused were arrested and after investigation challan was presented in the Court of Area Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.
6. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 364-A, 120-B and 347 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Shri R.C.Godara as PW-1, MHC Ramesh Kumar as PW-2, ASI Rattan Singh as PW-3, Rajinder Parshad as PW-4, ASI Subhash Chander as PW-5, Master Pardeep Kumar as PW-6, Roshan Lal as PW-7, ASI Jai Pal Singh as Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 5 PW-8, Akbar as PW-9, Draftsman Ramesh Malik as PW-10, SI/SHO Mahi Pal Singh as PW-11 and closed the evidence.
8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded their innocence. They were called upon to lead their defence evidence but they did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
9. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2003
10. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.08.2003, accused/appellant-Intazar has directed Criminal Appeal No. S-1629 SB of 2003 whereas accused Ahsan, Amir Abbas and Furkan have preferred the present Criminal Appeal No. S-1430 SB of 2003. 11 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. Criminal Appeal No. S-1629 SB of 2003.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in case all the allegations are taken as it is, in that case at the most offences under Section 343 and 346 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC are made out. It is submitted that no offence under Sections 363 and 365 of the IPC are made out against the appellant Intazar. It is submitted that name of Intazar-appellant does not figure in the FIR. Pardeep Kumar has given a tutored version. So, his testimony has to be ignored. In the alternative Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 6 counsel for the appellant Intazar has submitted that appellant Intazar has undergone incarceration for a period of five months and three days. So, prayer has been made for taking lenient view regarding quantum of sentence on the ground that occurrence took place more than seventeen years ago.
13. I have carefully considered the submission made by counsel for the appellant-Intazar.
14. In case the testimony of Pardeep (minor) victim is taken into account, in that case it is revealed that appellant-Intazar has taken active part in the kidnapping of Pardeep (minor) victim. He has categorically stated that at Bus Stand Panipat, Intazar joined Billu accused (proclaimed Offender) and accused- Intazar took him in a tempo and after some distance by short cut passage Pardeep (minor) victim was taken to the other side of river Yamuna. So, he has taken active part in kidnapping and confinement of Pardeep in Uttar Pradesh. The very fact that Pardeep has been recovered from the custody of Intazar and other remaining accused/appellants goes a long way to prove the case of the prosecution against Intazar and other co- accused.
15. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial Court under Sections 363, 365, 343 and 346 of the IPC is concerned, in my view, that does not call for any interference except making it concurrent. Intazar has kidnapped Pardeep and has wrongfully confined for a number of days. The other appellants have joined him. The young age of Pardeep deters this Court to take any lenient view regarding quantum of sentence against Intazar-accused. So, no ground for reduction of sentence is made out. Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 7 However, since sentence under Sections 343 and 346 of the IPC have arisen out of the same transaction and as such these sentences under Sections 343 and 346 read with Section 34 of the IPC are ordered to run concurrently along with sentence imposed under Sections 365 and 363 of the IPC.
16. Consequently, appeal preferred by accused-appellant-Intazar stands dismissed with the modification in the sentence mentioned above.
17. Accused-appellant- Intazar is stated to be on bail. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. Criminal Appeal No. S-1430 SB of 2003.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court but has submitted that appellants Ahsan has already undergone incarceration for a period of one year, Amir has undergone incarceration for a period of one year seven months and twelve days and Furkan has already undergone incarceration for a period of one year six months and two days. It is submitted that the trial court has wrongly awarded the sentence consecutively under Sections 343 and 346 of the IPC. It is submitted that maximum sentence under Sections 343 and 346 of the IPC is two years each. It is further contended that occurrence relates to the period more than seventeen years ago. All the appellants are not previous convicts. It is further submitted that even according to Pardeep Kumar victim, they have not used any force against him. It is also contended that even Intazar has been awarded concurrent sentence in respect of offences under Sections 363 and 365 of the IPC. So, prayer has been made for taking lenient view regarding quantum of sentence of Intazar-accused. Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 8
19. Prayer has been opposed.
20. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides.
21. The factum of illegal detention by these three appellants have not been challenged. Otherwise also, recovery of the victim has also been taken from them along with Intazar. So, conviction recorded by the trial Court against accused-Ahsan, Amir Abbas and Furkan does not call for any interference and the same stands affirmed.
22. The learned trial court has awarded concurrent sentence to Intazar accused in respect of offence under Section 363 IPC and under Section 365 of the IPC. The occurrence relates to more than seventeen and half years back. As per conviction slip accused-appellant-Ahsan has already undergone incarceration for a period of one year, Amir has undergone incarceration for a period of one year seven months and twelve days and Furkan has already undergone incarceration for a period of one year six months and two days. They are not previous convicts nor are facing trial in any other case. The maximum sentence under Sections 343 and 346 of the IPC is two years each. Pardeep, the victim has stated that accused Billu has slapped him but he has not stated that any of the three accused-appellants had misbehaved with him.
22. So, considering all these circumstances, sentence of accused- Ahsan, Amir Abbas and Furkan stands reduced to the period already undergone.
24. With the above said observations made above, Criminal Appeal No. S-1430 SB of 2003 titled as Ahsan and others versus State of Haryana stands disposed of accordingly.
Criminal Appeal No. S. 1430 SB of 2003 9
25. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE October 29 , 2013 sv