Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Singh @ Keepa vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 1
Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007
Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008
Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision:December 19, 2011
Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007
Kuldip Singh @ Keepa ......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007
Kulwinder Singh @ Bittu and another ......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008
Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha and others ......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008
Harjit Singh Babbal ......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 2
Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007
Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008
Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate,
for the appellants in CRA No.252-DB of 2008.
Mr.Jainainder Saini, Advocate
for appellant No.1 in CRA No.1062-DB of 2007
Mr.B.S.Bajwa, Advocate and
Mr.Vakeel Singh Khasa, Advocate
for appellant No.2 in CRA No.1062-DB of 2007
Mr.Jainainder Saini, Advocate as an
Amicus curiae for appellant Kuldip Singh @ Keepa
in CRA No.915-DB of 2007 and
appellant Harjit Singh Babbal, in CRA No.944-DB of
2008.
Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
****
JUDGMENT
SABINA, J.
Vide this judgment the above mentioned four appeals would be disposed of as these have arisen out of common judgment.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of complainant Kuljit Singh. Complainant stated in his statement before Sub Inspector Buland Singh, Police Station Amritsar that he was resident of Amritsar and owned a rice mill in the name and style of M/s Karam Singh Raghbir Singh at Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar. He had two sons. His elder son Parbir Singh was aged about 18 years and was a student of 10+2 class. On 7.2.2005, Parbir Singh had gone to attend his tuition class in the house of Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 3 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 Sanjay Khanna in Honda Accord car No.PB-02 AK-0044 of black colour. At about 7.15 pm, the complainant and his son were returning from tuition center in their separate vehicles. Parbir Singh was driving his car ahead of the vehicle of the complainant. Three unknown persons stopped the car of his son by giving a signal. The man, who was wearing police uniform, took out his pistol from his pocket and pushed aside Parbir Singh from the driver seat and himself sat on the said seat. The other two persons sat on the rear seat of the car and they drove away the car along with Parbir Singh on a pistol point with intention to kill him. He could identify the said three persons if they were brought before him. He followed the car but was not successful in stopping it as the car was driven away at a fast speed.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No.27 dated 7.2.2005 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 364/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Sub Inspector Buland Singh, on reaching the spot, prepared rough site plan. On 8.2.2005 and 9.2.2005, he along with other police officials searched for the assailants.
On 10.2.2005, complainant received a call from some unknown person on his mobile phone that his son was in their custody and was hail and hearty. A demand of ` five crores as ransom was demanded for release of his son. Complainant showed his inability to make arrangement for such a huge amount. The Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 4 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 complainant also told the caller that since his own mobile phone was being tapped, he should contact his brother-in-law Harjit Singh and he gave the mobile number of his brother-in-law to the caller. Harjit Singh kept on receiving calls from the abductors from 11.2.2005 to 15.2.2005. On 15.2.2005, it was settled that they would pay ` 1,25,00,000/- to the abductors for release of Parbir Singh. Harjit Singh informed the complainant qua the settlement and requested him to send him ` 1,00,00,000/- as he (Harjit Singh) had arranged ` 25,00,000/- himself. On 16.2.2005, complainant send ` 1,00,00,000/- through his driver Balbir Singh to Harjit Singh. On 17.2.2005, at 4 a.m., Harjit Singh received a phone call from the abductors that he should start towards Piliphit towards Bareilley. Harjit Singh along with Ajay Juneja started towards the said spot. When complainant reached the spot, a Zen car came from behind and two persons got out of the car and took the money from Harjit Singh which had been kept in two bags. The two persons assured Harjit Singh that Parbir Singh would be released soon. At night time Harjit Singh received a phone call that he should reach Gurudwara Fatehgarh Sahib. Then Harjit Singh on reaching the said spot found that a Zen car was parked there. Parbir Singh came out of the car and met him and then he took him to Faridabad. On 18.2.2005, complainant got the information that his son had been released by the abductors.
On 18.2.2005, Sub Inspector Buland Singh was asked to reach Saharanpur by Deputy Superintendent of Police as car No. PB-02 AK-0044 was seen parked at the railway station. The said car Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 5 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 was brought to Amritsar. Finger prints expert lifted finger prints from the car and empty bottle of liquor and two glasses which were recovered from the car. He recorded statements of witnesses on return to Amritsar. On 11.3.2005, he received a message from Station House Officer, Sadar, Jalandar that four persons, who had been arrested, had disclosed some facts qua the present case. Then he reached police station Sadar Jalandhar with Sub Inspctor Surinder Kumar and arrested Jaswinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Harjit Singh, who had already been arrested in FIR No.57/ 2005 under Section 22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act, 1985. On the same day, he also arrested Labh Singh from the said police station, who had already been arrested in FIR No.53/2005 under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884. On 12.3.2005, Sub Inspector Buland Singh went to house No.180 Urban Estate, Ludhiana from where one steel plate, one steel jug, one plastic bottle, four glasses and one membership card of Amritsar Club belonging to Parbir Singh were recovered. The finger prints from the bottle, steel jug and glasses were lifted. Accused Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa was arrested on 18.3.2005, who had already been arrested in another case. Accused Jaswinder Singh was arrested on 26.3.2005, who had already been arrested in another case.
During investigation, the recoveries of the ransom amount were effected from the appellants on the basis of their disclosure statements. After completion of investigation and necessary Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 6 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 formalities, challan was presented against the appellants and Kulwant Singh @ Kanta (who has died during the pendency of the trial. Thereafter, challan was also presented against Kuldip Singh and Manjinder Kaur @ Mini for commission of offence under Section 201 IPC.
The trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 12.10.2007 convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 364-A and 397 IPC. Accused Manjinder Kaur @ Mini and and Kuldip Singh were acquitted of the charge framed against them.
Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 26 witnesses.
Accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that they were innocent. Accused examined eight witnesses in their defence.
Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Offence under Section 364-A IPC was not made out in this case as no threat qua killing of Parbir Singh had been given by the appellants. The recoveries had been falsely foisted on the appellants. In fact, the appellants had not suffered any disclosure statement. The phone call details had not been proved on record. There were material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which rendered the prosecution case doubtful.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. All the Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 7 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 accused in connivance with each other had abducted Parbir Singh and had released him after receipt of ` 1,25,00,000/- as ransom. The case was squarely covered under Section 364-A IPC.
Section 364-A IPC reads as under:-
Kidnapping for ransom, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter- governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.". The above provision has been added in the Code w.e.f. 26.5.1995. Prior to introducing of Section 364-A IPC, only provision for punishment of kidnapping or abducting in order to murder was Section 364 IPC which 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, Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 8 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 and shall also be liable to fine."
The legislature in its wisdom in order to provide adequate punishment to the offenders for commission of offence of kidnapping for ransom introduced Section 364-A IPC vide Act No.42 of 1993 as applicable w.e.f. 22.5.1993. Thereafter, Section 364-A IPC was again amended vide Act No.24 of 1995 applicable w.e.f. 26.5.1995. The object and scope of the amendment is to provide severe punishment in cases where the offence of abduction or kidnapping is done or the person is kept continuously in detention and the accused threaten to cause death or hurt to such person detained or create a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt.
It has been held by the Apex Court in Malleshi vs. State of Karnatka (2004) AIR SC 4865 that in order to attract the provision of Section 364-A IPC, what is required to be proved is that the accused kidnapped or abducted a person and kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction and that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.
Let us examine the facts of the present case to come to the conclusion as to whether offence under Section 364-A IPC is made out in this case.
In order to prove its case prosecution has examined Parbir Singh as PW-1. The said witness is the star witness of the prosecution as he was the person who had been abducted. The said witness has categorically deposed that on 7.2.2005 at about 7.15 Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 9 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 p.m.. his car No.PB-02 AK004 was stopped while he was returning back home after attending his tuition classes. The person, who was dressed in police uniform, was Keepa and the person who showed him the pistol and pushed him aside was Kanta. The person, who had pushed him towards the rear seat was Bittu. The said persons then took the car towards Jalandhar byepass and thereafter they made him alight from his car and he was made to sit in Zen car bearing No.PB-02 AN 2295. Labha, Sukha, Channa, Babbal and Jassa were the occupants of the said car. Channa alighted from Zen car and had sat in his (witness) car. This witness duly identified the said accused in the Court. He further deposed that both the cars were taken to a house situated in Ludhiana and he was made to stay in the said house alongwith the occupants of the car. He came to know about the names of the accused as they were conversing with each other by addressing each other by said nick names. Sukha and Kanta used to talk on telephone with his maternal uncle Harjit Singh. The said persons told his uncle that in case the demand of ransom was not met they would kill him (Parbir Singh). Accused Kanta had also made him talk on telephone to his father as well as to his maternal uncle. Kanta had made him tell his father on telephone that he (Kuljit Singh) should comply with the terms of the accused if he wanted his release. On 16.2.2005, Kanta told him that the deal had been struck and he would be released after the payment of ransom amount was made to him by his maternal uncle. On 17.2.2005, Sukha and Kanta had left in a car to collect the ransom Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 10 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 amount. They returned back late in the night with the ransom money. On 18.2.2005, he was brought by Babbal and Kanta in Zen car No.PB-02 AN 2295 in front of Gurudwara Fatehgarh Sahib at about 8.30 am and was left there. After some time his maternal uncle reached the spot and took him to Faridabad. This witness further deposed that through out the period of his detention, abductors had told him that in case ransom amount was paid only then he would be released otherwise they would kill him. PW-1 is the person who had been abducted by the accused. The said witness has withstood the lengthy test of cross-examination. The said witness had no ill will against the appellants to have falsely involved them in this case. The testimony of PW-1 is duly corroborated by the complainant and PW-5 Harjit Singh on material aspects. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-2, has categorically deposed qua the abduction of his son and the receipt of call for ransom amount. The said witness further deposed that he had told the caller to negotiate with his brother-in-law Harjit Singh and thereafter, he had arranged Rupees one crore and had sent the same to his brother-in-law so that he could further pay the same to the abductors. PW-5 Harjit Singh has corroborated the factum of negotiations of the ransom amount with the abductors and payment of the ransom amount of ` 1,25,00,000/- to the abductors. He had also deposed qua the release of PW-1 after the payment of ransom amount. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case that Parbir Singh had been abducted by the appellants along Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 11 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 with their co-accused with a view to get ransom amount. Parbir Singh had been abducted at a pistol point and while he remained with the accused from 7.2.2005 till payment of ransom amount i.e. 17.2.2005 he had been threatened by the accused that in case the ransom amount was not paid he would be killed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we are not in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that offence under Section 364-A IPC was not made out in this case. Rather we are of the view that in the present case, the ingredients of Section 364-A IPC are fully satisfied. All the appellants, in connivance with their co-accused (since deceased), had abducted Parbir Singh with a view to get ransom amount. After the agreed ransom amount was paid to them, Parbir Singh was released near Gurudwara Fatehgarh Sahib.
Prosecution witnesses have also deposed qua the recovery of ransom amount from the appellants on the basis of their disclosure statements. Although major amount had come to the share of deceased Kulwant Singh @ Kants yet the fact remains that the appellants had also got their shares out of the ransom amount. The currency notes recovered from the appellants/ accused were duly identified by PW-2 Kuljit Singh. As per the prosecution evidence led on record ` 40,000/- were recovered from accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanta on the basis of his disclosure statement on 21.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex.PI. ` 30,000/- were further recovered from appellant Kulwant Singh @ Kanta on the basis of his disclosure Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 12 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 statement on 24.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex.PK. ` 51,000/- were got recovered by appellant Gurcharan Singh on the basis of his disclosure statement on 1.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex. PBB. ` 49,500/- were got recovered by appellant Labh Singh @ Labha on the basis of his disclosure statement on 1.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex.PCC. ` 50,000/- were got recovered by appellant Kulwinder Singh @ Bittu on the basis of his disclosure statement on 1.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex.PDD. ` 34,000/- were got recovered by appellant Jaswinder Singh on the basis of his disclosure statement on 1.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex. PEE. ` 65,500/- were got recovered by appellant Harjit Singh @ Babbal on the basis of his disclosure statement on 1.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex.PFF. ` 5,50,000/- were got recovered by appellant Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha on the basis of his disclosure statement on 11.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex. PJJ. ` 1,00,000/- were got recovered by appellant Kuldip Singh @ Keepa on the basis of his disclosure statement on 12.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex.PKK. ` 4,30,000/- were got recovered by appellant Kulwant Singh @ Kanta on the basis of his disclosure statement on 12.4.2005 vide recovery memo Ex. PLL.
As per PW-1 Parbir Singh, he had been kept confined in a house at Ludhiana. PW-8 Satish Kumar has deposed that house No.180, Urban Estate, Dugri Road belonged to him and he had given the same on rent to Ranbir Singh on 25.1.2005 for one year on a monthly rent of ` 5,000/-. He also proved the writing in this regard Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 13 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 Ex.PJ. The said witness, when examined during trial, pointed out towards accused Kulwant Singh as the person who had met him as Ranbir Singh.
The car belonging to the complainant was recovered from Saharanpur on 19.2.2005. During search of the car two glasses and one bottle of liquor were recovered from the car. Finger prints were lifted from the glasses as well as the bottle of whisky. In this regard Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar, while appearing as PW-6, has corroborated the fact that he had lifted finger prints from the bottle and two glasses from the recovered car.
As per Ex.P-20, report of the finger print bureau, the finger prints lifted during investigation matched with the finger prints of Kulwinder Singh @ Bittu, Harjit Singh @ Babbal, Jaswinder Singh, Labh Singh @ Labha, Gurcharan Singh @ Channa, Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa, Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha and Kulwant Singh @ Kanta.
PW-12 Assistant Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh has deposed that compact disc containing the recording of voices of the abductors was handed over by R.P.Singh to Deputy Superintendent of Police Ashish Kapoor. PW-16 Narinder Singh Sidhu deposed that on 18.4.2005, appellant Kulwant Singh had stated that he had no objection qua analysis of his voice and his voice was recorded in his presence in a cassette. PW-18 Gautam Sharma @ Pankaj deposed that he had recorded the voice of Kulwant Singh, who had been brought by Deputy Superintendent of Police Ashish Kapoor along Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 14 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 with Maninder Singh, Naib Tehsildar and others. He had handed over audio cassette to Deputy Superintendent of Police Ashish Kapoor.
As per Ex.P-21, report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, qua telephone call made on 15.2.2005 at 21:15:02 hours, the voice matched with the specimen speaker i.e. of Kulwant Singh.
Thus, in the present case, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. PW-1 Parbir Singh, while appearing in the witness box, has duly identified the abductors and has deposed qua the threats issued to him that in case the ransom amount was not paid he would be killed. The said witness had no axe to grind against the appellants to have falsely involved them in this case. Similarly, the complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW- 2, and PW-5 Harjit Singh have deposed qua the arrangement of ransom amount. PW-5 Harjit Singh has also deposed qua the negotiations of ransom amount and payment of the same by him to accused Kulwant Singh and Sukhjit Singh. He has further deposed that Parbir Singh was released at Fatehgarh Sahib by accused Kulwant Singh and Harjit Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants have failed to point out any material discrepancy in the statements of these material witnesses. The fact that details of telephone calls have not been proved on record amounts to negligence on the part of the investigating agency and the same cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution case is otherwise duly Criminal Appeal No.915-DB of 2007 15 Criminal Appeal No.1062-DB of 2007 Criminal Appeal No.252-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.944-DB of 2008 established. During investigation, recoveries of part of ransom amount were got effected by the appellants. The learned trial Court had, thus, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 364-A and 397 IPC.
Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (SABINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
December 19, 2011
anita