Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal Kumar @ Lucky vs State Of Punjab on 29 August, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other
connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(i) Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008(O&M)
Date of decision : 29.08.2012
Vishal Kumar @ Lucky
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.D-360-DB of 2008
Sohan Lal @ Sonu
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT
(iii) Criminal Revision No.2810 of 2008
Satnam Singh
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
***
Present : Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008. Mr.P.B.S.Goraya, Advocate, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.D-360-DB of 2008. None for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.2810 of 2008.
Ms.Ritu Punj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other
connected cases -2-
***
INDERJIT SINGH, J
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.D-308- DB of 2008 filed by Vishal Kumar @ Lucky, Criminal Appeal No.D- 360-DB of 2008 filed by Sohan Lal @ Sonu and Criminal Revision No.2810 of 2008 filed by petitioner Satnam Singh as these arise out of the same judgment and order dated 02.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
The appellants have filed the aforesaid two appeals against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2008, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amrtisar, whereby they have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 364-A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 364-A IPC. While observing that the offence under Section 302 IPC was a part of offence under Section 364-A IPC, the trial Court has not awarded separate sentence under Section 302 IPC. However, vide impugned judgment, accused Gurpreet Singh and Avtar Singh have been acquitted.
Aggrieved against the impugned judgment vide which Gurpreet Singh @ Goldy and Avtar Singh @ Sambha have been acquitted, the petitioner has filed the revision petition.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Sunpreet Singh, aged about 21 years, who was running a Karyana (Grocery) Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -3- shop at Ganda Singh Colony, near Mata Kaulan Bhalai Kendra at Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar, went missing while returning home in the evening from the shop on 31.10.2006. The matter was reported vide DDR No.10 dated 01.11.2006 at Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar by Satnam Singh, father of Sunpreet Singh. He also informed the police that Sunpreet Singh was having a cycle, keys of the shop and sale money with him. He further stated that Sunpreet Singh was wearing red patka (a piece of cloth tied on head) and cream check designed shirt. Again Satnam Singh made statement to Sub Inspector Avtar Singh, Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar on 13.11.2006 at 6:00 p.m. that they were continuously searching Sunpreet Singh but could not trace him. He also stated that at that time he was fully confident that his son Sunpreet Singh had been abducted by unknown person for getting ransom money. Ruqa was sent on the basis of which FIR was registered.
On 15.11.2006 when Satnam Singh, father of Sunpreet Singh was present in his house alongwith his family member, at 11:00 p.m. he received one call from unknown person, who demanding Rs.10,00,000/- in order to save the life of his son and fixed the morning time. Then the complainant reported the matter to SHO Balkar Singh, Police Station 'B' Division and police handed over to him 10 bundles, each bundle having one note on both sides of the bundle with 98 notes of the papers looking like Rs.1,00,000. This amount was to be handed over to kidnapers in Park of Kot Atma Ram opposite the popular trees.
Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other
connected cases -4-
On 16.11.2006 at about 5:00 a.m. complainant
accompanied by his son Prabhjit Singh went to the fixed place and as per instructions of the police waited for the kidnappers. After about 15 minutes, two persons namely Vishal Kumar and Sohan Lal came there. Police party was available nearby, who had concealed themselves. Complainant handed over the money to Sohan Lal accused and gave the agreed signal to police whereupon the police party pounced upon the accused and apprehended both of them namely Sohan Lal and Vishal Kumar. The bundles of money, which were handed over to Sohan Lal, were recovered from Sohan Lal and were taken into police possession. Both the accused were interrogated and on interrogation, they disclosed that they alongwith Gurpreet Singh Goldy and Avtar Singh Sambha had kidnapped his son Sunpreet Singh on 31.10.2006 in order to take ransom. They had killed him two days after abduction and had buried his body in a vacant plot in Kot Mahna Singh under the heap of garbage after putting it in a gunny bag and they can get the same recovered. Statements of both the accused were recorded. Dr.Manpreet Kaul and Tehsildar Rajinder Singh were called to the spot by the police. Video film was also arranged. Thereafter, Sohan Lal and Vishal Kumar led the police party to the place where the dead body was stated to be buried. In the presence of complainant Satnam Singh, Police officials, Tehsildar Rajinder Singh and Dr.Manpreet Kaul, accused got recovered the dead body of Sunpreet Singh from the place in pursuance of their disclosure statements. Dead body was in Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -5- an advanced stage of decomposition. Satnam Singh identified the dead body. The dead body was taken into police possession. Rough site plan regarding the place of recovery of the dead body was prepared. Photographs were also taken. Samples of soils from the place of recovery of dead body was taken. Post mortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of Sunpreet Singh.
Dr.Puneet Arora (PW3) alongwith Dr.Kirpal Singh conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sunpreet Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. On removing the clothes, upper incisors missing, infiltration of blood present on prioral area. Clothes were blood stained.
2. Chest cavity was opened. Infiltration of blood was present on left side. Fourth and fifth ribs of left side were fractured and clotted blood was present.
3. On removing rope, infiltration of blood was present on soft tissues of writ on both sides.
4. On removing the rope, infiltration of blood was present in underline tissues of ankles.
As per the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was combined effect of smothering and traumatic asphyxia leading to asphyxia which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within a few minutes and between death and post-mortem was about two to four weeks.
Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -6-
The statements of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. After necessary investigation, challan was presented.
Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charged for the offences under Sections 364-A, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 201 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Satnam Singh, father of Sunpreet Singh (deceased), who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW2 Head Constable Amrik Singh is a formal witness who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P1. PW3 Dr.Puneet Arora conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunpreet Singh (deceased). PW4 Rishi Ram, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding scaled site plan Ex.PW4/A. PW5 Head Constable Harvinder Singh mainly deposed regarding the videography of the dead body, which was recovered from the heap of manure. He also stated that Constable Sarwan Singh also took the photographs of the proceedings of the recovery of the dead body. PW6 Constable Sarwan Singh mainly deposed regarding the photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. PW7 Rajinder Singh, Tehsildar, Amritsar, deposed regarding the recovery of the dead body in his presence. PW8 ASI Mangal Singh deposed that he was in the police party of ASI Jagdish Chander. He also deposed regarding the arrest of the accused Gurpreet Singh @ Goldy and Avtar Singh @ Sambha, who were on the cycle. He further deposed that on the search of Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -7- Gurpreet Singh, a country-made pistol .315 bore was recovered from the right dab of the pant worn by him and on unloading the pistol, a live cartridge of .315 bore was recovered and a separate case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. He deposed that from the backside pocket of pant of Gurpreet Singh @ Goldy, a passbook of Sahara, on which the name of Sunpreet Singh (deceased) was written and a silver ring from his left finger, on which word 'SS' was engraved, were recovered. He further deposed that on search of Avtar Singh, a red colour purse on which word 'Lilly' was written, was recovered from the back pocket of pant worn by him and from the purse one identity card of Sunpreet Singh (deceased) issued by Election Commission of Indian and a photo of deceased were recovered. All these articles were identified by Prabhjit Singh and were taken into police possession. PW9 Head Constable Tarsem Singh is a formal witness who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Kuljit Singh has not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. PW11 Bishamber Dass, Election Assistant, mainly deposed regarding issuance of identity card of Sunpreet Singh. PW12 Sub Inspector Avtar Singh and PW13 Inspector Balkar Singh deposed regarding investigation of the case. PW14 Raghvender Partap Singh, Manager, Sahara India, deposed regarding the pass-book issued in the name of Sunpreet Singh regarding scheme Sahara 4DS. PW15 Sub Inspector Jagdish Chander also deposed regarding the arrest of accused Gurpreet Singh @ Goldy and Avtar Singh as deposed by PW8 ASI Mangal Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -8- Singh.
On closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They pleaded that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
The trial Court after appreciation of evidence and material on record, convicted and sentenced both the accused-appellants Vishal Kumar @ Lucky and Sohan Lal @ Sonu and acquitted accused Gurpreet Singh @ Goldy and Avtar Singh @ Sambha as stated above.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the evidence and material on record carefully.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case. They also contended that there is no eye-witness to the murder, no witness has seen the kidnapping, there is no last seen evidence, there is no extra judicial confession, no weapon was recovered from the appellants-accused, the witnesses are unreliable witnesses and cannot be believed, it being a case of circumstantial evidence, chain of the circumstances is not complete and there are missing links, therefore, the appellants-accused are entitled to be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, argued that the prosecution has duly proved its case while Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -9- leading oral as well as medical evidence and also from the investigation of this case. The appellants were apprehended by the police on the spot when they have come to receive the ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- and the currency notes and paper notes handed over to Sohan Lal were recovered by the police from him. She also contended that dead body of Sunpreet Singh was got recovered in pursuance of disclosure statements of the accused which is a strong circumstance to connect the accused with the murder of Sunpreet Singh. She contended that there is no motive to falsely implicate the accused. The appeals filed by the appellants have no merit and the same should be dismissed.
As regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no evidence against them, we find no merit in the argument. PW1 Satnam Singh is the father of Sunpreet Singh (deceased). Sunpreet Singh did not return home on 31.10.2006 in the evening and the DDR regarding his missing was got registered on 01.11.2006 without any delay. Then after searching when he was not found, again an FIR was got registered on 13.11.2006 by PW1 Satnam Singh complainant by showing suspicion that his son has been kidnapped for ransom. Even as per evidence, complainant Satnam Singh (PW1) after receiving ransom call at 11:00 p.m. on 15.11.2006, went to police station and got recorded his statement but at that time also he was not knowing the names of the kidnappers. He handed over the currency notes two each on 10 Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -10- bundles and the remaining being the paper notes to Sohan Lal where both these appellants have come to receive the ransom amount. They were apprehended on the spot. Therefore, in the present case, there is sufficient evidence against the appellants-accused. Further, on interrogation, both the appellants-accused made disclosure statements and then got recovered the dead body of Sunpreet Singh under the heap of manure which was in a gunny bag and is in decomposed condition. They got recovered the dead body in pursuance of their disclosure statements in the presence of Tehsildar Rajinder Singh, complainant Satnam Singh and police officials. There is nothing on the record to show that any other person could have come to know regarding concealing of dead body of Sunpreet Singh. This evidence itself is sufficient to connect both the appellants-accused with the crime. The medical evidence that it was homicidal death and cause of death was smothering and traumatic asphyxia also supports and corroborate the prosecution version. In no way, it can be held that there are missing links in the chain of circumstances. Rather the facts that appellants-accused were apprehended on the spot from the place fixed by them for receiving the ransom amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and recovery of dead body in pursuance of their disclosure statements point towards the guilt of the appellants-accused only and none-else. It is not necessary that the offence must be proved by direct evidence or by extra judicial confession or last seen evidence. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, it can be proved from so many facts. The only Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -11- consideration is that the evidence should be reliable and the chain of circumstances if put together should point towards the guilt of the accused only and none-else. In the present case, there is no reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. PW1 Satnam Singh, PW7 Tehsildar Rajinder Singh and the police officials etc. have no enmity or motive against the appellants-accused. There is nothing in their cross-examination to make their statements unreliable. They are truthful and reliable witnesses. The oral statements are duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case. It is not necessary to recover the weapons in the present case nor there is any evidence on record that any weapon was used for committing the murder of Sunpreet Singh (deceased). The cause of death is smothering and traumatic asphyxia. There is no evidence on record to show that appellants-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.
After the conclusion of the arguments, when this Bench was just to pronounce the order then Ms.G.K.Mann, learned counsel for the appellant Vishal Kumar @ Lucky argued that the appellant Vishal Kumar @ Lucky is a juvenile.
We have gone through the record. There is no application before the trial Court for getting conducted the inquiry whether Vishal Kumar @ Lucky was juvenile at the time of commission of offence or not. Before this Court also, no such prayer was made. However, through an application, one birth certificate has been placed on record. In the said birth certificate, no name has Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -12- been mentioned and there is nothing on the record that this certificate is regarding the appellant Vishal. There is no evidence/material on record to hold at this stage that appellant Vishal Kumar @ Lucky is juvenile. Even learned counsel for the appellant has not raised this point at the initial stage or during the arguments.
Therefore, from the above, we find no material available on record and this argument has no merit.
Therefore, from the above discussions, we find no merit in both the appeals filed by Vishal Kumar @ Lucky and Sohan Lal @ Sonu and the same are dismissed.
As regarding the revision petition filed by petitioner- complainant Satnam Singh against the acquittal qua accused Gurpreet Singh @ Goldi and Avtar Singh @ Sambha-respondent Nos.2 and 3, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, we find no merit in the revision petition. There is no cogent evidence on record against respondent Nos.2 and 3. They have not been apprehended on the spot. The disclosure statements made by co- accused Sohan Lal and Vishal Kumar are inadmissible against them and cannot be read against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Otherwise also, those facts that they have committed the crime alongwith Gurpreet Singh and Avtar Singh at the most can be treated as confessional statement made by accused Sohan Lal and Vishal Kumar before the police which hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Further, the only evidence against them is recovery of cycle, identity card, pass-book, silver ring, purse etc. First of all, it looks Criminal Appeal No.D-308-DB of 2008 (O&M) and other connected cases -13- improbable that any alleged accused will carry identity card, photo, pass book and purse of the deceased or wear silver ring of the deceased and will move freely on the cycle of the deceased, secondly, neither in the DDR nor in the FIR, there is mention of identity card, pass-book, photo, ring, purse etc. that the deceased was carrying these articles with him, thirdly though it is mentioned that he was on cycle when he went missing but there is no mention that he was on Hero cycle nor any bill etc. has been placed on record to prove the ownership of the cycle. With the recovery of these articles, in no way, respondent Nos.2 and 3 Gurpreet Singh and Avtar Singh can be connected with the crime. There is no cogent evidence on record against these respondents and reasonable doubt exists regarding them, therefore, they have been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court.
Therefore, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is also dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
29.08.2012
mamta