Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Hy vs Krishan Kumar Etc on 8 December, 2022
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M)
Reserved on: 30.11.2022
Date of Decision: 08.12.2022
State of Haryana ......Appellant
Versus
Krishan Kumar and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Yashvir S. Balhara, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 3.
Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Advocate
for respondent No. 5.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed by the State, against the impugned verdict, as made on 26.3.2002, upon Sessions Case No. 24 of 8.6.2000, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, Through the above said verdict, the learned trial Judge concerned, acquitted the respondents concerned, namely accused Krishan Kumar, accused Vinod, accused Prem Raj alias Leelu, accused Giriraj Kishore alias Banti, and, accused Dharambir, in respect of charges drawn against him for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 of the IPC. However, insofar as accused Ravinder is concerned, the learned trial Court concerned remanded the case to the Court below, for trial qua him, being conducted for breach of the relevant provisions of the Arms Act.
1 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:12 :::
CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -2-
Factual Background
2. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PB/1 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. PB/1 are that there was serious litigation between complainant Surjan Singh and his brother Ram Kishore. They are three real brothers. Ishwar Singh is their third brother. Sandeep Kumar, since deceased, aged about 16 years was the only son of complainant Surjan Singh. Surjan Singh was also having three daughters. In may, 1999, Ram Kishore had threatened complainant Surjan Singh that he will not allow him to stay in Gurgaon. On 24.10.1999, Sandeep Kumar went missing. On the next day i.e. 25.10.1999, a missing report was lodged by Surjan Singh with the local police. On the next day dated 26.10.1999, he met Inspector/Station House Officer Gulshan Ram, and, lodged report Ex. PB, suspecting Tinku, and, Deepak, sons of Ram Kishore for kidnapping his son Sandeep in order to kill him. It is also mentioned by him in his said report that about 20 to 25 days back, he had received a telephone call apprising him of criminal conspiracy to kill his son for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. On the basis of this report, FIR (supra) was registered by Sub Inspector Mawasi Ram, for offence punishable under Section 364/34 of the IPC.
Investigation proceedings
3. On 30.10.1999, Ram Kishore and his sons Tinku and Deepak were arrested but vide order dated 3.11.1999, they were discharged. They were found innocent. The investigations then became handed over to the CIA staff. These were conducted by Inspector Ashok Kumar.
4. On 4.1.2000 complainant Surjan Singh produced two photostat copies of letters dated 3.1.2000 and 16.5.1999 (Ex. P-27 and Ex. P-28), 2 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -3- respectively with photograph of the deceased to Inspector Ashok Kumar which were taken in a sealed parcel vide memo Ex. PO. Ransoms were demanded in these letters. It is the further case of the prosecution, that later on, complainant Surjan Singh expressed his suspicion upon accused Krishan Kumar and Vinod in theirs kidnapping his son, as they were frequently visiting his house, and, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given by him to accused Vinod, in order to disclose the whereabouts of the dead body of his son.
5. On 28.1.2000, accused Krishan Kumar, and, Ravinder made an extra judicial confession before Laxmi Narain, who thereafter produced them, before the police. In pursuance to their respective disclosure statements respectively enclosed in Ex.PP and Ex. PQ, the dead body of Sandeep in a highly decomposed condition, was recovered from a gutter in the area of Sector 46, Jharsa. It was got photographed from photographer Mohan Lal. Ex. P-1 to Ex-12 are the positive photographs, and, Ex. P-13 to Ex. P-24, are respectively the untouched negatives. The dead body was identified to be of Sandeep, by his father complainant Surjan Singh. It was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PR. After preparing inquest report Ex. PT, the body of deceased Sandeep was sent for autopsy. Doctor Ravinder Sahu had conducted the autopsy. Ex. PS is the copy of post- mortem report. In the opinion of the doctor, the dead body was of a young male individual but the cause of death, however, could not be ascertained.
6. On the next date i.e. 29.1.2000, accused Vinod, Prem Raj alias Leelu, Girraj Kishore alias Banti, and, Dharamvir were arrested. It was on the basis of the statements of accused Krishan Kumar, and, Ravinder hence mentioning their complicity in the kidnapping, killing and disposing of the dead body, that they became inculpated. It was disclosed by them that 3 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -4- Sandeep was kidnapped in Ambassador car No. DEA/4532. Further that Krishan Kumar, and, Ravinder had strangulated him in the car, by means of a mobile charger wire, whereas, accused Giri Raj, Vinod, and, Dharambir had forcibly caught hold him while he was being strangulated, and, whereas at that time, co-accused Prem Raj was driving the car. Giri Raj had also assaulted Sandeep on his head by means of a toy gun.
7. On 30.1.2000, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. PE) of accused Krishan Kumar dated 29.1.2000, mobile charger wire Ex. P-25 was recovered from his tailoring shop. It was taken in a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Ex. PG.
8. On 31.1.2000, on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. PX of accused Dharambir, chappal (Ex. P-26) was recovered from nearby a dry well, belonging to the deceased. It was taken in a sealed parcel with seal 'BS' vide memo Ex. PJ.
9. On 1.2.2000, on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. PU of accused Vinod dated 29.1.2000, police recovered original letter Ex. P-29 from his house. Its photocopy Ex. P-27 was earlier received by complainant Surjan Singh, and, was handed over to the police. This original letter was taken into police possession, in a sealed parcel vide memo Ex. PAD.
10. On the next date dated 2.2.2000, accused Vinod was produced before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, where he gave his specimen handwriting Ex. PM, and, Ex. PN. The said two photocopies Ex. P-27, and, Ex.P-28, original handwriting Ex. P-29 and the said specimen handwritings Ex. PM and Ex. PN, were duly sent to the FSL, Haryana, Madhuban, and, vide report Ex. PK of the handwriting expert concerned, he opined that, the author of all the writings was the same person.
4 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 :::
CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -5-
11. On 1.2.2000, on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. PW of accused Girraj, dated 29.1.2000, toy gun, used in the crime, was also recovered, and, was taken in police possession vide memo Ex. PAC.
12. Ambassador car No. DAE-4532 had already been recovered by the police. It was then parked in the courtyard of Police Station City Gurgaon, and, it was taken in police possession in this case, on 31.1.2000 vide memo Ex. PH.
13. On 31.1.2000, on the basis of disclosure statement Ex. PAG of accused Ravinder, police also recovered one country made pistol of .315 bore. Its sketch Ex. PAH was prepared, and, was taken in a seealed parcel vide memo Ex. PAJ. Rough site plan showing the place of recovery was also prepared. On the basis of writing, sent by Inspector Ashok Kumar, FIR No. 70 dated 31.1.2000 was registered against him for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. After conclusion of investigations, the investigating officer concerned, proceeded to institute a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned committal Court concerned.
Committal Proceedings
14. Since the offences constituted under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC, were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, thus, the learned committal Court concerned, through a committal order made on 18.5.2000, hence proceeded to commit the accused to face trial before the Court of Session.
Trial Proceedings
15. The learned trial Judge concerned, after receiving the case for trial, subsequent to its becoming committed to him, made an objective 5 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -6- analysis of the incriminatory material, adduced before him. Resultantly, he proceeded to draw charges against the accused, for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 of the IPC. Moreover, accused Ravinder was also charged qua an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The afore drawn charges were put to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.
16. In proof of its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed the prosecution evidence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. They also chose to adduce defence evidence, and, led 12 defence witness into the witness box.
17. As above stated, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to acquit the accused for the charges (supra), as became drawn against them.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant
18. (i) The learned State counsel has very vigorously argued before this Court, that even if assumingly, the links in the chain of circumstances, as mentioned in paragraph 50 of impugned verdict, as recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, became concluded to be rather infirm links. He further submits that the recoveries, as made respectively of the dead body of deceased Sandeep, recovery of mobile charger wire (Ex. P-25), recovery of a toy gun, recovery of chappal (Ex. P-26), alleged to be belonging to the deceased, and, recovery of Ambassador car DEA/4532, even if were purportedly infirm recoveries, rather for the reasons mentioned in the impugned judgment of acquittal, as recorded by the learned trial 6 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -7- Judge concerned.
(ii) However, he forcefully submits, that yet the recovery of original ransom letter Ex. P-29, at the instance of accused Vinod, photocopy whereof, to which Ex. P-27 is assigned, was earlier received by complainant Surjan Singh, when becomes opined by the handwriting expert concerned, after his making comparisons, with the specimen writings, as became provided by the accused, before the Executive Magistrate concerned, to become authored by the accused concerned. Therefore, he argues, that the above opinion of the expert concerned, does comprise the vital, besides the best cogent incriminatory link.
(iii) He further argues, that the said link clearly establishes the guilt of the accused qua the charge drawn against them, as in proximity thereof, the body of deceased Sandeep was found in a gutter. In consequence, he argues, that the recovery of the body of the deceased at the instance of the accused is a valid recovery, besides, he argues, that negation of other recoveries, at the instance of the accused concerned, rather by the learned trial Judge concerned, is unmeritworthy.
(iv) Therefore, he submits, that the impugned verdict of acquittal, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, requires an interference.
Submissions of the learned counsels for the acquitted accused
19. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the acquitted accused have also vigorously argued before this Court, that the impugned verdict of acquittal, as pronounced by the learned trial Judge concerned, does not require any interference, and, that it be affirmed, and, upheld by this Court.
7 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 :::
CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -8-
Extra judicial confession by the accused concerned
20. The initial link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, as became erected by the prosecution, becomes comprised in the extra judicial confession, as made by the accused Krishan, and, Ravinder hence before one Laxmi Narain PW-13. PW-13, in his deposition, as made before the learned trial Judge concerned, has thereins made speakings, that on 28.1.2000, he drove Tata Tempo to Sohna Chowk from Dhaula Kuan, and, after the labour was allowed to get down from the said vehicle at Sohna Chowk, he reached near 32 milestone. He further states that when he was taking tea at the tea stall, then one Gaje, who was travelling in the same tempo, was with him, and, that he had an argument with him. Gaje, is stated by him, to be the owner of the tempo, and, on account of his argument, said Gaje got annoyed, and, drove away the tempo, leaving PW-13 at 32 milestone. It was then, that there he noticed that two boys were standing by the side of the tea shop, and, were talking that they were worried about the police chasing them. He states, that they were talking about some illegal act, being committed by them, and, they were considering to go to the police, as visiting the police, was the appropriate course for them. It was then, one of the boys asked him the identity, and, when he revealed his identity, he then asked him to produce both of them before the police. He thereafter states, that the name of that boy was Krishan. About 10 minutes thereafter, he states, that he noticed police jeep of CIA staff coming at the relevant place, and, that then he suggested to the accused to get the jeep stopped, and, to appear before the police. He states, that Krishan told him that, he, and, others had kidnapped Sandeep Saini for ransom and, had killed him. Furthermore, he also states, that they disclosed that the dead 8 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -9- body of Sandeep was put by them in a sewer in the area of village Jharsa. He continues to testify, that they requested him to produce them before the police. He further submits, that the other boy, whose name was Ravinder, was more frightened, which led him to agree to what Krishan proposed qua both being produced by PW-13 before the police. Therefore, he states, that he got the police jeep stopped, and, produced them before the police. He further states that both Krishan and Ravinder spoke about their involvement, and, about the involvement of some more persons in the happening of the crime event, whose names he failed to recollect.
21. The above made testification, as embodied in the examination- in-chief of PW-13, cannot be concluded to be per se creditworthy, unless he remained unscathed in his cross-examination. A reading of his cross- examination, reveals, that he was not familiar with the identity of both the accused. Moreover, he states, that though co-accusd Krishan made an extra judicial confession before him, but yet co-accused Ravinder did not endorse the same. The above wholesome reading of the testification of PW-13, as carried in his examination-in-chief, and, in his cross-examination, does underscore the trite fact, that both the accused were complete aliens or strangers to him. Therefore, PW-13 when was neither a friend of the accused, nor was their confidante, in whom naturally they could be construed to repose trust, and, confidence. Since, the salient rule for assigning creditworthiness to any extra judicial confession, is embodied singularly in the trite canom, that the maker(s) of the extra judicial confession, are necessarily to be making the same, before persons, or a person, who is rather known or familiar to them or is their friend, and, but naturally so, as then they would repose confidence, and, trust hence 9 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -10- obviously before their friend or their confidante. Thus, when as above stated, PW-13 was neither the friend of the accused, nor was their confidante, nor hence they would be led to repose trust, and, confidence in him, for theirs making before him, their extra judicial confession. As such, no sanctity is to be assigned to the extra judicial confession, as made by the accused concerned, before PW-13. Therefore, non-assigning of credence thereto by the learned trial Judge concerned, in the impugned verdict of acquittal, does not merit, any interference. Since, reiteratedly as above stated, when PW-13 was an alien or stranger to the accused concerned, nor hence was their confidante, in whom they could obviously take to repose trust, and, confidence, for theirs making any extra judicial confession, before him. Thus, reiteratedly rather evidently the above salient norm governing the assignment of creditworthiness to any extra judicial confession, does become evidently completely whittled down or becomes completely breached.
Disclosure statement of accused Krishan and accused Ravinder
22. During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal FIR, accused Krishan made a signatured disclosure statement, to which Ex. PP is assigned. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the accused (supra), is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"In presence of below named witnesses, accused Krishan Kumar above said while in police custody disclosed that " I along with Ravinder son of Baljit, resident of village Jharsa, Girraj Kishore son of Vijay r/o Village Jharsa, Vinod son of Munni Lal r/o V. Gurgaon, Prem Raj son of Balwan r/o V. Jharsa had abducted Sandeep son of Surjan, caste saini, resident of V. Gurrgaon on 24.10.9999 at about 6.00/6.30 P.M. with a view to have ransom and to kill him. He was physically thrwon and taken in a car No. DEA-4532 and after taking him near village Jharsa he was killed by strangulation with the help of a charger and his dead body was dumped in a sewer pit near village Jharsa. I and Ravinder had strangulated his throat with the help of charger wire whereas Girraj Kishore and Vinod had controlled his hands and feet. Premraj was 10 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -11- driving the vehicle. I can point out the sewer pit where the dead body was thrown and can get the dead body of deceased recovered from there after pointing out the place. Except us none else knows about the same"
23. During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal FIR, accused Ravinder also made a signatured disclosure statement, to which Ex. PQ is assigned. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the accused is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"In presence of below named witnesses, accused Ravinder above said while in police custody disclosed that " I along with Krishan son of Banwari, r/o Kheri Sampla, Giriraj Kishore son of Vijay r/o Village Jharsa, Vinod son of Munni Lal r/o V. Gurgaon, Prem Raj son of Balwan r/o V. Jharsa on
24.10.1999 at about 6.00/6.30 P.M. had abducted Sandeep son of Surjan, with an intention to recover ransom and to kill him and he was taken after making him sit in a car No. DEA-4532 and near village Jharsa he was killed by strangulation with the help of a wire of charger in the car itself and his dead body was thrown in a sewer pit near village Jharsa.
Krishan and I had strangulated his throat with the help of wire of charger while Giriaj Kishore and Vinod had controlled his hands and feet. Premraj was driving the vehicle. The place of sewer pit where dead body was thrown I can point out the same and get the dead body of recovered. About the said identification none else except us knows." Identification of the site and recovery of the dead body of the deceased
24. In pursuance to the above signatured disclosure statement, both the accused (supra), got demarcated the place of occurrence, and, therefrom the dead body of deceased Sandeep was recovered, and, thereafter the dead body of the deceased concerned, was taken into police possession through recovery memo Ex. PR.
Valid reasons for rejecting the above disclosure statements
25. The prosecution, before the learned trial Judge concerned, had made a vigorous argument, that the identification of the crime site, or identification of the place or the site, wherefrom the body of deceased Sandeep was recovered, rather at the instance of the accused concerned, is 11 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -12- but a firm, and, cogent incriminatory link in the chain of circumstances. However, the learned trial Judge concerned, had not assigned any credence to the above purported link, on the ground, that the discovered site, purportedly at the instance of the accused concerned, rather was not a valid discovery at the instance of the accused concerned, as prior thereto, the police had an intimation or information, with respect to the body of the deceased concerned, hence already had lying there. The above reason for discarding the probative vigour of the disclosure statements, as respectively made by the accused concerned, and, as become respectively enclosed in Ex. PP, and, Ex. PQ, palpably does appear to be completely apt. The reason for forming the above conclusion, becomes founded in the factum, that the said place or site was evidently previously known to the investigating officer concerned. The foundation for making the above inference ensues from the factum, that the complainant had instituted a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68-69 of 2000, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, with an averment thereins, that on 27.1.2000, at about 8.00 A.M., accused Vinod had taken him, and, his relative one Mir Singh to Sector-46, Jharsa village, Gurgaon, and, had showed a highly decomposed dead body, which was lying in the gutter, and, in pursuance whereof the complainant Surjan Singh hence was led to make an intimation to the police officers of the CIA staff. Therefore, obviously when prior to the making of the signatured disclosure statements by the accused concerned, as become respectively enclosed in Ex. PP, and, Ex. PQ, the complainant had, on affidavit, accompanying his writ petition, as became instituted before the Hon'ble Apex Court, rather made a candid averment, that the accused had taken him, as well as his relative one Mir Singh, to the relevant site. Moreover, when he avers 12 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -13- thereins that, thereafter, he made an intimation to the police as well as to the CIA staff, about the site concerned. Thus, when the site of recovery of the body of deceased Sandeep, was already known to the police, resultantly, the subsequent thereto recovery or discovery of the body of deceased Sandeep, rather purportedly at the instance of the accused concerned, is but a completely concocted, and, engineered recovery. As but a natural corollary, the signatured disclosure statements, as made respectively by the accused concerned, which led to the relevant site, being purportedly discovered, at their instance, does also become hit by the bar, as becomes encapsulated in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The reason becomes embedded in the factum, that the confession of guilt, as made by the accused to the police officer concerned, would become a bald, and, simpliciter confession, as also would be inadmissible in evidence, unless the site of the apposite recovery or discovery, purportedly at the instance of the accused, is rather a site or place, which earlier thereto has remained unknown or unintimated to the police officer concerned. Contrarily, if the said site, is previously known or is intimated to the police officer concerned, thereupon, the said confession of guilt, reiteratedly attracts thereons rather the bar of inadmissibility, as contained in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Conclusion
26. Since the said bar, for reasons (supra), becomes attracted against the confession of guilt, as made respectively in the signatured disclosure statements of the accused concerned, as become respectively embodied in Ex. PP, and, Ex. PQ. Thus, reiteratedly the said disclosure statements become merely bald, and, simpliciter confessions of guilt. However, as the recovery or discovery of the relevant site, was not only 13 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -14- within the domain of the required exclusive knowledge of the accused concerned, but was prior thereto also evidently known or became visited by the police officer concerned, after the latter receiving an intimation from the complainant. Resultantly, no credence is to be assigned to the said discovery or recovery of the body of deceased Sandeep Singh. Naturally then, the said discovery or recovery of the body of deceased Sandeep Singh, purportedly at the instance of the accused concerned, does not become cogently established rather to become construable, as the prime incriminatory link in the chain of circumstances, as becomes erected by the prosecution.
27. Strengthened reason for making the above inference also ensues from the factum, that the complainant Surjan Singh, as above stated, in his petition, preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court, had made an averment thereins, that on 27.1.2000, at 8.00 A.M., he along with one Mir Singh, had visited the relevant site, but yet the said Mir Singh never became joined in the relevant investigations, nor became cited as a prosecution witness. If he had been cited as a prosecution witness, then it was possible to gauge from his testification, whether the said averment, as made in the petition (supra), as preferred by Surjan Singh, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, was truthful or untruthful. Moreover, if proven to be untruthful, thereupon, this Court may have been led to form an inference, that prior to the discovery or recovery of the body of the deceased concerned, purportedly at the instance of the accused concerned, the police officer had no knowledge about the relevant site, and, in the said event, this Court may have been led to assign creditworthiness to the confession of guilt, as made respectively by the accused concerned, in their respectively made disclosure statements. Moreover, this Court may have been coaxed to also then assign 14 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -15- credence to the consequent therewith recovery or discovery of the body of deceased Sandeep Singh, rather purportedly at the respective instance(s) of the accused concerned. Therefore, the non-citing of Mir Singh as a prosecution witness, has led to the above said fact becoming suppressed, and, but with the concomitant effect, that obviously the truthful averment (supra), as carried in the writ petition, preferred by Surjan Singh, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, about the relevant site being known previously on 27.1.2000, to the complainant, and, thereafter also to the police, given his making an intimation to the latter, rather does naturally acquire the completest evidentiary strength, and, vigour. Thus, this Court becomes led to discard the makings of the relevant discovery or recovery of the dead body of the deceased concerned, rather purportedly at the instance of the accused, from the site where it was allegedly found. Incriminatory link relating to the recovery of mobile charger wire at the instance of the accused concerned
28. During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal FIR, accused Krishan had also made a signatured disclosure statement, to which Ex. PE is assigned. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the accused is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"In presence of below named witnesses, accused Krishan Kumar above said while in police custody without any pressure, fear, inducement disclosed that "On 24.10.9999 I along with Ravinder son of Baljit resident of village Jharsa had killed Sandeep s/o Surjan r/o V. Gurgaon by strangulation his throat with the help of a charger wire. Siad charger wire has been kept concealed by me in my tailor shop known as Amar Tailors situated on Committee Road, Sampla, about which none else know and and after pointing our place of its concealment I can get said wire of charger recovered."
29. Pursuant to the above signatured disclosure statement, accused Krishan Kumar led the police party to the place, where he had kept or 15 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -16- concealed the wire of the mobile charger, and, had also got the same recovered. The wire of mobile charger was taken into police possession through recovery memo Ex. PG.
30. Though, in the signatured disclosure statement, as made by the accused concerned, speakings occur about his confessing his guilt qua the charged offences, and, also thereins occur an echoing about his readiness to cause the recovery of the incriminatory mobile charger wire, which became allegedly used by them for strangulating deceased Sandeep Singh. However, the said recovery also becomes extremely frail, and, weak hence for connecting the accused in the commission of offence of murder of deceased Sandeep.
The reason for rejecting the validity of the above recovery
31. The reason for making the above inference, ensues from the factum, that the above recovery, does not garner any support from the opinion of the doctor, who conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased concerned. Significantly, when thereins, he has been unable to spell out the exact cause of his demise. Therefore, in the face of the above deficit opinion qua the cause of demise of the deceased, and, also when concomitantly there is no affirmative, and, clinching opinion about the user of mobile charger wire, at the instance of the accused concerned, to strangulate deceased Sandeep, and, to hence cause his demise, resultantly, this Court finds that the said recovery, is also a completely frail, and, weak recovery. Even otherwise, when the above legally frail recovery becomes connected with the legal frailty of the extra judicial confession, as made by the accused concerned, before PW-13 one Laxmi Narain, thereupon too, it becomes a completely emaciated recovery. Resultantly, the accused are to 16 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -17- be concluded to be completely unaware either about the place wherefrom the dead body of deceased Sandeep was recovered, and/or, are also to be concomitantly concluded to be also completely unaware about the reason of his demise. In sequel, the relevant recoveries reiteratedly do become completely frail. Thus, it has to be concluded, that the demise of deceased Sandeep was not homicidal, but may be was a result of his accidently falling into the sewer gutter concerned.
Disclosure statement of accused Prem Raj @ Leelu Ex. PV
32. During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal FIR, accused Prem Raj @ Leelu also made a signatured disclosure statement, to which Ex. PV is assigned. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the accused is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"In presence of below named witnesses, accused Prem Raj @ Leelu while in police custody, above said, without any fear pressure and inducement made a disclosure statement that "on 24.10.1999 with a view to make planning of Vinod son of Munni Lal r/o V. Gurgaon a success/jointly I along with Krishan son of Banwari Lal Saini r/o Kheri Sampla, PS Sampla, Distt. Rohtak, Ravinder s/o Baljeet Jat r/o V. Jharsa, Girraj Kishore s/o Vijmay caste Brahmin r/o V. Jharsa, Vinod s/o Munni Lal Saini R/o V. Gurgaon and Dharambir son of Raghubir, caste Jat r/o Vi. Jharsa, presently of V. Khandewala with a dishonest intention to receive from Surjan Singh Saini resident of V. Gurgaon an amount of Rs. 5 lac as ransom after abducting Sandeep son of said Surjan Singh and thenkilling him, we all abducted at about 6.00/6.30 PM Sandeep son of Surjan Singh from Sheetla Mata Mandir Road, Gurgaon, and he was thrown in my Ambassador car No. DEA-4532 and frisked him in it and reached near village Jharsa with the help of wire charger of mobile phone strangulated his throat and killed him and his dead body was thrown in a manhole of sewerage near village Jharsa. With the help of the mobile phone charger wire deceased Sandeep was killed by Krishan and Ravinder by strangulation and Giriraj Kishore and Vinod had controlled his hands and feet and Dharambir had caught hold hair of Sandeep and car was being driven by me at that time. After that in Gurgaon City I committed theft in a shop and after placing the said stolen articles in my Ambassador Car NO. DEA-4532 I had sold the said articles and had come back. This car was seized by Police Station City Gurgaon, in 17 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -18- that theft case and is standing parked in the courtyard of said police station and it is still parked there in the police station. The mobile phone charger wire with which Sandeep was killed by strangulation was taken away by Krishan. Hawai chappal of deceased was taken away by Dharambir. The place where the dead body of Sandeep was thrown in the pit of sewer the same can be pointed out by me."
33. Pursuant to the above signatured disclosure statement, the car (supra), which was already in possession of the police in FIR No. 998/99, and, was already parked in the premises of the police station concerned, was also taken in possession in the instant case, through recovery memo Ex. PH. Thus, no credence is to be assigned to the recovery of the crime car, as prior to its recovery, being caused at the instance of the accused concerned, hence pursuant to a disclosure statement, made by the accused concerned, to the police officer concerned, rather the location of the said crime car was already known to the police officer concerned, as the same was already lying parked in the premises of the police station concerned.
Disclosure statement of accused Dharambir Ex. PX
34. During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal FIR, accused Dharambir also made a signatured disclosure statement, to which Ex. PX is assigned. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the accused is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"In presence of below named witnesses, accused Dharambir son of Raghubir above said while in police custody, without fear pressure and inducement disclosed that "on 24.10.1999 at about 6.00/6.30 P.M., I along with Prem Raj @ Billu son of Balwan Singh caste carpenter r/o Jharsa, Krishan s/o Banwari saini r/o Kheri Sampla P.S Sampla, District Rohtak, Ravinder son of Baljeet caste Jat r/o V Jharsa, Giriraj Kishore son of Vijay caste Brahmin r/o Jharsa and Vinod son of Muni Lal, caste Saini r/o Gurgaon village jointly with a view to dishonestly receive Rs. Five lac from Surjan Singh Saini r/o Gurgaon village by kidnapping his only son Sandeep and then killing him as per planning conspired by Vinod son of Munni Lal r/o Gurgaon and to make it success, from Sheetla Mata Mandir Road, Gurgaon, Sandeep son of Surjan Singh was put 18 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -19- in the Ambassador car No. DEA-4532 of Prem Raj and took him near village Jharsa and there he was killed by strangulation with the help of wire of telephone charger and his dead body was thrown in a manhole of sewerage near village Jharsa and in the area of village Jharsa at some distance I had thrown chappal in a dried well existing in a vacant site, which I can only point and can get the recovery effected. None else about chappal knows."
35. Pursuant to the above signatured disclosure statement, accused Dharambir got recovered the chappal, belonging to the deceased concerned, which was identified by the complainant to be belonging to his son Sandeep. The said chappal was taken into police possession through recovery memo Ex. PJ. The above recovery also is a tainted recovery, as the size of the chappal, has not been matched with the size of the feet of the deceased.
Post-mortem report
36. The post-mortem report, as embodied in Ex. PS, has been proven by the doctor concerned, who stepped into the witness box as PW-17. As per the opinion of the doctor concerned, the dead body was of a young male individual, however, the cause of death was not clearly spelt out, as the same was not ascertainable. However, he further opined that the probable time that elapsed between injury, and, death is about 3 to 4 months.
37. However, the above medical evidence, is only suggestive about the de-composed body of deceased Sandeep Singh, being found in a sewer gutter, and, but is not at all corroborative to the confession of guilt, as made respectively by the accused about theirs with user of a wire charger of mobile phone, hence strangulating the deceased, nor the said opinion becomes linked to the recovery of the above said purported incriminatory weapon(s), as became allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused concerned.
19 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 :::
CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -20-
Original of ransom letter and report of the handwriting expert
38. The main plank of the prosecution case, rests upon the original of the ransom letter, purportedly scribed by accused Vinod. The original of the ransom letter, purportedly scribed by accused Vinod, is assigned Ex. Q1. Ex. Q1, became recovered in pursuance to a disclosure statement, as made by accused Vinod, to which Ex. PU is assigned. Ex. PAD is assigned to the recovery memo qua the original of the ransom letter, wherethrough Ex. Q1 became recovered at the instance of accused Vinod. Subsequently, the investigating officer concerned, had caused the appearance of accused Vinod, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, and, there the accused concerned, had purveyed his sample writings hence for comparisons thereof, being made with the original of ransom letter, to which Ex.Q1 is assigned. Moreover, through letter No. 8214 of 23.3.2000, it became sent to the handwriting expert concerned. After the handwriting expert concerned, making comparisons of the writing(s), as carried in Ex. Q1 with the sample/specimen(s) writing, purveyed by the accused, before the SDM concerned, he made an opinion that there existed inter se similarity inter se both. Therefore, the learned State counsel has argued, that the above established link, is rather an extremely important link in the chain of circumstances, and, that it supports the factum of the accused holding the deceased in their custody, and, since the complainant, did not accede to their demand of ransom, for theirs thereafter causing the release of deceased Sandeep, thus, the accused had committed the murder of deceased Sandeep.
Reasons for rejecting the above contention
39. Though, the handwriting expert has opined qua the apt 20 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -21- similarity existing inter se the original writings, purportedly authored by the accused, and, as carried in Ex. Q1, with the sample writings, as became furnished by him, before the Executive Magistrate concerned, but the said inter se similarity, does not yet appeal to the judicial conscience of this Court, to firmly conclude, that therefrom, the effect of any of the above infirm links in the chain of circumstances, rather become completely eclipsed nor this Court considers that, on its anvil, any conclusion, other than the one, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, is to be made by this Court. The reason for making the above conclusion arises, from the factum, that it is evident from a thorough reading of the entire records, that even prior to the writing of the above letter, there are letters written by the accused concerned, to Surjan Singh. Thus, the learned trial Judge concerned, had aptly dispelled the vigour of the report of the handwriting expert, as comprised in Ex. PK.
40. Be that as it may, yet the time of the writing of the apposite original by the accused, is of the utmost importance. The said reason, becomes comprised in the factum, that only if cogent proof had emerged relating to the said letter, being written in the closest proximity to the murder of the deceased concerned, purportedly at the instance of the accused concerned, that resultantly, the above made inference(s), recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, may have become eclipsed or denuded of their vigour. The best evidence for securing a firm conclusion, that the said letter was written in the closest proximity to the murder of deceased Sandeep, became comprised in the envelope, whereins, the letter (supra) became enclosed, also being ensured to be collected, and, thereafter it also being ensured to be transmitted to the handwriting expert concerned. The 21 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -22- necessity for making the above collection of the envelope, whereins, the said letter was enclosed, is firmly rooted in the factum, that therefrom the time of writing of Ex. Q1, rather could be cogently established. Furthermore, writings on the envelope concerned, would have also resulted in their comparisons, being made with the sample writings of the accused, and, would have also but resulted in an opinion whether there there was any common authorsips thereof. Moreover, then it could be unflinchingly established, that in the closest proximity of the delivery of photocopy of the letter Ex.Q1, by the accused to the complainant, rather discovery or recovery of the body of the deceased, from the site concerned, rather being effected, at the instance of the accused concerned. In addition, it could have been also concomitantly inevitably concluded, that for the failure of the complainant, to accede to the demand for ransom, as made by the accused, the latter had murdered his son one Sandeep. However, the said envelope concerned, with timing thereins about the dispatch thereof, hence for co-relating therefrom qua delivery thereof to the complainant, happening in the closest proximity to the discovery or recovery of the body of the deceased, rather conspicuously is not available on record, nor obviously the apposite matching has taking place inter se the writings on the envelope concerned, with the sample writings of the accused concerned. As but a natural corollary, it has to be concluded that, irrespective of the opinion, as made by the handwriting expert, about there being similarity inter se the original of ransom letter Ex Q1, with the specimen writings, as purveyed by the accused, before the Executing Magistrate concerned, the prosecution has not established, that deceased Sandeep was in their custody, and, that for the complainant failing to accede to their ransom demand, for thereafter theirs 22 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -23- releasing him, rather they committed the murder of his son.
41. What adds strengthened vigour to the above made inference, becomes rooted in the factum, that the complainant had alleged, that the accused were frequent visitors to his house, and, had received from his Rs. 20,000/- for theirs disclosing to him the whereabouts of his son Sandeep. However, neither the time of visiting of the accused to the house of Surjan Singh has been averred, nor the said fact has even been ably proven, nor also the factum of the complainant handing to the accused, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been cogently established. Therefore, it appears that the complainant had not only been rearing suspicion against the accused about theirs kidnapping his son, but also did subsequently thereafter, proceeded to, on the basis of a ransom letter, but without for reasons (supra), proof of its delivery to the complainant, rather being proximate to the recovery or discovery of the body of the son of the complainant, rather has taken to make an inapt reliance thereons.
Final order
42. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, and, is constrained to dismiss it. Consequently, the impugned verdict of acquittal, as made by the learned trial Court, is maintained, and, affirmed.
43. However, insofar as accused Ravinder is concerned, the order as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, for committing him to trial, before the learned Magistrate for a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, is also an invalid order. The reason becomes rooted in the factum, that the recovery of .315 bore pistol, at the instance of co-accused Ravinder was never made through any recovery memo, as became drawn in respect of the 23 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 ::: CRA-D-869-DBA-2002 (O&M) -24- present FIR. The recovery of the said .315 bore pistol became effected in an FIR contradistinct to the instant FIR. Therefore, since it is not the crime weapon, as such, if it is the crime weapon in some other FIR, thus the trial of co-accused Ravinder, in respect of the said .315 bore pistol, is to be entered into by the learned trial Judge concerned, in respect of some other FIR, and, not in the instant FIR. Thus, co-accused Ravinder is also acquitted of the relevant charge, drawn against him qua breach of the mandate, as carried in Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, but the above acquittal is restricted only to the instant FIR.
44. The case property, if any, be dealt with, in accordance with law, but after the expiry of the period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.
45. Records be sent down forthwith.
46. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE December 08, 2022 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes 24 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 02:44:13 :::