Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvinder Singh @ Dimple And Others vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(i) Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000
Date of Decision: February 13, 2014
Harvinder Singh @ Dimple and others
...Appellants
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(ii) Crl. Revision No.1521 of 2006 (O&M)
Darshan Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Harvinder Singh alias Dimple and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate and
Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
for the appellants (in CRA No.S-1218-SB of 2000)
and for respondent No.1 (in CRR No.1521 of 2006).
Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr.A.P.S. Mann, Advocate
for the complainant (in CRA No.S-1218-SB of 2000) and
for the revision-petitioner (in CRR No.1521 of 2006).
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
This judgment shall dispose of two connected cases i.e. CRA No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and CRR No.1521 of 2006 arising out of Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -2- the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the appellants were held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of ` 500/- each under Section 382/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- each under Section 364 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. The appellants were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of ` 500/- each under Section 344 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Section 323/34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Revision-petitioner Darshan Singh has filed CRR No.1521 of 2006 for enhancement of the sentence and fine imposed upon the accused-respondents.
The brief facts as per prosecution case are that Dalbara Singh complainant, got recorded his statement to ASI Gurcharan Singh, in which it is stated that on 05.01.1999, he accompanied by Darshan Singh and Raghbir Singh, who is his relatives, went to drop Raghbir Singh to village Makrauna Khurd and were going from Pipal Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -3- Majra side to Morinda on Maruti car bearing registration No.PB-04E- 5486, which was driven by Dalbara Singh. At about 5.00 P.M., when they reached little ahead of village Roorki Hiran, a white esteem car over took the car of the complainant and make the car of the complainant halt. Three persons came out of the said car. Harvinder Singh alias Dimple, who is nephew of wife of Darshan Singh and belongs to Ladran Police Station, Samrala, was identified by the complainant. All the three assailants took out Darshan Singh and Dalbara Singh from the car. Accused Harvinder Singh alias Dimple told Dalbara Singh "Masra Kithe Bhajna Hai". Saying so, accused Harvinder Singh and his two companions physically lifted Darshan Singh and threw him in their esteem car. The third assailant, who was carrying double barrel gun, gave rifle butt blows on the person of Dalbara Singh. While leaving, the accused took away the keys of the car of the complainant. The motive behind the crime is that Darshan Singh is issueless. Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Darshan Singh has procured Power of Attorney from Darshan Singh and has transferred his land to his nephew Sukha, brother of Harvinder Singh alias Dimple accused. On the basis of this statement recorded at 9.00 P.M. on 05.01.1999, ruqa was sent to the police station, whereupon, FIR was registered. It is also the version of the prosecution that on 17.01.1999, police party headed by ASI Gurcharan Singh, was conducting nakabandi on the bridge of Behlolpur on Sirhind Canal. A car came from Neelon village side, which was signalled to stop. The esteem car after coming near the police party, gained speed and fled towards Ropar. The police Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -4- party followed the car and after a chase of about 1-1/2 kms., the said car turned towards right kacha path leading to Raipur and thereafter, the occupants of the car left the car in the bushes and ran away. Maruti Car was bearing registration No.PB-09-1660. The police party found that Darshan Singh, who was kidnapped in this case, was lying on the back seat with his mouth and hands tied. The car was taken into police possession. Darshan Singh was got medico legally examined. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused were produced before the police on 20.01.1999 by Milkha Singh, Lamberdar. They also produced esteem car No.PB-10G-8605. Double barrel gun used in the crime was also taken into possession though recovery memo Ex.Pl. After necessary investigation challan was presented against the accused-appellants.
On presentation of challan against accused-appellants, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case, accused-appellants were charge-sheeted under Sections 382, 364, 344 and 323 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Dalbara Singh, complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-2 Darshan Singh, who was kidnapped and who identified the accused present in the Court, also deposed that accused Hardeep Singh was carrying double barrel gun. Accused Harvinder Singh and Dalbir Singh dragged him from the car and beaten him and threw him in their esteem car whereas Hardeep Singh took out the keys of Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -5- maruti car. Then all the accused took him away, gave beatings and threatenings as a result of which, his left shoulder fell fractured. They also blind-folded him and gave him injections, as a result of which he became unconscious. He further deposed that accused kept him 20/22 days in the car and took him to various places, which he does not know as he was under the influence of the injections. The accused also obtained his thumb impressions on some papers. He also deposed that accused kept threatening him to withdraw the cases. The accused were planning to kill and throw him somewhere when he was rescued by the police. PW-3 Dalbir Singh, Clerk mainly brought the record and deposed that car bearing registration No.PB- 10G-8605 is registered in the name of M/s N.S.S.Brothers. PW-4 Jatinder Nath, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PC. PW-5 Head Constable Des Raj, who was with the police party headed by ASI Gurcharan Singh deposed regarding chasing of maruti car and recovery of Darshan Singh from the said maruti car which was left by the accused. PW-6 Dr.Anurag Vashisht deposed that he medico legally examined Darshan Singh on 18.01.1999 at 1.15 P.M. and found following injuries:-
"1. Mild diffuse swelling over the left scapular region 4 cm x 3 cm in prominance. Tenderness present. No external mark of injury seen. Movements at the shoulder joint are restricted and painful. Advised X- ray.
2. Complaining of pain in the left shoulder joint and deltoid region. Movements at the shoulder joint painful and restricted. Advised X-ray-AP lat.
3. Complaining of pain in the left clavicular region. No Gulati Vineet external mark of injury seen. No swelling.2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -6-
4. Abrasions two in number on the left wrist joint 2 cm x 1 cm each, one on the antero lateral side and other on the ventral side of wrist joint. Complaining of burning sensation over lesions.
5. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the right wrist joint on the medico-ventral side. Complaining of burning sensation over it."
PW-7 Mehtab Singh mainly deposed that about one year back, in the afternoon, he was standing on the shop of Gurdial Singh. He saw a vehicle going at a very high speed in the village. He noticed it, since it is unusual. Thereafter, he went towards Morinda and in the way, he found a car and a police constable. On asking, the constable told him that a man has been kidnapped. PW-8 Constable Major Singh mainly deposed regarding delivering of Special Report. ASI Gurcharan, who was again marked as PW-8, is the Investigating Officer. He mainly deposed regarding investigation conducted by him in the present case.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused- appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent.
In defence, accused-appellants examined DW-1 Atma Singh, who mainly deposed that his house is situated near the road. There is canal minor from Bhakra Main canal which crosses Morinda- Chamkaur road near his village. People of his village keep sitting on the said canal minor. During the last 1 to 1½ year, nobody stopped other car and took a man away in their car. DW-2 Head Constable Shingara Singh mainly deposed regarding FIR No.62 dated Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -7- 17.09.1998. As per police file, the said FIR has been sent for cancellation. DW-3 Rajbinder Singh mainly deposed that on 20.01.1999 police visited the house of Ravinder Singh accused and took him away along with one gun and maruti car bearing registration No.PB-10G-8605. DW-4 Harjit Singh mainly deposed regarding FIR No.40 dated 22.05.1998. He further deposed that police had submitted cancellation report on 10.11.1998.
The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as stated above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants argued that no Registration Certificate has been proved of vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-09-1660. He further argued that there was motive for false implication of the appellants as civil litigation was pending between the parties. He next argued that PW-1 Dalbara Singh is interested witness in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out discrepancies in the prosecution version as Darshan Singh was kidnapped on 05.01.1999 and he was recovered on 17.01.1999 i.e. after 12 days but PW-2 Darshan Singh himself has stated in his chief examination that he was kept for 20-22 days in confinement. Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that PW-5 Head Constable Des Raj has stated that they chased the car on motorcycle, whereas PW-8 Gurcharan Singh, Investigating Officer has stated that they chased the car on 17.01.1999 in a private maruti van. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, argued that there being merit in the appeal, the Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -8- same should be allowed and accused-appellants should be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned Asstt. Advocate General Punjab for the respondent-State has argued that discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants are minor discrepancies. PW-1 Dalbara Singh is nephew and is natural witness. The motive for the occurrence was duly proved by PWs. There are no material contradictions or material improvements in the statements of the PWs. He further argued that the case of prosecution has been duly proved by the PWs, by the medical evidence as well as by investigation of the case. Learned State counsel, therefore, argued that there being no merit, the appeal should be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/complainant argued only one point that sentence awarded to the appellants is inadequate and it be enhanced keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case.
I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/complainant.
From the evidence on record, I do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. As regarding the discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, these are minor discrepancies as PW-2 Darshan Singh was given injections and he remained unconscious. Therefore, even if it is stated that accused kept him for 20/22 days instead of 12 days, in no way, it can Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -9- be held as a discrepancy fatal to the prosecution case. Again, PW-5 Head Constable Des Raj has stated in his chief examination that on 17.01.1999, they followed the car on motorcycle of ASI Gurcharan Singh, whereas ASI Gurcharan Singh has stated that they chased the car in a private maruti van. Except this discrepancy, no other material discrepancy or material improvement has been pointed in the statements of the PWs. I have gone through the statements of material witness i.e. PW-1 Dalbara Singh, complainant and PW-2 Darshan Singh, injured witness. They are consistent on each and every fact and there are no material contradictions or material improvements in their statements. Rather, the material facts deposed by them remained un-rebutted in the statements of the PWs. PW-5 Head Constable is deposing after 14 months of the occurrence and there is every possibility of this minor discrepancy due to short memory as he appears in so many cases. Only on this minor discrepancy, the whole case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away.
As regarding the fact that Dalbara Singh is related to Darshan Singh, itself does not make his version improbable. The occurrence took place at 5.00 P.M. and the accused also took the keys of maruti car on which the complainant and victim were travelling, therefore, the complainant reported the matter to the police without any delay at the earliest. There is nothing in the evidence to show that accused have been falsely implicated. Rather, the motive has been duly proved for kidnapping. Dalbara Singh is a natural Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -10- witness.
Further, I find that it will not affect the prosecution version, if the ownership of the cars involved in the occurrence is not proved. PW-1 Dalbara Singh and PW-2 Darshan Singh have identified the accused. Even the name of one of the accused is in the FIR, which is recorded just within four hours of the occurrence. The other accused have been identified by both these witnesses in the Court. The oral statements of PW-1 Dalbara Singh and PW-2 Darshan Singh are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case. The PWs have deposed consistently regarding prosecution version. The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rupnagar is correct, as per law and the same is upheld.
Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. As the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand annulled and they are directed to surrender themselves before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against them in accordance with law.
CRR No.1521 of 2006
As regarding revision petition, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has only argued regarding enhancement of sentence under Section 364 IPC and no other point has been argued.
I find that learned lower Court has convicted the appellants Gulati Vineet 2014.03.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1218-SB of 2000 and connected revision -11- under Section 364 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. In no way, this sentence can be held as inadequate. As per PW-6 Dr.Anurag Vashisth, only simple injuries were found on the person of Darshan Singh.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that that the order of sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rupnagar is correct and as per law.
No ground is made out for enhancing the sentence.
Therefore, the present revision petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJIT SINGH)
February 13, 2014 JUDGE
Vgulati
Gulati Vineet
2014.03.13 15:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh