Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva & Anr vs Bikramjit Singh @ Bikram & Ors on 31 August, 2018
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari, Inderjit Singh
CRA-D-765-DB of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-765-DB of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: August 31, 2018
Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva and another
......Appellants
Versus
Bikramjit Singh @ Bikram and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. H.S. Sullar, DAG Punjab.
****
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J
Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 27.05.2013, in
Sessions case No.03 dated 16.01.2013, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Faridkot, by which the learned trial Court acquitted
accused/respondents No.1 to 3, namely Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram, Navjot
Kaur and Maninderjit Singh alias Dimpy Samra, respectively, for offences
for which they were charged, the present appeal has been filed against them
by the appellants-complainant-Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva and his daughter-
S.
FACTS
2. The complainant-Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva has two daughters.
The elder daughter was studying in B.Sc while younger daughter, the
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:16:18 :::
CRA-D-765-DB of 2013 (O&M) -2-
prosecutrix 'S' whose date of birth was 01.05.1997, was the student of 10th
standard in Saint Marry Convent School, Faridkot. The accused-Nishan
Singh was harassing her time and again while proceeding and coming back
from her School. The prosecutrix had apprised her parents about it, and
therefore, she was being escorted to the School for the last four months.
However, during summer vacations the prosecutrix used to remain at home.
On 25.06.2012, in connection with study, she had proceeded towards her
friend's house and did not return back. The report was, therefore, lodged that
the main accused-Nishan Singh along with his companions have enticed
away the prosecutrix 'S'. The complaint was investigated and finally, the
case was registered by the police and challan was filed. The evidence
disclosed that the rape was committed and the girl was below 16 years of age
and the story of consent that was propounded by the defence did not find
favour with the trial Court. Finally, accused-Nishan Singh was held guilty of
kidnapping and rape and sentenced to life imprisonment etc.
3. The present appeal is directed against the acquittal of other
accused persons, namely Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram, Navjot Kaur and
Maninderjit Singh alias Dimpy Samra.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/complainant vehemently
argued that the trial Court committed an error in acquitting respondents No.1
to 3 when on record, there was evidence against them also. Learned counsel
also submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that these respondents
had actively participated in commission of said offences and therefore, they
could not have been acquitted by the trial Court. He, therefore, prayed for
reversal of judgment of acquittal of these respondents.
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:16:19 :::
CRA-D-765-DB of 2013 (O&M) -3-
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.1 to 3
opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no iota of evidence that was
tendered by the prosecution for claiming conviction of these respondents.
Finding before the trial Court in respect of these respondents is a possible
finding and in appeal against acquittal, no interference can be made. They,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal against acquittal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. We
have also seen the entire evidence and rather we have marshalled the entire
evidence in the subject matter while deciding the main connected appeal, i.e.
CRA-D-781-DB of 2013. Having the complete knowledge of the evidence
tendered by the prosecution in the present subject matter, we have gone
through the finding recorded by the trial Court. The learned trial Court has
recorded the following finding in Paragraphs 31 to 34 of the impugned
judgment, which we quote here under:-
"31. Now coming to the role of accused Maninderjit Singh
alias Dimpy Samra, Navjot Kaur and Bikramjit Singh alias
Vikram. There are accusations against the said accused, having
agreed to enter into criminal conspiracy with accused Nishan
Singh, to facilitate him, to commit kidnapping of the prosecutrix
and further also rendered assistance vis-a-vis commission of
rape and assisting him, to detain the prosecutrix, in his custody,
by providing him shelter. At the very out, it is pertinent to
mention that the prosecutrix in her statement, under section 161
Cr. P.C., which is Ex.DF, has not mentioned the names of the
said persons, in the entire wrong doing. It is only, while
depositing in the Court as PW4, she has attributed role of
conspiracy, to all the aforesaid persons and also about rape,
having been committed in the Kothi of accused Bikramjit Singh
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:16:19 :::
CRA-D-765-DB of 2013 (O&M) -4-
alias Bikram. Also, further the prosecution has attempted to
build linkage of these accused, through Raj Kumar, who is
husband of maternal aunt of the prosecutrix and who, as per
version of the prosecution, had spotted all the aforesaid three
accused along with Nishan Singh and prosecutrix, in a car, at
bus stand, Chandigarh. In view of the same, said Raj Kumar
was the star witness to nail the aforesaid accused. However,
much to the surprise of every one, this witness has been given
up by the prosecution, on the basis of separate application, filed
on 28.01.2013. No reason, as such, has been assigned by the
learned Public Prosecutor for the State for giving up of the said
witness, but in the application, it is mentioned that there is no
necessity to examine said witness. Thus, such being the state of
affairs, the prosecution has overlooked important piece of
evidence, which could have sufficiently linked and established
the involvement of these accused, in the entire tainted episode.
However, it is not so, which sounds death knell to the
prosecution version.
32. Perusal of the record further reveals that the prosecution
had also made an attempt, to build the connectivity of the
aforesaid accused, through one Gurdit Singh, who has also
been cited as prosecution witness, but has not been examined.
As per version of the prosecution, Inspector Jatinder Singh,
Investigating Officer on 17.10.2012 had recorded the statement
of Gurdit Singh. However, this witness has not been examined.
On 5.3.2013, he had been given up by the prosecution, as won
over. Through him, linkage intended to be established, is that
Navjot Kaur, Maninderjit Singh alias Dimpy Samra and
Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram had made extra-judicial
confession about their involvement, in the entire occurrence in
question, but for the reasons best known, this witness has not
been examined. Had it been truth, that he was won over by the
accused, then, the prosecution ought, to have made him step
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:16:19 :::
CRA-D-765-DB of 2013 (O&M) -5-
into witness box and if, required, it would have availed the
opportunity to elicit truth by way of cross-examination of said
witness, but said option was not chosen by the prosecution and
as a result, connectivity of the aforesaid accused, namely
Maninderjit Singh alias Dimpy Samra, Navjot Kaur and
Bikramjit Singh alias Bikram, through this witness, also does
not stand established.
33. Even though, the prosecutrix PW4 has so named the
aforesaid accused, but however, in her statement Ex.DF, which
was recorded on 10.8.2012, she has not so stated. As per
version of the prosecution, Bikramjit Singh alias Vikram had
facilitated the stay of Nishan Singh and prosecutrix, in his Kothi
and there prosecutrix was raped by Nishan Singh. It is
important to mention that in Ex.DF, which is previous statement
of the prosecutrix, she had stated about Nishan Singh, to have
taken her, to some unknown big Kothi. Neither the said Kothi to
be belonging to Bikramjit Singh alias Vikram or the address of
the said Kothi had been given, which would have connected
Bikramjit Singh alias Vikram. Things would have been viewed
differently, had the statement of the prosecutrix been recorded,
soon after the recovery, but it is not so. Thus, naming Bikramjit
Singh and identifying him within the kothi, where, rape was
committed is an afterthought.
34. Learned Public Prosecutrix for the State had also
submitted that connectivity of Maninderjit Singh alias Dimpy
Samra stands established from the fact that the car, used by
Nishan Singh for the purposes of committing kidnapping of the
prosecutrix, belongs to his son Arjan Singh and regarding the
same, reference has also been made to the testimony of PW20
Shashi Bhushan, who had proved the record, relating to the
purchase of the car, bearing number CH-28T-8654 by Arjan
Singh, son of Maninderjit Singh. He proved the bill and the
other ownership papers of the same. However, the ownership of
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:16:19 :::
CRA-D-765-DB of 2013 (O&M) -6-
this car by Arjan Singh, son of Maninderjit Singh, as such, does
not establish the connectivity of accused Maninderjit Singh with
Nishan Singh, in the occurrence in question. Suffice, in this
regard, to mention that there is nothing coming on the record
about the identity and number of the car, which was used by
Nishan Singh, in kidnapping of the prosecutrix and in view of
the same, tainted role of accused Maninderjit Singh, as such,
does not stand established."
7. We have compared the above finding with the evidence on
record. As stated earlier, we have marshalled the evidence of entire
prosecution case and defence while writing the judgment in main connected
appeal, i.e. CRA-D-781-DB of 2013. We are quite sure that the trial Court
has made no mistake in recording the order of acquittal of respondents No.1
to 3. We agree with the above reasons recorded by the trial Court and hence,
we find no merit in the present appeal against acquittal. In the result, we
make the following order:-
ORDER
CRA-765-DB of 2013 filed by the appellant No.1-Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva and appellant No.2-S, is dismissed.
(A.B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE (INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE August 31, 2018 mahavir Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:16:19 :::