Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

kno w n to M o hinder Kaur and her family, we nt to the house of M o hinder Kaur at about 1.30 p.m. on 25/8/2002, w hile Sukhjit Singh and Saravjit Kaur were at w ork. They found M o hinder Kaur and Arshdeep in the courtyard of the first floor of the house, and enquired about Sukhjit Singh and SaravjitKaur and told M o hinder Kaur that Par minder M o h a n had been blessed with a son and they had co m e to deliver a box of mithai to celebrate the occasion. They also asked M o hinder Kaur to give the m so m e water. In the m e a ntime two other persons, one being M a njit Singh alias Mithu, also ca m e into the roo m and also asked for water and as M o hinder Kaur went into the kitchen, M a njit Singh followed her, caught hold of her and brought her into the bedroo m. Par minder M o h a n, thereafter, caught hold of her arm w hereas M a njit Singh shut her m o uth and tied her with a dupatta and the fourth unna m e d accused m a n h a n dled her. Par minder M o h a n thereafter tied her hands, shifted her to another roo m and after picking up Arshdeep and a video cassette player from the house, drove away in a Tata Su m o vehicle. A telephonic m e ssage was conveyed by M o hinder Kaur's neighbour Harjinderpal Singh to police station, Sector-19, Panchkula on w hich Sub-Inspector Avtar Singh reached the kidnap site and recorded the statement of M o hinder Kaur and on its basis an FIR was registered by Sub-Inspector O m Parkash. The appellant, along with his wife Satna m Kaur, on hearing the ne w s about the kidnapping and pretending to be concerned relatives, also visited M o hinder Kaur's house and arranged that she be sent to the General hospital,Panchkula, for her m e dical exa mination.
O n 27/2/2002, information was received by Inspector M a n ge Ra m that the kidnappers were de m a n ding Rs.60 lakhs as ranso m and on receipt of the a m o u nt they w o uld free the child near G urud w ara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patiala. The m atter was ho w ever settled at Rs.21 lakhs. Sub-Inspector M a n ge Ra m acco m p a nied by Sukhjit Singh (Arshdeep's father) reached the pre-determined place, w hich was a ST D booth near the G urud w ara and found Lovepreet Kaur along with the child inside the booth. She was im m e diately arrested and the child was freed and handed over to her father. Pursuant to Lovepreet Kaur's sustained interrogation Satna m Kaur was arrested on 28/2/2002, and pursuant to her interrogation, Lohit Kaushal, the appellant herein, was taken into custody and a M aruti Car No. C H 01-4565, w hich had allegedly been used w hile kidnapping the child, was seized by the police. A Tata Su m o vehicle bearing Registration No.H R01 E- 7582 was also produced before the police by its o w ner, P W.3 Sarwan Singh and was taken into possession.

W e have gone through the judg m e nt of the High court and find that but for three or four stray sentences with regard to the appellant's involve me nt, there is virtually nothing w hich has been brought out with regard to his role, though the High Court was the first appellate Court. W e have, accordingly, chosen to evaluate the evidence ourselves as if we are the firstCourt of appeal.

As already noted above, the appellant w h o was well kno w n to M o hinder Kaur being a close relative, did not invite any suspicion about his involve ment at the time w he n the FIR had been lodged and her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. recorded. She ho w ever m a d e an improve m e nt at the time of the trial about her suspicion vis-a-vis the appellant and was duly confronted with the o mission. The only other effective piece of evidence that the Courts below have relied upon are the disclosure statements of Satna m Kaur and Lovepreet Kaur, recorded by the police w hile they were in police custody as co-accused. The primary question w hich calls for consideration is as to w h ether their statements can form the basis for a conviction. In addition to the fact that Satna m Kaur was discharged by the trialJudge on account of lack of evidence, we are of the opinion that so called disclosure statements m a d e by both these w o m e n are hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as they had the status of being statements m a d e to the police, and nothing m ore and are, thus, not ad missible in evidence. It will be seen that a statement m a d e to the police can only be used to the limited extent provided under under 27 of the Evidence Act and that too only against the person m a king the statement. Ad mittedly the statements, did not lead to the recovery of any item w hatsoever. Satna m Kaur's statement is on record and we have very carefully perused the sa m e. It reads as under:

Lovepreet Kaur's statement has not been filed with the Supre m e Court record but it has been paraphrased by the trial Court in its judg m e nt and we reproduce the sa m e herein below:

"During interrogation, Lovepreet Kaur alias Preeti wife of Virender Singh m a d e disclosure statement that on 25.02.2002 at about 8.00 P.M. phone was received from her fast friend na m ely Pa m m i that she should reach at Dhuri P C O. She reached at Dhuri P C O at about 8.30 P.M. from Sangrur. At the time, Pa m m i son of Jagdish Chand caste Pandit, Nitu son of Naresh Chand residents of Dhri, Sunil Ku m ar alias Rinku resident of Dhuri were sitting at ST D/P C O. Pa m m i told her that she w o uld be given good a m o u nt in one trip. He further told that niece Arshdeep of Harjit Singh, w h o is sandhu of Lohit being only one daughter of rich parents. As per information of Lohit and Se m m i, this girl used to co m e to kothi No.527, Section 12-A, Panchkula to her grand m other for four- five hours. After kidnapping her, they could get the good a m o u nt and leave the girl. She had to do only that she w o uld take the girlaged about three years in her lap with live and sit in the vehicle. If the girl weeps, then she w o uld keep her m u m and she will get Rs.20,000/- for the w ork. In the m e a n w hile, phone from Lohit had co m e of Pa m m i. Lohit and Satna m Kaur alias Se m m i, w h o were earlier kno w n to her also told about the planning. She also asked Lohit and Se m m i as to w h ether girllikes chocolates or toffees, so that she m ay be kept m u m on her weeping. As per planning, Mithu w h o was the Driver brought a Tata Su m o of w hite colour, w h ose nu m b er she did not kno w but Indian on the front mirror and Deol in English were written. They started at 10.00 A.M. w he n they reached at Local Bus Stand Zirakpur at about 1.00 P.M. Lohit and Satna m Kaur m et the m, w h o were in a M aruti car of blue colour and talked to Lohit and Se m m i, after getting do w n. S w eets box was also purchased from there. Lohit Kaushal and Se m m i stopped their vehicle on the back turning and as per planning, they stopped their vehicle in front of kothi no.527, Sector 12-A, Panchkulla. She and Pa m m i sa w the old w o m a n and s m all girl sitting in the courtyard of first floor of the kothi. Pa m m i and she said Na m a ste to the w o m a n. Pa m m i asked that w here was Sukhjit Singh, w h o used to w ork in Lalru and they had co m e at wrong place.