Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Before the submissions made by Counsel for the appellants and Counsel for the State are appreciated, it will be necessary to give brief facts of the case.

In the present case, Suresh Kumar Hooda, PW9 was posted as SI/SHO of Police Station Model Town, Panipat on 22.6.2000. He was on patrol duty. At about 5.45 p.m., near Shivaji Stadium, he was present along with ASI Nahar Singh and ASI Rajbir Singh and other police officials. He received a secret information to the effect that Manjit Singh, brother of Joginder Kaur, resident of Sonepat has sold house No.191-R, measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas belonging to Joginder Kaur at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per square yard, for a total amount of Rs.1.50 crores to Mehtab Singh and Jit Kumar residents of Seenk. It was further stated that as per the secret information, Umed Singh resident of Rohna and Dinesh Kumar resident of Delhi had received a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs as earnest money against the agreement and the above stated four persons along with Raj Singh, Rajesh, Azad Singh, Angrej Singh, Surender Singh, resident of Nangal Kheri, Dalbir Singh rsident of Israna and Rajesh were demolishing the house with bulldozer and their associates namely Sher Singh along with 4 other persons forcibly kidnapped Joginder Kaur at gun point in order to murder her in a car bearing registration No.HR-26-0123 and the household articles of Joginder Kaur have also been taken away by the accused forcibly. The secret information further stated that in case a raid is immediately conducted, accused along with bulldozers can be apprehended at the spot. According to informant, Manjit Singh had no right to sell the house. Since the information received was reliable, police party proceeded towards the stated spot after sending a ruqa to the Police Station for lodging the report. Ruqa Ex.PA was received at the Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat.

Prosecution commenced its evidence.

ASI Mukesh Kumar, PW1 stated that in the night of 21/22 June, 2000, he was posted as ASI at PS Model Town, Panipat. He received a ruqa from Suresh Kumar, SI/SHO on the basis of which he recorded formal FIR Ex.PA/1. HC Zile Singh PW2 tendered his affidavit Ex.PB to say that he delivered the special report to the higher authorities.

Sanjay Rehani PW3 stated that his father Jetha Nand was working at Tehsil Office Panipat as a Petition and Deed Writer and he had died about 5 years ago. From the register maintained by his father, he proved entry Ex.PC. The entry Ex.PC contained an entry regarding a Will made in favour of Joginder Kaur. Naveen Kumar Jain, Draftsman PW4 proved site plan Ex.PD. HC Niranjan Singh PW5 stated that on 14.8.2000 he was posted in the Police Station Model Town, Panipat. He, accompanied by his companion police officials, was present at Sonepat Chowk Panipat at that time. Accused Daya Nand was produced by his son. He had effected his arrest and recorded his disclosure statement that household articles of Joginder Kaur have been kept in the house of Manjit Singh, brother of Joginder Kaur. In cross examination, this witness admitted that no recovery of any household articles was effected in his presence.

Rajbir Singh ASI, who was accompanying PW9 SI Suresh Kumar Hooda, when secret information was received, appeared as PW6. He stated that after the secret information was received on the night of 21/22 June,2000 at about 2 p.m., they reached at the spot of the house of Joginder Kaur. They found that there were two persons who were demolishing the house of Joginder Kaur with bulldozers. On enquiry, they disclosed their names as Vikram and Sikandar. Number of other persons were also present there. They were demolishing the house of Joginder Kaur. Names and addresses of all the persons were enquired and particulars were noted. The persons who were apprehended at the spot were Mehtab Singh, Umed Singh, Rajesh resident of Garhi Siwah and another Rajesh of Budhanpur, Azad Singh, Rai Singh, Angrej Singh, Surender Singh and Dalbir Singh. Along with these persons, Vikram and Surender who were operating the bulldozer were also apprehended. From the personal search of accused Mehtab Singh, one revolver .32 bore was recovered. It was found that in the revolver six live cartridges were loaded, two cartridges were in the holster of the revolver. They were taken into possession vide a separate memo. Personal search of accused Umed Singh was also carried. One rifle of .315 bore was recovered from him along with 4 live cartridges in the magazine. Five cartridges were recovered from the pouch of the butt of the rifle. From Umed Singh licence of the rifle was also recovered. Mehtab Singh, on interrogation, disclosed that all the household articles were taken to the house of accused Manjit Singh. He further stated that Joginder Kaur was taken towards UP side. Disclosure statement of Mehtab Singh was proved as Ex.PJ. Umed Singh, on interrogation made disclosure statement that accused Daya Nand Rathee, Dinesh Kumar and Jeet Kumar had taken the household articles of Joginder Kaur to the house of Manjit Singh to Sonepat, where Satinder Kapoor accused was present.

(4) Accused Satinder Kapoor is wife of Manjit Singh, brother of Joginder Kaur. Admittedly, she was not present at the spot. It has come in the evidence of PW6 Rajbir Singh ASI that Umed Singh accused, during interrogation made a disclosure statement that accused Daya Nand Rathee, Dinesh Kumar and Jeet Kumar had taken the household goods of Joginder Kaur in a canter at the house of Manjit Singh at Sonepat. It is further stated that on 23.6.2000, ASI Rajbir Singh PW6 accompanied by PW9 Suresh Kumar Hooda had reached at the house of Manjit Singh at Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat. There Satinder Kaur was present in the house and she got recovered the articles belonging to Joginder Kaur. The articles recovered were a Fridge, T.V. Box, table, chairs, cots, utensils, gas cylinder, gas burner and sewing machine. These are the household articles which are available almost in every house. Even if, for the sake of arguments, the disclosure statement made by appellant Umed Singh is taken at its face value, it is apparent that the articles taken from Panipat were stored in the house of Manjit Singh at Sonepat. Therefore, wife of Manjit Singh cannot be held liable for keeping those articles. Furthermore, these articles have not been identified. It has in no way been proved that the articles found at the house of Satinder Kapoor were the same, which belonged to Joginder Kaur. No identification parade of the articles recovered was carried out. It cannot be ruled out that these articles were lying in the house of Satinder Kapoor and belonged to her. The essential ingredients of Section 412 IPC are that one who dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity. There is no evidence on the record to infer that Satinder Kapoor dishonestly received or retained those articles. Therefore, conviction of accused Satinder Kapoor for offence under Section 412 IPC cannot be sustained and she is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Furthermore, being a lady Satinder Kapoor cannot be said to be part of the alleged crime, except that household articles were found in the house which belonged to her. Thus, this Court cannot conclude that conscious possession of the household articles was with her and therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of doubt for offence under Section 120-B IPC. Furthermore, being wife of Manjit Singh, exclusive conscious possession cannot be attributed to Satinder Kapoor.