Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.@mdashThe prosecution story as given in the FIR is as under:

Gurwinder Singh @ Bablu (PW-2) aged about twelve years was studying in the 6th Class in the Sant Prem Singh Public School, Begowal. Bablu and his sister Lovepreet Kaur, who was also studying in the same school, went to school at about 8.00 A.M. on 16.12.2002 to take the examination, after which they, as per normal routine, were scheduled to return home. Lovepreet Kaur returned home at about noon time, but Bablu did not do so. Rajinder Kaur (PW-1), the mother of the two children, was initially unconcerned, but after he had been missing for some time, she discussed the matter with her sister Kuldip Kaur and then left in search of him. She first went to the residence of Manpreet Singh @ Sonu and Manpreet Singh @ Monu both residents of Begowal, who were also studying with Bablu and on enquiry they told her that two boys had come to the school gate at about 11.30 A.M. and had made an enquiry about Bablu and on being identified by them, they had taken him away on a scooter. They also stated that both the boys were clean shaven and were not wearing turbans. At about 5.00 P.M. the same evening, a telephone call was received in Rajinder Kaur''s house which was heard by Ranjit Kaur, her niece and the person on the other side, speaking in Hindi told Ranjit Kaur that Bablu was with them and in case his life was to be saved, a sum of Rs. 20 lacs should be paid as ransom. Ranjit Kaur enquired as to where the amount was to be paid and the person told her that it was to be passed over at the India Gate, New Delhi. Rajinder Kaur accordingly suspected that Sarabjit Singh @ Laddi and Yadwinder Singh @ Roki had kidnapped Bablu as she had been demanding the return of Rs. 11 lacs that had been paid to the former some three months earlier for sending her nephew Sukhbir Singh to America, a bargain which had not been carried out by him. It was further stated by her that on 15.12.2002 she alongwith Kuldip Kaur aforesaid had gone to the Dera of Bibi Jagir Kaur, the Local MLA and though she had not been present, they had discussed the matter with Daisy, her daughter, complaining about the behaviour of Sarabjit Singh, who was Bibi Jagir Kaur''s close relative. The above statement of Rajinder Kaur, Exh. PA, was recorded at Bus Stand Bhadas in the area of Begowal by SI Gurbinder Singh (PW-11), SHO, Police Station, Bholath and on its basis, a first information report, Exh. PA/2 was registered at Police Station, Bholath 8.25 P.M. on 16.12.2002 under Sections 364/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Efforts to trace out the two accused were thereafter made by the police, but without success. At 15 minutes past midnight of 18.12.2002 Gurbinder Singh SI received a call from SI Mahavir Singh of Police Station, Narela, Delhi, who told him that Gurwinder Singh @ Laddi and Rajinder Singh @ Bobby were in their custody and a minor child, named, Gurwinder Singh @ Bablu, a revolver (from Gurwinder Singh) and a datar (from Rajinder Singh accused) alongwith a Maruti van, in which the two accused and the victim had been travelling, had been recovered. After receiving this information, Rajinder Kaur PW1 rushed to Narela alongwith her brother-in-law Balbir Singh and a police party of Police Station Bholath headed by SI Gurbinder Singh. A copy of the FIR registered at Police Station, Narela was also handed over to SI Gurbinder Singh by SI Mahavir Singh. The two accused Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh alongwith Bablu were produced by SI Mahavir Singh before the Illaqa Magistrate in Tees Hazari Courts at Delhi and permission was granted by the Magistrate to arrest them in the case registered at Police Station, Bholath as well. A transit remand was also granted for the transfer of the two accused to Bholath. The statements of the relevant witnesses with respect to the present incident were also recorded by Sl Gurbinder Singh. From Bablu''s statement it transpired that Sandeep Singh @ Sonu, Sarabjit Singh and Parampal Singh had in addition been involved in the incident. These three accused were also subsequently arrested and from the possession of Parampal Singh, a scooter No. CH-01-7011 alongwith its papers was recovered. On the completion of the investigation, the matter was committed for trial and the accused were ultimately charged for offences punishable under Sections 120-B/363/364-A and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.

2. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all, the primary ones being PW-1 Rajinder Kaur, the complainant, PW-2 Gurwinder Singh @ Bablu, the victim of the kidnapping, PW-3 Manpreet Singh @ Monu, Gurwinder Singh''s class-fellow, who deposed that Gurwinder Singh @ Laddi and Rajinder Singh @ Bobby had taken Bablu away from the school gate at about 11.30 A.M. on 16.12.2002; PW-4 Ramesh Godwani LDC-cum-Ahlmad from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who brought the file pertaining to the Arms Act case against Rajinder Singh @ Bobby registered at Police Station, Narela; PW-5 Ajay Kamal Head Constable of Police Station, Narela, who had apprehended Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh accused while two other had run away and recovered Bablu from their custody while they were sitting in the Maruti van in question and had also recovered two weapons, a revolver and a datar from them, which had led to a prosecution under the Arms Act in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi; PW-6 Mahavir Singh, Sub Inspector of Police Station, Narela before whom Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh alongwith Bablu had been produced by HC Ajay Kamal; PW-7 Rashminder Singh, Sub Inspector, who had arrested Parampal Singh @ Lovely accused in the course of a Naka; PW-10 Balwant Singh, Clerk with DTO Office, Ropar, who brought the registration record of the Maruti van No. PB-12-E-1163 which stood in the name of one Satwant Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of House No. 331, Phase IV, Mohali; PW-11 SI Gurbinder Singh, the main Investigating Officer; and PW-12 ASI Jaswinder Singh, who alongwith SI Gurbinder Singh had gone to Police Station, Narela and arrested the accused in the present case and had returned with Bablu to Bholath and restored him to the custody of his mother.

3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded false implication. They also stated that they had been implicated in this matter at the instance of their enemies as Rajinder Kaur complainant and Bibi Jagir Kaur represented different political parties in village Begowal. They also produced several witnesses in defence. Sarabjit Singh accused also appeared as his own witness as DW-4.

4. The trial Court held that Bablu''s evidence, though of a minor, inspired full confidence The Court also found corroboration for Bablu''s statement in that of Manpreet Singh @ Monu, his class-fellow, who had deposed that Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh had taken Bablu away on a scooter on the date and time in question. The Court also held that in the circumstances, there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR. The Court also observed that the statement, Exh. DA, made by Bablu on 22.7.2003 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in the Arms Act case, against Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh and Exh. DB, his statement recorded by the police u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were similar in material particulars to the one made in the Court in the present proceedings and the discrepancies/contradictions could be attributed to the delay in the recording of the evidence. It is also held that merely because only two accused, i.e., Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh had been named by Bablu in the statement, Exh. DA, did not mean that the other accused had not been involved in the kidnapping. The Court also rejected the defence story that the accused had been roped in on account of their enmity with Rajinder Kaur or due to political reasons as some of the accused represented the Congress Party, whereas Bibi Jagir Kaur, who was related to some of the accused represented the Akali Party. The Court also held that in a case of conspiracy, it was always difficult to get direct evidence with regard thereto, but the circumstances on record clearly showed that a case of conspiracy to kidnap Bablu for ransom had been proved on record. The Court accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as under:

All the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

5. It would be seen that the primary issue in this case is as to whether all the accused had been properly identified by Bablu (PW-2). In this connection, it is to be noted that in the FIR recorded by Rajinder Kaur (PW-1), the suspicion with regard to the kidnapping had been voiced only against Sarabjit Singh and Yadwinder Singh. Sarabjit Singh is the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 839-DB of 2004, whereas Yadwinder Singh @ Roki had absconded and could not be brought to trial The prosecution has per force had to rely on the evidence of Bablu (PW-2), a child witness and the victim of the kidnapping. It is significant that in the statement, Exh. DA, Bablu has referred only to two accused, i.e., Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh, whereas he is conspicuously silent with regard to the involvement of the other three. In Exh. DA the categoric statement made by Bablu was that he had been taken away by Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh on a Scooter and it was only after they had reached village Gilja that he had been transferred to a van. In the statement made in the present proceedings, the story has been substantially changed and it has been pleaded that though initially he had been taken away on a Scooter, he had been transferred to a van which was standing in the grain market in Begowal and in which the other accused were also present. In this statement, Bablu also admitted that out of all the accused he knew only Sarabjit Singh, Parampal Singh and Gurwinder Singh accused. Curiously, neither Sarabjit Singh nor Parampal Singh had been named by him in his statement, Exh. DA. It is also significant that in his examination-in-chief in the present case, Bablu had made substantial additions/improvements with regard to the actual incident and as to what had transpired between the time when he had been kidnapped and subsequently recovered by the police of Police Station, Narela. Bablu was also confronted repeatedly with the omissions vis-a-vis his earlier statements and he could not give proper justification as to why certain facts had earlier been left out. It has, however, been argued by Mr. A.S. Virk, the learned State Counsel that as the statement, Exh. DA, pertained only to the prosecution under the Arms Act it was necessary to name only accused Rajinder Singh and Gurwinder Singh, who had been arrested by the police of Police Station, Narela and not the others, who were not arraigned as accused before the Delhi Court. We find absolutely no merit in this plea as the statement, Exh. DA, must be read as a previous statement of a witness against the accused and it was incumbent, therefore, upon the prosecution to have brought before the Court even at that stage all facts that were necessary for consideration. It is also significant that, Exh.DB the statement made by Bablu before the police u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the present proceedings also suffers from material omissions. Bablu was confronted with these omissions as well and he once again could not give proper explanations for the improvements that had been made. It is even more significant that in his cross-examination he admitted that he did not even know the name and address of the accused. Mr. Virk has then placed reliance on the statement of Manpreet Singh @ Monu (PW-3) to support the statement made by Bablu. A reading of this statement would also reveal that it pertains to the involvement only of Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh. Even otherwise it is relevant that Manpreet Singh''s statement was never recorded by the police and his statement came for the first time in Court.

6. We have also considered the circumstantial evidence with regard to the case. Corroboration could have been found if the Scooter and the Maruti Van in which Bablu had been spirited away had been connected with any of the present Appellants. Admittedly this is not the case. It has come in the evidence that the Scooter stood in the name of one Bhupinder Singh son of Kanwar Singh, resident of H. No. 1018, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh, whereas the Maruti Van was in the name of Satwant Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of H. No. 331, Phase IV, Mohali. No evidence has been led to show as to how any of the Appellants were connected with the owner of the aforesaid vehicles. On the contrary, as per the admissions made by Rajinder Kaur (PW-1) she had some very unpleasant money dealings with Sarabjit Singh accused, who was a neighbour of Bibi Jagir Kaur and on that account she had at the very initial stage suspected that he alongwith his cousins Parampal Singh and Gurvinder Singh were responsible for the Kidnapping.

7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not possible to maintain the conviction of Sandeep Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Parampal Singh, who are the Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 708-DB of 2004, 839-DB of 2004 and 819-DB of 2004. The aforesaid appeals are allowed and the Appellants are acquitted on all counts.

8. The learned Counsel for the Appellants have also urged that there was no cogent evidence to show that any demands for ransom had been made by the accused and the self-serving statement of Rajinder Kaur (PW-1) could not by itself be believed. It is significant that in the first information report, it finds mention that a ransom call for Rs. 20 lacs had been received from the accused on 16.12.2002 and that call had been taken by Ranjit Kaur, Rajinder Kaur''s niece. Ranjit Kaur who would thus be the best witness to support the call for ransom had not even been examined by the prosecution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would be perhaps unsafe to rely on Rajinder Kaur''s statement with regard to the demand for ransom as well as the relations between Rajinder Kaur with some of the accused were strained and they represented different political parties. We, therefore, find that the conviction of Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh u/s 364-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. We accordingly convert the conviction to one under Sections 361/363 of the Indian Penal Code and direct that they shall under go three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine, if realised, shall be paid to Bablu (PW- 2). The accused are also acquitted of the charge u/s 120-B and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The other parts of the sentence is retained as it is.

Appeals allowed.