Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1983
(From the Judgment and order dated 19.8.1982 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980)
(From the Judgment and order dated 19.8.1982 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980)
Petitioner: Darshan Singh and Ors.
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1983
(From the Judgment and order dated 19.8.1982 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980)
(From the Judgment and order dated 19.8.1982 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980)
Judges: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY & G.N. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 09, 1993
Appearances:
Mr. K.G. Bhagat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S.Bansal, Mr. Mukul Gupta and Mr. S.K. Gambhir (NP), Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. R.S. Yadav and Mr. R.S. Suri (NP), Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Sections 147, 367 and 325 – P was abducted and grievously injured disabling his limbs – Place of abduction established – Except P (the injured) no one could identify the accused and give their names – Evidence of P could not be discarded – Wrong assessment of age of one of the accused does not falsify the statement of P – Conviction and sentence upheld.
JUDGEMENT:
G.N. RAY, J. :
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 367 and 325 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of the accused for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, for four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 367 I.P.C., in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 325/149, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months – all the sentences are to run concurrently, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on January 4, 1989 in Sessions Trial No.25 of 1979 since affirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980 by its judgment dated August 19, 1982.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M., Prem Dutt who was co-villager of Gurcharan Singh and Bant Singh were sitting on a cart near the house of Ram Singh when an ambassador car arrived there. On the number plate of the said car the words ‘applied for’ were written. From the said car five persons two of them being armed with rifle and 12 bore gun and the remaining with dangs came out. The said five persons addressed Prem Dutt as ‘Pandta come here’. The driver reversed the car and Prem Dutt apprehending trouble jumped over the wall into the house of Ram Singh, but the said five persons entered the house compound and brought him forcibly back and then they forcibly put him on the back seat of the car. The two persons who were armed with rifle and gun had challenged that any one who would come near would be killed. In the meantime Raj Kumar, son of Prem Dutt, was coming from the bus stand side and seeing his father being forcibly kept in the said car, he raised an alarm but the said five persons managed to abduct away Prem Dutt in the said car. The car stopped in between the villages Kheri and Dolon. Prem Dutt was brought out of the car and the persons armed with dangs inflicted several injuries, and the other companions proclaimed that legs and arms of Prem Dutt be broken. After causing injuries, all the said persons left the said place with the car saying that it was sufficient lesson for Prem Dutt.
3. The motive indicated by the prosecution is that Sarpanch, Buta Singh, had enmity with Prem Dutt and the said Buta Singh before leaving for Canada had told that Prem Dutt’s arms and legs would be broken. It was also alleged that Raj Kumar, son of Prem Dutt, was the Manager in the Cooperative Society Bank of village Jodhan and he detected embezzlement of Rs.4 lacs in the said bank. Tarlok Singh was the president of the said bank. The said Tarlok Singh and other Committee members became enraged because of such detection and such injuries to Prem Dutt had been caused at their instance. After Prem Dutt was taken away in the said car Raj Kumar followed the car in a truck going by the road and he stopped at the place where Prem Dutt was lying injured and thereafter he took him to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana where Prem Dutt had been medically examined and treated. The police arrived on receipt of the medico legal report from the hospital and recorded the statement of Prem Dutt which formed the basis of first information report. Prem Dutt also made a supplementary statement to the police giving out the names of the assailants because the said persons were addressing each other by their names during the period of abduction. After the investigation of the case, seven persons including the appellants were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 120B read with Section 325, 342, 452, 565, 367, 368, 148 and 149 I.P.C. It may be noted here that there was no eye-witness examined by the prosecution who had seen the injuries being inflicted on the person of Prem Dutt. The two doctors, namely, Tarlok Nath, PW 1 and Parmod Kumar, PW.2, were examined by the prosecution. The said doctors had examined Prem Dutt and had conducted the X-ray examination on the person of Prem Dutt. Tarlok Nath, PW.1, stated that he had medically examined Prem Dutt at 9.30 P.M. on June 27, 1979 and he observed eight blunt weapon injuries on the person of Prem Dutt, out of which injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 8 were grievous and injury No. 6 was simple and injuries Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7 were to be observed more intensely. The said doctor further stated that as a result of the injuries sustained by Prem Dutt both the hands of Prem Dutt were disabled and his legs also appeared to be disabled and vide his endorsement Ex.PC he declared Prem Dutt to be unfit to make a statement at 3.30 A.M. on June 28, 1979.
4. Dr. Parmod Kumar, PW.2, conducted the X-ray examination on the person of Prem Dutt on June 28, 1979 and vide his X-ray report Ex.PE, he noticed fracture of lower end of radius of right fore-arm, fracture of shaft of first matacarpal of 4th finger of left hand, fracture of shaft of fibula and that of tibia of right leg and multiple fractures of shaft of tibia and that of fibula of left leg. As a matter of fact, at the time of giving evidence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Prem Dutt, PW.3, could not walk or stand on his legs and he had to be carried to the witness box on the back of another person and he was allowed to make statement by sitting. Prem Dutt had stated that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. when he was present in front of the house of Ram Singh and was sitting on a cart alongwith Gurcharan Singh and Bant Singh, an ambassador car came there and parked just adjacent to that cart. Immediately five persons alighted from the car and they addressed to him by saying ‘pandta come here’. Prem Dutt at that time did not know those persons and one of the persons was armed with a rifle and another with a single barrel gun and the remaining three were armed with lathis. Though he tried to escape by jumping into the house of Ram Singh, he was apprehended by the said five persons who had entered the house through the gate and lifted him and dragged him to the car and forcibly placed him into the back seat on the car. He also stated that hearing alarm his son, Raj Kumar, came from the side of the bus stop but the said five persons abducted him away in the car and the car proceeded towards the village Kheri. Prem Dutt further stated that near the turning one of the persons who was addressed as Giani and Sohan Singh asked the driver to speed up the car. The driver was Darshan Singh and the other accused Buta Singh who was sitting near the driver, asked Prem Dutt if he was called Dutt. Prem Dutt replied that he was so called. On being asked by Buta Singh, Prem Dutt had given his full name and he was further questioned by Buta Singh as to whether his son was the Manager of Cooperative Societies Bank, Jodhan, and Prem Dutt admitted that his son was so posted. The said Buta Singh further enquired if his son had detected an embezzlement of Rs.4 lacs in the Society to which Prem Dutt answered in the affirmative. Prem Dutt told to the accused persons that they would not gain anything even if they would kill him because he would never intervene with the working of his son. According to Prem Dutt accused persons stopped the car between villages Kheri and Dolon and the four of the accused, namely, Boota Singh, Darshan Singh, Sohan Singh and Ranjit Singh brought him out of the car and gave him injuries with their dangs. He further stated that both his arms and legs had been disabled permanently and he could not make use of them. He also stated that after about 15 minutes, his son, Raj Kumar, arrived at the spot and the persons going on the road at that time also stopped there. By that time the accused had left the place by proclaiming that the punishment was sufficient for Prem Dutt. Prem Dutt also stated that he could not note the number of the car because he could only see that on the number plate the words ‘applied for’ were written. He stated to the police that he could identify the persons who had caused injuries to him and talked to him during the time of occurrence. The statement made by Prem Dutt to the police was attested by him by giving a thumb impression because he was not in a position to sign in view of the injuries sustained by them on his hands. PW.4, Raj Kumar, stated that he was posted in the Cooperative Society of Focal point of village Jodhan and he had detected an embezzlement of Rs.4 lacs during the period 1971-72 and he reported such embezzlement involving the Society’s president, Tarlok Singh, its Cashier, Surjit Singh besides other committee members. He also stated that the accused Tarlok Singh was the same person against whom he had reported embezzlement. He also stated that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. he returned from Ludhiana in the bus stop of village Jodhan and he was to go to his house. In the meantime, he saw a cream colour car coming from the opposite side and on its number plate the words ‘applied for’ was written. He also heard the alarm raised by his father from that car, and he saw six persons besides his father in the car. The driver sped away with the car towards the village Kheri. In the meantime, a truck came from the side of Ludhiana. It had slowed down at the bus stop. He then gave a signal to the truck and requested the driver to take him and told him the story of taking away his father. The truck driver told him that he could only take him to the brick kiln. He requested the driver to take him upto the distance he could take him. He stated that when he had travelled for some distance, he noticed that some persons were standing on the road and the truck was stopped and he saw that his father was lying on the road in an injured condition. He requested the driver of the truck to take his father to the hospital. The truck driver agreed to do so by indicating that he would not become a witness in any manner. While he was taking his father to Ludhiana, he stopped the truck in front of the police station and informed the S.H.O. regarding the injuries of his father. The S.H.O advised him to take his father to the hospital by saying that the police would follow. His father admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. He also stated that Boota Singh Sarpanch of the village had enmity with his father Prem Dutt and while leaving for Canada, Boota Singh had thrown a challenge that legs and arms of his father would be broken and 10 or 12 days prior to the occurrence, Boota Singh had left to Canada.
5. P.W.5, Gurcharan Singh stated that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. while coming to his house, he saw Prem Dutt sitting with Bant Singh. He also joined and sat with them. Immediately thereafter, a car came and on its number plate the words ‘applied for’ were written. Five persons came out of the said car and four out of them had dangs and the other were armed with rifles. He also corroborated that the said persons abducted Prem Dutt forcibly and sped away with the said car.
6. P.W.8 A.S.I. Gurnam Singh, took up the investigation of the case on June 27, 1979 and received the statement of Prem Dutt as Ex.PE/2. He also recorded the supplementary statement of Prem Dutt and then took along with him Raj Kumar and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan of place where from Prem Dutt was abducted and also inspected the place where he was assaulted. Devender Singh and Bhajan Singh were arrested on June 30, 1979, Ranjit Singh on July 3, 1979. The said persons were produced with their faces covered before the Ilaka Magistrate. He also arrested Sohan Singh on July 7, 1979. The said person was also produced before the Court with the face covered but the accused persons refused to attend the test identification parade. Darshan Singh, Buta Singh were arrested on July 10, 1979. The said persons also refused to attend the test identification parade. After the close of the prosecution case, the accused were given opportunity to give explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and all the accused persons denied their complicity and stated that the prosecution case was false. Darshan Singh, however, took up a plea that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Krishan Gopal, D.S.P. and other police officials who had enmity with him. Amrik Singh, D.W.1 and Nachhattar Singh, D.W.2, were examined. A certified copy of the judgment of the High Court Ex-D.8 and a certified copy of the compliant filed by Kehar Singh against the police officials including D.S.P. Krishna Gopal, were filed on behalf of Darshan Singh, the accused.
7. Although Raj Kumar and Gurcharan Singh had seen Prem Dutt being abducted from the village, they had no opportunity to recognise the abductors and they could not name the abductors in their statement to the police. The assault on the person of Prem Dutt in between village Jodhan and Kheri had not been witnessed by any other person examined by the prosecution. However, the place of occurrence was not denied by the accused because Nachhattar Singh, D.W.2, was examined and he had stated that Prem Dutt had received injuries at that place at the hands of unidentified assailants.
8. It was strongly contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the learned counsel for the defence that the names of the accused persons were given just to implicate the accused persons. It was contended that as Prem Dutt did not know the persons who had assaulted him. As such he could not give their names in the first statement and the second statement was only an embellishment.
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the finding that the factum of Prem Dutt being forcibly abducted from his village in an ambassador car was fully corroborated by the evidences adduced by Raj Kumar and his co-villager who had seen such abduction. He also came to the finding that the place of assault also stood corroborated by the evidence of Nachhattar Singh DW.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that Nachhattar Singh, DW.2 was not coming out with the truth and his evidence was of a negative type because he did not say as to who was the assailants of Prem Dutt though Nachhattar Singh had admitted that Prem Dutt was seriously injured. He did not meet the injured and tried to know his name and he did not talk to anyone. The said Nachhattar Singh also stated that he was not even aware up to the time of his giving evidence in the Court that any person was prosecuted for the injuries caused to Prem Dutt and he also did not know any of the accused but yet he had come forward to give the evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also indicated that the incident had taken place at a long distance from the village of Prem Dutt. If at that time he had been coming back to the village as suggested by the accused, Prem Dutt was not expected to cover such a distance on foot and Prem Dutt was at least expected to cover the distance by a bicycle but no such bicycle could be seen at the place of occurrence. Hence the story sought to be given by Nachhattar Singh should be rejected. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also came to the finding that the medical evidence clearly supported the version given by Prem Dutt regarding the manner in which he was given injuries. Although the accused Sohan Singh, Darshan Singh, Buta Singh and Ranjit Singh had no direct enmity with Prem Dutt which could constitute a motive for them to cause the injuries, Prem Dutt had given their names which he could gather from the conversation while he was being abducted and also he identified them as the persons who had caused injuries to them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that failure of direct motive for the accused for the commission of offence would not falsify the prosecution case and it was quite likely that there were persons behind the scene and the accused persons were only engaged by them to cause injuries on the person of Prem Dutt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not accept the prosecution case that a conspiracy was hatched by Tarlok Singh and Bhajan singh. It was held by the learned Judge that although Tarlok Singh was the president of the Society against whom Raj Kumar had reported for an offence of embezzlement and Devinder Singh was the Salesman on the liquor shop of Buta Singh who had left for Canada, the case of conspiracy hatched by the said persons could not be established beyond reasonable doubts. Besides, the accused Bhajan Singh was in no way connected with Buta Singh, Sarpanch of the village or with the Cooperative Society Bank at the village Jodhan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not place any reliance on the statement for Prem Dutt that he had seen Bhajan Singh and Devinder Singh coming on a motor-cycle shortly before his abduction when he was proceeding towards the house of Ram Singh because such statement was made for the first time in the Court and was likely to be an afterthought.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after discussing the evidences produced by the parties and considering the materials on record had come to the finding that the prosecution had proved that Prem Dutt was forcibly abducted from his village on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. and thereafter was given grievous injuries but the prosecution had failed to prove that any of the accused had entered into conspiracy for causing injuries to Prem Dutt. He further held that the prosecution had specifically proved that accused Ranjit Singh, Sohan Singh, Darshan Singh, Buta Singh along with two unknown companions who were armed with guns, were members of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object to cause grievous hurt to Prem Dutt they had abducted him from his village and accordingly they had committed and offence under Section 367 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also came to the finding that the prosecution had proved that Ranjit Singh, Sohan Singh, Darshan Singh and Buta Singh with two unknown persons had voluntarily caused grievous injuries on the person of Prem Dutt and therefore committed an offence under Section 325/1499 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that the charge under Section 452 I.P.C. against the accused Ranjit Singh, Sohan Singh, Buta Singh could not be substantiated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Bhajan Singh and Devinder Singh and Tarlok Singh, on the finding that the case of criminal conspiracy of causing grievous hurt to Prem Dutt by the said persons had not been established. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused Sohan singh, Ranjit Singh, Darshan Singh, Buta Singh had committed offences under Sections 147, 367, 325/149 I.P.C. and convicted the said accused persons and sentenced them as already indicated.
11. The appellants herein also preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980. The learned Judge in the High Court did not accept the case of the accused persons that there was an embellishment on the part of Prem Dutt in giving their names in supplementary statement to the police although he could not identify them and as such could not give their names in the first statement. The learned Judge has not accepted the case of the appellants that since they were shown to Prem Dutt, they refused to join the identification parade. The learned Judge has held that the faces of the said persons were covered when they were produced before the Ilaka Magistrate and Prem Dutt being seriously injured was lying in the hospital and the police had not taken the accused persons into custody to the hospital for showing them to Prem Dutt. The learned Judge has also indicated that Prem Dutt had not enmity with any of the accused persons and therefore there is no reason and likelihood of falsely giving their names and in the very first statement before the police, Prem Dutt had described his abductors as young men aged about 20 or 25 years. Except Ranjit Singh, the other appellants were of the said age group and although Ranjit Singh had given his age about 40 years but he might be looking younger. The learned Judge also did not accept the submission of the appellants that there was an inordinate delay in giving first information report with the police. It was indicated by the learned Judge that Prem Dutt was seriously injured and was taken to the hospital and medical report was sent to the police by the doctor and police arrived there and recorded such statement. As such there was no inordinate delay in lodging first information report. The learned Judge has also held that even if the delay in recording the names was excluded there was sufficient material on the file to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
12. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has very strongly contended that admittedly the son of Prem Dutt while taking his father to Ludhiana hospital had stopped in front of police Station and reported the incident to the S.H.O. Such statement made to the S.H.O. should therefore be treated as first information report and the alleged statement of Prem Dutt and the supplementary statement made by him to the police should not be treated as the first information report and the same were only statements under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code made by Prem Dutt who was a star witness for the prosecution. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that admittedly there was no motive for the commission of the crime by the four appellants and it is unbelievable that they should take the risk of coming to the village for the purpose of abducting Prem Dutt and thereafter assaulting him on the road where there was lot of traffic. In the absence of any strong motive, it is not expected that the appellants would take such a risk in committing serious offences alleged against them. The learned counsel has also contended that the case of conspiracy against the persons who might have any motive has not been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the aforesaid facts, the case against the appellants does not stand scrutiny and the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have acquitted them. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that so far as the assault is concerned, there is no evidence of any eye-witness excepting the lone testimony of the injured Prem Dutt. The evidence of Prem Dutt should not have been accepted by the Courts below in view of the fact that he could not give the names of the assailants when he made the first statement before the police in the hospital. It was only in the supplementary statement that an embellishment was made by him and the statement was made implicating the accused persons. The learned counsel has contended that if the appellants were hired goondas for committing the offences, it is quite reasonable that they should be careful enough as not to take their names when Prem dutt was being abducted in the car. Prem Dutt could only give the names on the basis of such alleged divulgence of their names being made by themselves. Such conduct being absolutely improbable and unnatural should not have been believed by the courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the evidence of the witness for the accused persons, namely, DW.1 Nachhattar Singh should not have been discarded by the courts below. The said Nachhattar Singh was a natural witness because he had his field near the place of assault and he had specifically stated that Prem Dutt was assaulted by unidentified assailants. The learned counsel has also submitted that it transpires from the evidence of Raj Kumar that when he found his father lying injured on the road a number of persons had gathered there. But no such independent person was examined and such non-examination only indicates that if such witnesses had been examined, the defence case that Prem Dutt had been assaulted by unidentified persons would have been clearly established. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellants have been convicted simply on the basis of the statement made by Prem Dutt that they were the persons who had abducted him and had caused injuries on his person. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, such testimony of Prem Dutt which was vitiated by an embellishment at a later stage should have been discarded by the courts below. According to learned counsel for the appellant there has been total miscarriage of justice and the appellants should be acquitted by this Court.
13. The learned counsels for the State, and also for the intervenor complainant disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and it has been contended that Prem Dutt had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants and he was given a very straightforward evidence to the effect that along with other unidentified persons, the four appellants had forcibly abducted him and they had caused injuries to him. The entire operation of abduction and causing injuries were spread over for some time so that there were occasions for the occupants of the car to talk among themselves and it was only from such conversation Prem Dutt could get their names. The case of forcible abduction stands corroborated by the son of Prem Dutt and also by the co-villager and the factum of assault at the place of occurrence also stands established even from the evidence of Nachhattar Singh DW.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons as to why the case of the prosecution for convicting the appellants shall be accepted and such reasons not being contrary to the evidence adduced in the case are not required to be discarded and the High Court has also not discarded the same. It has, therefore, been submitted that the impugned judgment should be affirmed.
14. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, it appears to us that so far as the abduction is concerned, it has been proved by the evidences adduced by the injured Prem Dutt and also by his son and co-villager that he was forcibly abducted in an ambassador car and taken out of the village. The place of occurrence has also been established because he was completely immobilised by the injuries sustained by him and Prem Dutt was found lying on the road where the occurrence had taken place. Such place of occurrence has also been stated by the witness for the appellants DW.2. It is true that excepting Prem Dutt no one could identify the assailants and give their names but on that score alone, the evidence of Prem Dutt should not be discarded. Prem Dutt has not alleged any motive of enmity against the assailants. It is, therefore, unlikely that he would falsely implicate the unknown persons if he would not recognise them. From the point of abduction from the village upto the stage of giving injuries on the person of Prem Dutt, a reasonable time had elapsed. It is therefore not improbable or unlikely that Prem Dutt had occasion to hear conversation of the appellants. He had also given description of the ages of the appellants and excepting Ranjit Singh other assailants were of the age group as given by Prem Dutt in his statement to the police. Although Ranjit Singh was stated to be aged about 40 years but he looked younger and wrong assessment of the age of Ranjit Singh does not falsify the statement of Prem Dutt. It is immaterial whether the statement made by Prem Dutt should be accepted as first information report or the statement made under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. As a matter of fact, the son of Prem Dutt had not really given the particulars of the incident. While hurrying to the hospital with the injured father he stopped near the police station and informed S.H.O. that his father was injured and was being taken to the hospital. Since the son had no occasion to know the names of assailants and to give any account as to how the injuries were caused on the person of his father, he could not make any statement to the police at that time. In our view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for basing his findings for convicting the appellants and such conviction and sentences have also been upheld by the High Court. We do not find any reason to take any contrary view in the matter. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed and the conviction and the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are confirmed. It appears that the appellants have been released on bail by this Court by an order dated February 15, 1983. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellants should be taken into custody for serving out the sentence.
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 367 and 325 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of the accused for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, for four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 367 I.P.C., in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 325/149, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months – all the sentences are to run concurrently, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on January 4, 1989 in Sessions Trial No.25 of 1979 since affirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980 by its judgment dated August 19, 1982.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M., Prem Dutt who was co-villager of Gurcharan Singh and Bant Singh were sitting on a cart near the house of Ram Singh when an ambassador car arrived there. On the number plate of the said car the words ‘applied for’ were written. From the said car five persons two of them being armed with rifle and 12 bore gun and the remaining with dangs came out. The said five persons addressed Prem Dutt as ‘Pandta come here’. The driver reversed the car and Prem Dutt apprehending trouble jumped over the wall into the house of Ram Singh, but the said five persons entered the house compound and brought him forcibly back and then they forcibly put him on the back seat of the car. The two persons who were armed with rifle and gun had challenged that any one who would come near would be killed. In the meantime Raj Kumar, son of Prem Dutt, was coming from the bus stand side and seeing his father being forcibly kept in the said car, he raised an alarm but the said five persons managed to abduct away Prem Dutt in the said car. The car stopped in between the villages Kheri and Dolon. Prem Dutt was brought out of the car and the persons armed with dangs inflicted several injuries, and the other companions proclaimed that legs and arms of Prem Dutt be broken. After causing injuries, all the said persons left the said place with the car saying that it was sufficient lesson for Prem Dutt.
3. The motive indicated by the prosecution is that Sarpanch, Buta Singh, had enmity with Prem Dutt and the said Buta Singh before leaving for Canada had told that Prem Dutt’s arms and legs would be broken. It was also alleged that Raj Kumar, son of Prem Dutt, was the Manager in the Cooperative Society Bank of village Jodhan and he detected embezzlement of Rs.4 lacs in the said bank. Tarlok Singh was the president of the said bank. The said Tarlok Singh and other Committee members became enraged because of such detection and such injuries to Prem Dutt had been caused at their instance. After Prem Dutt was taken away in the said car Raj Kumar followed the car in a truck going by the road and he stopped at the place where Prem Dutt was lying injured and thereafter he took him to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana where Prem Dutt had been medically examined and treated. The police arrived on receipt of the medico legal report from the hospital and recorded the statement of Prem Dutt which formed the basis of first information report. Prem Dutt also made a supplementary statement to the police giving out the names of the assailants because the said persons were addressing each other by their names during the period of abduction. After the investigation of the case, seven persons including the appellants were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 120B read with Section 325, 342, 452, 565, 367, 368, 148 and 149 I.P.C. It may be noted here that there was no eye-witness examined by the prosecution who had seen the injuries being inflicted on the person of Prem Dutt. The two doctors, namely, Tarlok Nath, PW 1 and Parmod Kumar, PW.2, were examined by the prosecution. The said doctors had examined Prem Dutt and had conducted the X-ray examination on the person of Prem Dutt. Tarlok Nath, PW.1, stated that he had medically examined Prem Dutt at 9.30 P.M. on June 27, 1979 and he observed eight blunt weapon injuries on the person of Prem Dutt, out of which injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 8 were grievous and injury No. 6 was simple and injuries Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7 were to be observed more intensely. The said doctor further stated that as a result of the injuries sustained by Prem Dutt both the hands of Prem Dutt were disabled and his legs also appeared to be disabled and vide his endorsement Ex.PC he declared Prem Dutt to be unfit to make a statement at 3.30 A.M. on June 28, 1979.
4. Dr. Parmod Kumar, PW.2, conducted the X-ray examination on the person of Prem Dutt on June 28, 1979 and vide his X-ray report Ex.PE, he noticed fracture of lower end of radius of right fore-arm, fracture of shaft of first matacarpal of 4th finger of left hand, fracture of shaft of fibula and that of tibia of right leg and multiple fractures of shaft of tibia and that of fibula of left leg. As a matter of fact, at the time of giving evidence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Prem Dutt, PW.3, could not walk or stand on his legs and he had to be carried to the witness box on the back of another person and he was allowed to make statement by sitting. Prem Dutt had stated that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. when he was present in front of the house of Ram Singh and was sitting on a cart alongwith Gurcharan Singh and Bant Singh, an ambassador car came there and parked just adjacent to that cart. Immediately five persons alighted from the car and they addressed to him by saying ‘pandta come here’. Prem Dutt at that time did not know those persons and one of the persons was armed with a rifle and another with a single barrel gun and the remaining three were armed with lathis. Though he tried to escape by jumping into the house of Ram Singh, he was apprehended by the said five persons who had entered the house through the gate and lifted him and dragged him to the car and forcibly placed him into the back seat on the car. He also stated that hearing alarm his son, Raj Kumar, came from the side of the bus stop but the said five persons abducted him away in the car and the car proceeded towards the village Kheri. Prem Dutt further stated that near the turning one of the persons who was addressed as Giani and Sohan Singh asked the driver to speed up the car. The driver was Darshan Singh and the other accused Buta Singh who was sitting near the driver, asked Prem Dutt if he was called Dutt. Prem Dutt replied that he was so called. On being asked by Buta Singh, Prem Dutt had given his full name and he was further questioned by Buta Singh as to whether his son was the Manager of Cooperative Societies Bank, Jodhan, and Prem Dutt admitted that his son was so posted. The said Buta Singh further enquired if his son had detected an embezzlement of Rs.4 lacs in the Society to which Prem Dutt answered in the affirmative. Prem Dutt told to the accused persons that they would not gain anything even if they would kill him because he would never intervene with the working of his son. According to Prem Dutt accused persons stopped the car between villages Kheri and Dolon and the four of the accused, namely, Boota Singh, Darshan Singh, Sohan Singh and Ranjit Singh brought him out of the car and gave him injuries with their dangs. He further stated that both his arms and legs had been disabled permanently and he could not make use of them. He also stated that after about 15 minutes, his son, Raj Kumar, arrived at the spot and the persons going on the road at that time also stopped there. By that time the accused had left the place by proclaiming that the punishment was sufficient for Prem Dutt. Prem Dutt also stated that he could not note the number of the car because he could only see that on the number plate the words ‘applied for’ were written. He stated to the police that he could identify the persons who had caused injuries to him and talked to him during the time of occurrence. The statement made by Prem Dutt to the police was attested by him by giving a thumb impression because he was not in a position to sign in view of the injuries sustained by them on his hands. PW.4, Raj Kumar, stated that he was posted in the Cooperative Society of Focal point of village Jodhan and he had detected an embezzlement of Rs.4 lacs during the period 1971-72 and he reported such embezzlement involving the Society’s president, Tarlok Singh, its Cashier, Surjit Singh besides other committee members. He also stated that the accused Tarlok Singh was the same person against whom he had reported embezzlement. He also stated that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. he returned from Ludhiana in the bus stop of village Jodhan and he was to go to his house. In the meantime, he saw a cream colour car coming from the opposite side and on its number plate the words ‘applied for’ was written. He also heard the alarm raised by his father from that car, and he saw six persons besides his father in the car. The driver sped away with the car towards the village Kheri. In the meantime, a truck came from the side of Ludhiana. It had slowed down at the bus stop. He then gave a signal to the truck and requested the driver to take him and told him the story of taking away his father. The truck driver told him that he could only take him to the brick kiln. He requested the driver to take him upto the distance he could take him. He stated that when he had travelled for some distance, he noticed that some persons were standing on the road and the truck was stopped and he saw that his father was lying on the road in an injured condition. He requested the driver of the truck to take his father to the hospital. The truck driver agreed to do so by indicating that he would not become a witness in any manner. While he was taking his father to Ludhiana, he stopped the truck in front of the police station and informed the S.H.O. regarding the injuries of his father. The S.H.O advised him to take his father to the hospital by saying that the police would follow. His father admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. He also stated that Boota Singh Sarpanch of the village had enmity with his father Prem Dutt and while leaving for Canada, Boota Singh had thrown a challenge that legs and arms of his father would be broken and 10 or 12 days prior to the occurrence, Boota Singh had left to Canada.
5. P.W.5, Gurcharan Singh stated that on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. while coming to his house, he saw Prem Dutt sitting with Bant Singh. He also joined and sat with them. Immediately thereafter, a car came and on its number plate the words ‘applied for’ were written. Five persons came out of the said car and four out of them had dangs and the other were armed with rifles. He also corroborated that the said persons abducted Prem Dutt forcibly and sped away with the said car.
6. P.W.8 A.S.I. Gurnam Singh, took up the investigation of the case on June 27, 1979 and received the statement of Prem Dutt as Ex.PE/2. He also recorded the supplementary statement of Prem Dutt and then took along with him Raj Kumar and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan of place where from Prem Dutt was abducted and also inspected the place where he was assaulted. Devender Singh and Bhajan Singh were arrested on June 30, 1979, Ranjit Singh on July 3, 1979. The said persons were produced with their faces covered before the Ilaka Magistrate. He also arrested Sohan Singh on July 7, 1979. The said person was also produced before the Court with the face covered but the accused persons refused to attend the test identification parade. Darshan Singh, Buta Singh were arrested on July 10, 1979. The said persons also refused to attend the test identification parade. After the close of the prosecution case, the accused were given opportunity to give explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and all the accused persons denied their complicity and stated that the prosecution case was false. Darshan Singh, however, took up a plea that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Krishan Gopal, D.S.P. and other police officials who had enmity with him. Amrik Singh, D.W.1 and Nachhattar Singh, D.W.2, were examined. A certified copy of the judgment of the High Court Ex-D.8 and a certified copy of the compliant filed by Kehar Singh against the police officials including D.S.P. Krishna Gopal, were filed on behalf of Darshan Singh, the accused.
7. Although Raj Kumar and Gurcharan Singh had seen Prem Dutt being abducted from the village, they had no opportunity to recognise the abductors and they could not name the abductors in their statement to the police. The assault on the person of Prem Dutt in between village Jodhan and Kheri had not been witnessed by any other person examined by the prosecution. However, the place of occurrence was not denied by the accused because Nachhattar Singh, D.W.2, was examined and he had stated that Prem Dutt had received injuries at that place at the hands of unidentified assailants.
8. It was strongly contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the learned counsel for the defence that the names of the accused persons were given just to implicate the accused persons. It was contended that as Prem Dutt did not know the persons who had assaulted him. As such he could not give their names in the first statement and the second statement was only an embellishment.
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the finding that the factum of Prem Dutt being forcibly abducted from his village in an ambassador car was fully corroborated by the evidences adduced by Raj Kumar and his co-villager who had seen such abduction. He also came to the finding that the place of assault also stood corroborated by the evidence of Nachhattar Singh DW.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that Nachhattar Singh, DW.2 was not coming out with the truth and his evidence was of a negative type because he did not say as to who was the assailants of Prem Dutt though Nachhattar Singh had admitted that Prem Dutt was seriously injured. He did not meet the injured and tried to know his name and he did not talk to anyone. The said Nachhattar Singh also stated that he was not even aware up to the time of his giving evidence in the Court that any person was prosecuted for the injuries caused to Prem Dutt and he also did not know any of the accused but yet he had come forward to give the evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also indicated that the incident had taken place at a long distance from the village of Prem Dutt. If at that time he had been coming back to the village as suggested by the accused, Prem Dutt was not expected to cover such a distance on foot and Prem Dutt was at least expected to cover the distance by a bicycle but no such bicycle could be seen at the place of occurrence. Hence the story sought to be given by Nachhattar Singh should be rejected. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also came to the finding that the medical evidence clearly supported the version given by Prem Dutt regarding the manner in which he was given injuries. Although the accused Sohan Singh, Darshan Singh, Buta Singh and Ranjit Singh had no direct enmity with Prem Dutt which could constitute a motive for them to cause the injuries, Prem Dutt had given their names which he could gather from the conversation while he was being abducted and also he identified them as the persons who had caused injuries to them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that failure of direct motive for the accused for the commission of offence would not falsify the prosecution case and it was quite likely that there were persons behind the scene and the accused persons were only engaged by them to cause injuries on the person of Prem Dutt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not accept the prosecution case that a conspiracy was hatched by Tarlok Singh and Bhajan singh. It was held by the learned Judge that although Tarlok Singh was the president of the Society against whom Raj Kumar had reported for an offence of embezzlement and Devinder Singh was the Salesman on the liquor shop of Buta Singh who had left for Canada, the case of conspiracy hatched by the said persons could not be established beyond reasonable doubts. Besides, the accused Bhajan Singh was in no way connected with Buta Singh, Sarpanch of the village or with the Cooperative Society Bank at the village Jodhan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not place any reliance on the statement for Prem Dutt that he had seen Bhajan Singh and Devinder Singh coming on a motor-cycle shortly before his abduction when he was proceeding towards the house of Ram Singh because such statement was made for the first time in the Court and was likely to be an afterthought.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after discussing the evidences produced by the parties and considering the materials on record had come to the finding that the prosecution had proved that Prem Dutt was forcibly abducted from his village on June 27, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. and thereafter was given grievous injuries but the prosecution had failed to prove that any of the accused had entered into conspiracy for causing injuries to Prem Dutt. He further held that the prosecution had specifically proved that accused Ranjit Singh, Sohan Singh, Darshan Singh, Buta Singh along with two unknown companions who were armed with guns, were members of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object to cause grievous hurt to Prem Dutt they had abducted him from his village and accordingly they had committed and offence under Section 367 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also came to the finding that the prosecution had proved that Ranjit Singh, Sohan Singh, Darshan Singh and Buta Singh with two unknown persons had voluntarily caused grievous injuries on the person of Prem Dutt and therefore committed an offence under Section 325/1499 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that the charge under Section 452 I.P.C. against the accused Ranjit Singh, Sohan Singh, Buta Singh could not be substantiated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Bhajan Singh and Devinder Singh and Tarlok Singh, on the finding that the case of criminal conspiracy of causing grievous hurt to Prem Dutt by the said persons had not been established. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused Sohan singh, Ranjit Singh, Darshan Singh, Buta Singh had committed offences under Sections 147, 367, 325/149 I.P.C. and convicted the said accused persons and sentenced them as already indicated.
11. The appellants herein also preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.18-SB of 1980. The learned Judge in the High Court did not accept the case of the accused persons that there was an embellishment on the part of Prem Dutt in giving their names in supplementary statement to the police although he could not identify them and as such could not give their names in the first statement. The learned Judge has not accepted the case of the appellants that since they were shown to Prem Dutt, they refused to join the identification parade. The learned Judge has held that the faces of the said persons were covered when they were produced before the Ilaka Magistrate and Prem Dutt being seriously injured was lying in the hospital and the police had not taken the accused persons into custody to the hospital for showing them to Prem Dutt. The learned Judge has also indicated that Prem Dutt had not enmity with any of the accused persons and therefore there is no reason and likelihood of falsely giving their names and in the very first statement before the police, Prem Dutt had described his abductors as young men aged about 20 or 25 years. Except Ranjit Singh, the other appellants were of the said age group and although Ranjit Singh had given his age about 40 years but he might be looking younger. The learned Judge also did not accept the submission of the appellants that there was an inordinate delay in giving first information report with the police. It was indicated by the learned Judge that Prem Dutt was seriously injured and was taken to the hospital and medical report was sent to the police by the doctor and police arrived there and recorded such statement. As such there was no inordinate delay in lodging first information report. The learned Judge has also held that even if the delay in recording the names was excluded there was sufficient material on the file to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
12. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has very strongly contended that admittedly the son of Prem Dutt while taking his father to Ludhiana hospital had stopped in front of police Station and reported the incident to the S.H.O. Such statement made to the S.H.O. should therefore be treated as first information report and the alleged statement of Prem Dutt and the supplementary statement made by him to the police should not be treated as the first information report and the same were only statements under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code made by Prem Dutt who was a star witness for the prosecution. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that admittedly there was no motive for the commission of the crime by the four appellants and it is unbelievable that they should take the risk of coming to the village for the purpose of abducting Prem Dutt and thereafter assaulting him on the road where there was lot of traffic. In the absence of any strong motive, it is not expected that the appellants would take such a risk in committing serious offences alleged against them. The learned counsel has also contended that the case of conspiracy against the persons who might have any motive has not been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the aforesaid facts, the case against the appellants does not stand scrutiny and the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have acquitted them. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that so far as the assault is concerned, there is no evidence of any eye-witness excepting the lone testimony of the injured Prem Dutt. The evidence of Prem Dutt should not have been accepted by the Courts below in view of the fact that he could not give the names of the assailants when he made the first statement before the police in the hospital. It was only in the supplementary statement that an embellishment was made by him and the statement was made implicating the accused persons. The learned counsel has contended that if the appellants were hired goondas for committing the offences, it is quite reasonable that they should be careful enough as not to take their names when Prem dutt was being abducted in the car. Prem Dutt could only give the names on the basis of such alleged divulgence of their names being made by themselves. Such conduct being absolutely improbable and unnatural should not have been believed by the courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the evidence of the witness for the accused persons, namely, DW.1 Nachhattar Singh should not have been discarded by the courts below. The said Nachhattar Singh was a natural witness because he had his field near the place of assault and he had specifically stated that Prem Dutt was assaulted by unidentified assailants. The learned counsel has also submitted that it transpires from the evidence of Raj Kumar that when he found his father lying injured on the road a number of persons had gathered there. But no such independent person was examined and such non-examination only indicates that if such witnesses had been examined, the defence case that Prem Dutt had been assaulted by unidentified persons would have been clearly established. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellants have been convicted simply on the basis of the statement made by Prem Dutt that they were the persons who had abducted him and had caused injuries on his person. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, such testimony of Prem Dutt which was vitiated by an embellishment at a later stage should have been discarded by the courts below. According to learned counsel for the appellant there has been total miscarriage of justice and the appellants should be acquitted by this Court.
13. The learned counsels for the State, and also for the intervenor complainant disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and it has been contended that Prem Dutt had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants and he was given a very straightforward evidence to the effect that along with other unidentified persons, the four appellants had forcibly abducted him and they had caused injuries to him. The entire operation of abduction and causing injuries were spread over for some time so that there were occasions for the occupants of the car to talk among themselves and it was only from such conversation Prem Dutt could get their names. The case of forcible abduction stands corroborated by the son of Prem Dutt and also by the co-villager and the factum of assault at the place of occurrence also stands established even from the evidence of Nachhattar Singh DW.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons as to why the case of the prosecution for convicting the appellants shall be accepted and such reasons not being contrary to the evidence adduced in the case are not required to be discarded and the High Court has also not discarded the same. It has, therefore, been submitted that the impugned judgment should be affirmed.
14. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, it appears to us that so far as the abduction is concerned, it has been proved by the evidences adduced by the injured Prem Dutt and also by his son and co-villager that he was forcibly abducted in an ambassador car and taken out of the village. The place of occurrence has also been established because he was completely immobilised by the injuries sustained by him and Prem Dutt was found lying on the road where the occurrence had taken place. Such place of occurrence has also been stated by the witness for the appellants DW.2. It is true that excepting Prem Dutt no one could identify the assailants and give their names but on that score alone, the evidence of Prem Dutt should not be discarded. Prem Dutt has not alleged any motive of enmity against the assailants. It is, therefore, unlikely that he would falsely implicate the unknown persons if he would not recognise them. From the point of abduction from the village upto the stage of giving injuries on the person of Prem Dutt, a reasonable time had elapsed. It is therefore not improbable or unlikely that Prem Dutt had occasion to hear conversation of the appellants. He had also given description of the ages of the appellants and excepting Ranjit Singh other assailants were of the age group as given by Prem Dutt in his statement to the police. Although Ranjit Singh was stated to be aged about 40 years but he looked younger and wrong assessment of the age of Ranjit Singh does not falsify the statement of Prem Dutt. It is immaterial whether the statement made by Prem Dutt should be accepted as first information report or the statement made under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. As a matter of fact, the son of Prem Dutt had not really given the particulars of the incident. While hurrying to the hospital with the injured father he stopped near the police station and informed S.H.O. that his father was injured and was being taken to the hospital. Since the son had no occasion to know the names of assailants and to give any account as to how the injuries were caused on the person of his father, he could not make any statement to the police at that time. In our view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for basing his findings for convicting the appellants and such conviction and sentences have also been upheld by the High Court. We do not find any reason to take any contrary view in the matter. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed and the conviction and the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are confirmed. It appears that the appellants have been released on bail by this Court by an order dated February 15, 1983. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellants should be taken into custody for serving out the sentence.
