Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004 (O&M) Decided on : September 09, 2010 Kashmir Singh and another ... Petitioners VERSUS Jagtar Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Pradeep Virk, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition preferred by Kashmir Singh and Lakhvir Singh has arisen out of the judgment dated 22.5.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 2.9.1997 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, convicting and sentencing them (Kashmir Singh, Lakhvir Singh and Gurjant Singh) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, each under Section 365 read with Section 34 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each under Section 452 read Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [2] with Section 34 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 352 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. During trial, there were four accused, out of whom, Ranjha Singh had died during the trial. Later on, accused Gurjant Singh also died during the pendency of the appeal and qua him the appeal stood abated. The allegations, in nutshell, are that complainant - Jagtar Singh (herein referred as `the complainant') was employed as Gangman in the Engineering Department of Railways and was staying at Railway Station Dabwali. Jatto Bai, his mother owned 25 Bighas of land situated at village Basir, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) and she had bequeathed her entire agricultural land in favour of Jangir Singh (son of the complainant). However, she died in 1976. The accused Kashmir Singh is the sister's son of accused Ranjha (since deceased) and accused Lakhvir Singh is the nephew of Ranjha. Accused Ranjha had forcibly occupied the land inherited by Jangir Singh from Jatto Bai. Consequently, the complainant had filed a suit on behalf of his son Jangir Singh against the accused, which was decreed. Thereafter, the accused Kashmir Singh in order to grab the entire land impersonated himself as Jangir Singh and he, in collusion with the other accused, mortgaged the same with the Punjab National Bank, Hanumangarh, District Ganganagar and purchased a tractor, whereupon, Jangir Singh filed a complaint under Sections 420, 462, 467, 468 read with Section 120-B IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hanumangarh. On 2.11.1987, all the accused along with one Constable went to Railway Station Mandi Dabwali, where they called the Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [3] complainant through Ram Kumar another gangman. They asked the complainant to accompany them in connection with the enquiry and investigation being held by Revenue Board, Ajmer. On this, the complainant after taking leave accompanied them. He was asked to take all the relevant documents with him. At this, when he went to his house to take the documents, the accused followed him. When the complainant was searching the documents, the accused forcibly entered and ransacked his house; gave beatings to him and pressurised him to tell whereabouts of his son Jangir Singh. The complainant told them that Jangir Singh was away to Ahmedpur Darewala and all the papers were in his knowledge. On this, the accused felt annoyed; gave him fist blows; dragged him by his hair; made him sit in the jeep and took him away. Pala Ram had witnessed the occurrence. Then, the complainant was taken to village Ahmedpur Darewala, but Jangir Singh was not found there. Thereafter, all the accused gave him beatings again and took him to Police Station Hanumangarh, where, Gurjant Singh Assistant Sub Inspector was present. Gurjant Singh tried to prevail upon the complainant to enter into a compromise with the accused and withdraw all criminal and civil cases and hand-over all the documents pertaining to the land including the Will. While reaching the Police Station Hanumangarh, the complainant realised that the accused had concocted a false story. In order to avoid further harassment, he assured the accused to hand over all the documents after he gets the same from his son Jangir Singh. He was released on 5.11.1987. Then, after recovering from the injuries, he complained to the police, but while receiving no response, the complaint was initiated. On preliminary evidence, the Trial Court summoned the Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [4] accused. During pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined Gurdayal Singh (PW1), Pala Ram (PW2), Wazir Singh (PW3), Ram Kumar (PW4) and the complainant Jangir Singh himself (PW5). Thereafter, all the accused were charged under Sections 365, 342, 452, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Again after charge, the accused cross-examined all the aforesaid witnesses. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Kashmir Singh – accused further pleaded that he is relative of Jangir Singh s/o Jagtar Singh in whose favour the Will was executed by Jatto Bai. The accused Gurjant Singh further explained that he was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar to conduct an enquiry, but except two constables none accompanied him to Dabwali. On enquiry Gurdayal Singh had told him that the complainant was on leave, therefore, he returned without meeting him. Accused Lakhvir Singh also denied the allegations including his relationship with accused Ranjha. In their defence, the accused examined Om Parkash (DW1). Accused Lakhvir Singh tendered documents Mark-A to Mark-F into evidence. The trial ended in conviction of three accused. Ranjha had died during trial and Gurjant Singh also died during pendency of the appeal. As such, the present petition was preferred by Kashmir Singh and Lakhvir Singh. I have heard the rival contentions and scrutinised the records of Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [5] the case. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the crime. The witnesses, so examined by the prosecution being close associates of the complainant are interested witnesses; there is delay in lodging the First Information Report; no flaw or forgery has been proved and the complainant was never kept in illegal custody, allegedly w.e.f. 2.11.1987 to 5.11.1987. Therefore, they should be extended the benefit of doubt. As regards the delay in filing the complaint, it may be observed that the accused came to the office of the complainant at Railway Station Mandi Dabwali on 2.11.1987 and he was taken away from that place and kept in illegal detention by ASI Gurjant Singh – accused, at the instance of the other accused upto 5.11.1987, however, the complaint was filed on 12.11.1987. While pointing out these circumstances, the counsel has pointed out that six days' delay stands unexplained. Having pondered over the argument, it may be observed that Jagtar Singh, was kept in illegal custody w.e.f. 2.11.1987 to 5.11.1987. It is established that during this period, he was beaten up by the accused. However, he was released on the assurance that he will manage all the documents from his son Jangir Singh. After 5.11.1987, he remained under treatment of the doctor of the Department of Railways and he also approached the police of Dabwali for registration of the case, but the police did not proceed against them. The evidence reveals that Lakhvir Singh and Kashmir Singh – petitioners were aggrieved against the complainant as Jatto Bai while ignoring them had executed a will in favour of Jangir Singh, When Jangir Singh could not be found, they took Jagtar Singh – complainant with them. As such, the Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [6] motive behind the occurrence stands established. The accused Kashmir Singh was so over-jealous to keep the land that he, while impersonating himself as Jangir Singh, obtained a loan from the Bank. During enquiry as directed by this Court, it came out that accused Kashmir Singh is not Jangir Singh, and he is Kashmir Singh s/o Kala Singh r/o Village Bashir, Tehsil Tibbi, District Ganga Nagar (Rajasthan). The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali gave findings in this regard, which were maintained by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment dated 30.5.1986 and observed that Jagtar Singh – complainant is the son of Ami Singh, whereas, Kashmir Singh is son of Kala Singh. He impersonated himself as Jangir Singh and obtained a loan from the Bank. It has also come in evidence that the police did not come in action on the complaint made by Jagtar Singh to the police, therefore, in the circumstances, the six days' delay in filing the complaint is immaterial and insignificant, particularly when the case hinges on the documents and there is sufficient evidence on the record in order to establish that the accused having motive to snatch the Will executed in favour of Jangir Singh, took his father Jagtar Singh to Police Station Hanuman Garh, where, accused Gurjant Singh put pressure upon him to part with the Will and the other documents. As such, the delay does not assume any significance in the present case. Otherwise also, the delay in filing the complaint stands explained. As regards the illegal detention, Gurdayal Singh (PW1) and Pala Ram (PW2) being the employees of the Railways are not interested witnesses, so as Wazir Singh (PW3). They all have duly established the fact that the accused had taken away the complainant on the pretext of enquiry from the Railway Station, Mandi Dabwali and ultimately, he was Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [7] released on 5.11.1987. All the aforesaid three witnesses are consistent qua the taking of the complainant from the Railway Station. The complainant as well as his son are consistent to the fact that the accused after keeping Jagtar Singh gave him fist blows and slaps. Similarly, Ram Kumar (PW4) is a witness to the illegal detention of the complainant in the Police Station. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses as with the passage of time, human memory is bound to fade and the witnesses cannot be expected to make verbatim reproduction of the happenings, rather such discrepancies are the proof of their truthfulness. As regards the argument that no medical evidence has been proved on the record in order to prove the injuries on the person of Jagtar Singh, the prosecution case is that Jagtar Singh was given the fist blows and was slapped, therefore, in all probabilities he would have suffered any invisible injuries, which might be the cause of his having not got medically examined himself. The Trial Court also did not convict the accused for the injuries caused to him. The involvement of Gurjant Singh – deceased is writ large as he himself admitted that he visited the spot on the date and had met the complainant (PW1) in connection with the enquiry and this lends corroboration to the case against the accused – petitioners. No other argument has been raised. Hence, the conviction of the accused – petitioners is upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, since the accused have already faced the protracted trial and the sword of imprisonment has been hanging over their heads since 1987, therefore, some reduction in the sentence is justified. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed with the Criminal Revision No.1238 of 2004(O&M) [8] modification in the sentence which is reduced to two years each under Section 365 read with Section 34, and Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa for compliance. September 09, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE