Crl. Rev. No.2704 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2704 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.01.2010 Gurpal Singh & ors. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The prosecution version as recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala is that “the present FIR got recorded on the statement of complainant Manjit Kaur wherein she has stated that she had two sons namely Sandeep Singh, Ashwinder Singh and one daughter namely Parneet Kaur aged 13/14 years. On 19.04.2002 at about 11.30 a.m. she along with her mother-in-law Balbir Kaur and her daughter Parneet Kaur were sitting in the house. Then Devinder Kaur wife of Gurmukh Singh came to her house and told that her daughter Manpreet had gone towards Samana with her (complainant) son Ashu by car. She immediately Crl. Rev. No.2704 of 2009 2 informed to her husband and just when Devinder Kaur had gone out of her house at about 11.45 p.m., Gurmukh Singh son of Shisha Singh armed with Kahi, Gurpal Singh alias Aman son of Gurmukh Singh armed with gandasa, Ranjit Singh alias Ladi son of Gurcharan Singh armed with Tangli, Sukhna Singh son of Dalip Singh armed with dang entered into their house and they immediately ran and bolted the door from inner side. In the meanwhile Gurmeet Singh and Nirmal Singh came and they requested the accused not to do any illegal act, but Gurpal Singh started breaking the door of the house of the complainant with Gandasa and Gurmukh Singh also started breaking the door of the house of the complainant with Kahi. Thereafter, Gurpal Singh and Ranjit Singh tried to take her daughter Parneet Kaur. She and her mother-in-law Balbir Kaur tried to rescue Parneet Kaur, but they pushed the complainant and her mother-in-law. They fell down on the ground and injuries were caused on their persons. The complainant further alleged that when Nirmal Singh and Gurmit Singh tried to rescue Parneet Kaur from the accused, then Ranjit Singh gave Tangli blow on the left ankle of Gurmit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh gave dang blow on the foot of Nirmal Singh. Then Gurpal Singh and Ranjit Singh forcible kidnapped Parneet Kaur on their motorcycle. The other accused Gurmukh Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Sukha Singh gone by another motorcycle. They raised raula but no body came forward to rescue them. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the present case was registered. The police visited the spot and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused were arrested. The motorcycle was taken from their possession. After completion of the investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the court.” The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as Crl. Rev. No.2704 of 2009 3 under :- Gurpal Singh U/s Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 452 IPC 427 IPC R.I. 2-1/2 years R.I. One year Rs.2000/- Rs.500/- 2 months 15 days 323/149 IPC 365 IPC R.I nine months R.I. 2-1/2 years Rs.500/- Rs.2000/- 15 days 2 months 354 IPC R.I one year Rs.500/- 15 days 506 IPC R.I one year Rs.500/- 15 days 509 IPC R.I one year Rs.500/- 15 days Ranjit Singh U/s Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 452 IPC R.I. 2-1/2 years Rs.2000/- 2 months 427 IPC 323/149 IPC R.I one year R.I nine months Rs.500/- Rs.500/- 15 days 15 days 365 IPC R.I 2-1/2 year Rs.2000/- 2 months 354 IPC R.I one year Rs.500/- 15 days 506 IPC 509 IPC R.I one year R.I one year Rs.500/- Rs.500/- 15 days 15 days Gurmukh Singh U/s Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 452 IPC R.I 2-1/2 years Rs.2000/- 2 months 427 IPC R.I one year Rs.500/- 15 days 323/149 IPC R.I nine months Rs.500/- 15 days Gurcharan Singh U/s Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 452 IPC R.I. 2-1/2 years Rs.2000/- 2 months 427 IPC R.I one year Rs.500/- 15 days 323/149 IPC R.I nine months Rs.500/- 15 days Crl. Rev. No.2704 of 2009 4 Sukhwinder Singh U/s Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 452 IPC R.I. 2-1/2 years Rs.2000/- 2 months 427 IPC R.I one year Rs.500/- 15 days 323/149 IPC R.I nine months Rs.500/- 15 days The appeal was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala which was dismissed. Thus, upholding the conviction of the present petitioners. While challenging the order passed by the trial Court convicting the petitioners and dismissing the appeal, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged eye-witness namely Balbir Kaur i.e mother-in-law of the complainant did not appear as witness and also the motive in the present case has not been proved and there is no evidence under Section 354 IPC. However, I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Attention of this Court was invited to the findings recorded by both the Courts below. The accused had taken Parneet Kaur from Village Sahejpura Khurd to Jalalpur and then to Village Khanouri by force. The prosecutrix PW-4 Parneet Kaur stated in examination-in-chief as well in cross-examination-in-chief that she was threatened that in case she shouts or opens her mouth, she will be killed. The accused misbehaved with her while they were forcibly taking her on their motorcycle. She was below 18 years of age. She was removed from the lawful custody of her adoptive mother and grand-mother. The findings of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in paras 13 and 14 are relevant which are as under :- “13. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the story of the prosecution is unnatural and improbable in itself, as Parneet Kaur had never raised any hue Crl. Rev. No.2704 of 2009 5 and cry when she was kidnapped from her house, even while being taken from Village Sahejpura Khurd to Jalalpur and then to Village Khanori bye Shutrana. She did not put up any resistance does not raised any hue and cry, nor she ever taken any help from any passers by. It is quite natural that a girl who is bodily lifted and then taken to different placed on a motorcycle, does not raise any hue and cry, even when there was ample opportunity to do so. 14. Though at the first instance, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants seems to be attractive and convincing but Parneet Kaur has categorically stated that when she was made to sit on motorcycle, she had raised hue and cry but none listened to her. She has also stated that the accused persons namely Gurpal Singh and Ranjit Singh had threatened to kill her and also with threat to outrage her modesty. She has also stated that she was not taken to the above said villages through the main road, rather from the other connecting ways. She has also stated that she had made hue and cry in Village Jalalpur and people had gathered over there. This was the maximum, which a helpless young girl could have done in such like circumstances, especially when she was under the imminent threat of her death as well as threat to outrage her modesty. So, her conduct cannot said to be unnatural, in the given circumstances.” Once the statement of Parneet Kaur and Manjit Kaur are there, the non-examination of injured Balbir Kaur, who is the mother-in-law and grand mother of the complainant Manjit Kaur and Parneet Kaur, respectively will not change the complexion of the case. In fact, the argument that no motive could be proved, does not help the petitioners in any way. No family will involve a young minor un-married daughter in order Crl. Rev. No.2704 of 2009 6 to falsely implicate due to party friction in the village. The said argument does not appeal in the facts of the present case. The offence of entering the house of someone armed with deadly weapons and forcibly kidnapping a minor girl has been proved beyond doubt by the Courts below. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 12.01.2010 JUDGE gurpreet