Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab

In this regard, he referred to the evidence of PW-3, the complainant himself, that the brother of the appellant-Baldev Singh was earlier kidnapped by the terrorists on 18.10.1991 and the appellant-Baldev Singh was under the impression that Gurdip Singh (brother of PW-3) was responsible for getting Kuldip Singh kidnapped and earlier Kundan Singh, who was a co-accused with the appellants but acquitted by the trial court, had asked the family of PW-3 to accept some girl for marriage with the son of PW-3 Hardev Singh, but Hardev Singh rejected the proposal. He submitted that as there was enmity between the family of PW-3 and the appellants, PW-3 has lodged the false complaint against the appellants.

13. Mr. Madhukar next submitted that the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW- 5 on material aspects of the case are that the appellants took into custody seven persons, who were members of the family of PW-3, on 29.10.1991 and this was the case of PW-3 in the complaint filed by him on 19.01.1992 as well as in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., in the course of the investigation. The omissions in the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., which have been supplied during the evidence of the witnesses in Court, do not detract from this basic prosecution story and, therefore, are not “contradictions” covered by the Explanation under Section 162, Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the delay in recording the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in this extra- ordinary case should not be held fatal to the prosecution case as the main prosecution story that the appellants abducted seven members of the family of PW-3 has been consistently reiterated all throughout, from the date of the complaint made on 19.01.1992 to the dates of the examination of witnesses by the Court. He submitted that the motive of the appellants to abduct the seven members of the family of PW-3 obviously was revenge as will be clear from the evidence of PW-3 and thus the trial court and the High Court rightly believed the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5.

17. To illustrate this point, we may refer to Gauri Shanker Sharma vs. State of U.P. [1990 (Supp) SCC 656]. In this case, the facts were that Ram Dhiraj died of injuries received by him after his arrest while he was in police custody. The prosecution version was that he was beaten in police custody on 19.10.1971 by accused no.1 and his two companions after he was arrested from his residence and brought to the police station. Even though the High Court came to the conclusion that the deceased was beaten after his arrest, the High Court refused to place reliance on the direct testimony of three witnesses insofar as involvement of the Station House Officer of Police Station was concerned and one of the grounds for rejecting the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses was that the telegram was sent by PW-5 who had requested the Station House Officer not to beat the deceased on 23.10.1971, where as the prosecution case was that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused on the evening of 19.10.1971. This Court held that the High Court has failed to appreciate that everyone thinks twice before deciding to make so serious a complaint against a police officer and there was no serious delay as to throw out the evidence of the three witnesses on the ground of delay. In our view, considering the fact situation, the delay of 2 months and 21 days on the part of PW-3 to lodge the complaint to the Director General of Police, Punjab, had been explained by PW-3 and this is not a case where the prosecution case could be disbelieved on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR.

18. We may next consider the contention of Mr. Sharan that the trial court and the High Court should not have relied on the evidence of witnesses when their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded for the first time in July, 1994, almost more than two years after the incident and lodging of the FIR. In Jagjit Singh alias Jagga v. State of Punjab (supra) cited by Mr. Sharan, the relevant facts were that PW-6, who was a young girl of 7 years age and resided in a different village than that of Jagjit Singh did not say in her earlier statements that she knew him, but in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr.P.C. she claimed to have known him and on these facts this Court held that in her earlier statements she did not name him and the delay in examining her in course of investigation also creates a serious doubt in the absence of any explanation for her late examination after 3 days and further held that though she may have witnessed the occurrence, she did not know Jagjit Singh and she had no opportunity of knowing or seeing him earlier and she has involved him at the instance of her father when her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. In the facts of the present case, on the other hand, PW-3 and PW-4, who have stated in their evidence before the court that on 29.10.1991 the appellants Baldev Singh and Balvinder Singh came in 3-4 vehicles and took the seven members of their family in the Gypsy and knew the two appellants who lived in village Ram Diwali which was at a small distance from the village of PW-3 and PW-4. Further, in the very first complaint lodged by PW-3 on 19.01.1992, PW-3 has named the appellants Baldev Singh and Balvinder Singh as the persons who raided their house and picked up seven members of his family. Hence, the fact that there was considerable delay of two years from the date of lodging the FIR and recording of statements of PW-3 and PW- 4 and other witnesses does not make their evidence, that the appellants picked up seven members of their family on 29.10.1991 at 5.00 a.m., doubtful.

22. We may now come to the submission of Mr. Sharan that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that the seven persons alleged to have been abducted by the appellants have been killed by the appellants.

25. We further find that PW-5 has stated in his evidence:

28. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, IPC but maintain the conviction of the appellants under Sections 364 and 452, IPC. The trial court has imposed a punishment of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence under Section 452, IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.4000/- for the offence under Section 364, IPC, and the High Court has maintained the aforesaid sentences for the two offences. We maintain the sentence and fine under Section 452, IPC. But so far as the sentence and fine under Section 364, IPC is concerned, we find from illustration (h) under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. that where an accused commits the same offence against three persons, then he can be charged with three offences. As seven persons had been abducted by the appellants, the appellants were guilty of seven offences under Section 364, IPC, and they should be punished for each of these offences under Section 364, IPC. We, therefore, direct that the fine amount as imposed by the trial court will be Rs.4000/- for each of the seven offences of abduction and the period of rigorous imprisonment will be five years for each of the seven offences of abduction and these five years rigorous imprisonment for each of the seven offences of abduction will not run concurrently but consecutively. In case, the fine amount of Rs.4,000/- is not paid, the appellants will have to undergo one more year of rigorous imprisonment. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.