Gursharan Singh vs State Of Punjab - 1996 Supreme(SC) 1427

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(SC) 1427

1996(6) Supreme 704
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Gursharan Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 1993
Decided on 10-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.S. Sodhi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : R.S. Yadave, Advocate for R.S. Suri, Advocate.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 387 & 392 and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Letter from appellant threatening complainant to pay Rs. 2 lacs for purchase of weapons for terrorists or to face dire consequences-Along with appellant the complainant went to appellant s depot-Complainant was put in fear of death-Deal was struck to pay Rs. 70,000/- -Rs. 50,000/- paid after 3 days-Complainant reproduced entire prosecution case during trial -Nothing in the cross-examination to discredit him-Recovery of Rs. 20,000/- pursuant to disclosure of appellant from his depot substantially corroborated by testimony of complainant-Conviction u/s 387 IPC and u/s 3 TADA was liable to be upheld-Conviction u/s 392 IPC was unsustainable as complainant was not induced to pay money on the day he was put on fear of instant death.
       Held : To prove the alleged recovery of Rs. 20,000/-, out of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid to the appellant from his depot the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the two Inspectors of Police as Manohar Singh, who was a signatory to the recovery memo, turned hostile. The oral testimonies of the above two witnesses coupled with the contemporaneous documents which they prepared in respect of the disclosure statement of the appellant (Ext. PD) and the recovery of the currency notes (Ext. PE) pursuant thereto fully support the prosecution case and we find no reason to disbelieve their evidence. It is, of course, true that in the absence of any marks of identification on those currency notes in order to connect them with the notes which were handed over by Nirmal Singh to the appellant, it cannot be said that the prosecution case stands conclusively proved solely on the basis of the above recovery, but the disclosure statement made by the appellant and the recovery pursuant thereto substantially corroborates the testimony of Nirmal Singh. (Para 7)
       Further held that the trial Judge was fully justified in concluding that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case. The trial Judge however was not justified in convicting the appellant both under Section 387 and Section 392 IPC, as Section 390 IPC lays down that in all robberies there is either theft or extortion; and that necessarily means that a person cannot be convicted both for extortion and robbery, which is a special aggravated form of the former. As in the instant case, Nirmal Singh was not induced to pay the money on the day he was put on fear of instant death but a few days later, he cannot be said to have committed robbery within the meaning of Section 390 IPC for one of the ingredients of this offence is that the offender "induces the person so put in fear then and there (emphasis supplied) to deliver up the thing extorted". Consequently the appellant s conviction under Section 392 IPC for committing robbery has got to be set aside. (Para 9)

Judgement Key Points

Yes.

The Supreme Court held that robbery under Section 392 IPC is a special aggravated form of extortion, as Section 390 IPC provides that all robberies involve either theft or extortion, making separate convictions under both Section 387 IPC (extortion) and Section 392 IPC impermissible. (!)

It set aside the conviction under Section 392 IPC while upholding the conviction under Section 387 IPC, reasoning that the complainant was not induced to deliver the money "then and there" at the time of being put in fear (an essential ingredient of robbery under Section 390 IPC), such that dual convictions were unjustified. (!) [judgement_act_referred]

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-By his judgment and order dated June 12, 1993 the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 387 and 392 IPC and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( TADA for short). Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of TADA.

The case of the prosecution is as under:

2(a). Nirmal Singh carries on business in silver ornaments and lives with his wife Kuldip Kaur in Gali No. 1, Tej Nagar, Amritsar. Formerly the appellant was a resident to the same locality and was known to Nirmal Singh. In or about the month of June, 1990 Nirmal Singh received a letter from the appellant demanding a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for purchase of weapons for the terrorists and threatening that in case the money was not paid he (Nirmal Singh) would have to face dire consequences. Nirmal Singh talked with his wife over the demand and went to meet the appellant who had by then shifted to Gali Baghwali and was running a wheat bran depot. The appellant took away the letter from him and told that he would meet the members of the group at whose instance he had written that letter. A few days later the appellant came to the house of Nirmal Singh and asked him to accompany him to settle the amount to be paid in terms of his letter. Along with the appellant when Nirmal Singh went to the depot of the former, he found a man sitting there with a revolver in his hand. That man asked Nirmal Singh, after putting him in fear of death, whether he was prepared to pay the amount demanded. On his expressing inability to pay the demanded sum, a bargain was struck whereunder Nirmal Singh was to pay Rs. 70,000/- to the appellant within three days. Within the stipulated time Nirmal Singh however could collect only Rs. 50,000/-; and accordingly with the notes wrapped in a polythene bag and accompanied by Manohar Singh, Nirmal Singh went to the depot of the appellant and handed over the same to him and undertook to pay the balance of Rs. 20,000/- within two months. The appellant told him that in case he reported the matter to the police he would be killed. Though, owing to the threat so meted out, Nirmal Singh did not lodge any complaint with the police about the extortion, Gurmit Chand, Inspector of Police (Operation), Amritsar got that information on August 1, 1990 and, on that basis, registered a case against the appellant and one Balwinder Singh.

(b) After registering the case Gurmit Chand took up investigation and raided the house of the appellant on August 2, 1990 and arrested him. On interrogation he made a statement that he had kept concealed currency notes worth Rs. 20,000/- under bundles of wheat bran in his depot; and pursuant thereto two bundles of currency notes, each containing Rs. 10,000/-, were recovered therefrom. Gurmit Chand seized those bundles of currency notes in the presence of Manohar Singh (P.W.2), who had accompanied the police party. On completion of investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. To prove its case the prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Kuldip Kaur (P.W.1), Manohar Singh (P.W.2), Nirmal Singh (P.W.3), Inspector Gurmit Chand (P.W.4) and Inspector Rattan Lal (P.W.5). Of them P.W.1, wife of Nirmal Singh, did not fully support the prosecution case and Manohar Singh (P.W.2) at all, for which both of them were declared hostile.

4. The case made out by the appellant, who had earlier pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that Nirmal Singh was a habitual drunkard and frequently beat his wife. A few days before his arrest, Nirmal Singh had beaten his wife while under the influence of liquor and he (the appellant) had intervened to save her. On this issue he had a quarrel with Nirmal Singh and his father in course of which they exchanged blows. Off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document