1996(3) Crimes 274 (SC)
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

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. PO) 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)

       Result: Appeal disposed of accordingly.