Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 (4) Crimes 581
Himachal Pradesh High Court (DB)
L.S. Panta and R.L. Khurana, JJ.
Gurdev Singh —Appellant
versus
State of H.P. —Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 130 of 2002
Decided on 23-7-2004

Advocates:
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Addl. A.G. with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Dy. A.G.

Important Point
Court can record conviction on circumstantial evidence but it must satisfy itself that circumstances from which inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence and all circumstances then put together pointed to guilt of accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Deceased was taxi driver and initially report of his missing was lodged — Taxi was recovered in Punjab by police and some persons were arrested for offence of theft — Body of deceased was found lying in a canal after about 1-1/2 months of the missing report — At the instance of accused tyre lever, allegedly weapon of offence and some personal articles of deceased like one stereo speakers, towel, shawl, torch and seven cassettes were recovered — Conviction by trial Court — Appeal — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Court has to satisfy itself that circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn are proved by cogent evidence and circumstances so proved formed a chain to point to guilt of accused — Recovery of tyre lever not supported by two recovery witnesses — No evidence that it indeed was used as weapon of offence — Trial Court erred in taking confessional statement of accused admissible beyond its admissibility u/s. 27 Evidence Act — Trial Court also erred in holding confessional statement admissible u/s. 8 of Evidence Act being previous and subsequent conduct — No satisfactory evidence regarding recovery of personal effects of deceased or that it really belonged to deceased — Conviction could not be sustained. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 26, 38, 39, 41, 52, 53, 61, 64, 65 and 69)
Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

R.L. Khurana, J. — The appellant, Gurdev Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stands convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2000 vide judgment dated 18-12-2001 for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 382, Indian Penal Code and upon such conviction he has been sentenced as under :

Offence Sentence imposed.

1. 364 Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months.

2. 302 Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months.

3. 382 Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months.

4. 201 Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months.

2. The matrix of the prosecution case may be stated thus. One Bhim Singh son of PW 2 Man Singh and husband of PW 1 Smt. Meena Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was the owner-cum-driver of Taxi (Maruti Van) no. H.P. 02-1150. He had purchased the said taxi from PW 6 Gajinder Vaid. Since the whole of the sale consideration had not been paid by the deceased to PW 6, the taxi continued in the name of PW 1 in the Registration Certificate.

3. On 7-1-2000 the deceased had left his house with his taxi. While leaving he did not inform his wife (PW 1) about his destination. He did not return till 13-1-2000 nor any information was received regarding his whereabouts. PW 1 Smt. Meena Kumari made efforts to know regarding the whereabouts of the deceased from various relatives and friends on 13-1-2000 she came to know from one Sanju who was previously working with her husband, that the taxi belonging to the deceased was in the custody of Ludhiana Police and that the whereabouts of the deceased were not known. PW 1 Smt. Meena Kumari, accordingly lodged a report with the police about her missing husband. She also informed her father-in-law (PW 2 Man Singh) in this regard through the above named Sanju.

4. PW 2 Man Singh along with a brother of PW 1 and PW 6 Gajinder Vaid then proceeded to Ludhiana and got the taxi released. It was then revealed that the said taxi was taken into possession from one Kuldeep Singh on 12-1-2000 at about 7 p.m. at Gill Nehar Ludhiana on the basis of some secret information and that a case for the offences under Sections 397/411 Indian Penal Code, stood registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana, against the said Kuldeep Singh.

5. Since the whereabouts of the deceased could not be known till 21-1-2000, on the basis of the report made by PW 2 Man Singh, a case for the offence under Section 364, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station Sadar, Mandi vide FIR No. 54/2000 (Ex. PB). Such report reads :

“Stated that I am resident of village Kohlu, Police Station Gohar. I have two sons. Bhim Singh, my elder son of about 28 years of age, owned Maruti Van (Taxi No. HP-02-1150) which was attached with Mandi Taxi Union, Bus Stand. On 7-1-2000 he had gone somewhere from Mandi carrying passengers. Since he did not return till 12-1-2000, a report about his being missing was lodged at Police Post City, Mandi, on 13-1-2000. One, Sanju, who is working with Anand Kumar Rajiv Kapoor came to me and told that Bhim Singh had sold his vehicle to one Sardar (a sikh gentleman) and that such Sardar had been apprehended at Ludhiana while Bhim Singh had absconded. I went to Ludhiana. The police got the van identified from me and told me that since the van belonged to me, the same be got released from the Court. I told them that I wanted my son. To which they replied that my son would be traced out lateron and that I should take the van first. This Maruti van was purchased from Gajinder Vaidya. I had taken

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 (4) Crimes 581Himachal Pradesh High Court (DB)L.S. Panta and R.L. Khurana, JJ.Gurdev Singh —AppellantversusState of H.P. —RespondentCrl. Appeal No. 130 of 2002Decided on 23-7-2004

Important PointCourt can record conviction on circumstantial evidence but it must satisfy itself that circumstances from which inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence and all circumstances then put together pointed to guilt of accused.

Cases Referred (5)

2004 (4) Crimes 581
Himachal Pradesh High Court (DB)
L.S. Panta and R.L. Khurana, JJ.
Gurdev Singh —Appellant
versus
State of H.P. —Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 130 of 2002
Decided on 23-7-2004

Important Point
Court can record conviction on circumstantial evidence but it must satisfy itself that circumstances from which inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence and all circumstances then put together pointed to guilt of accused.