Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Gurmail Singh – Appellant
Versus
Davinder Singh & Anr. – Respondents
CRA-AS-197-2019
Decided On : 15-09-2023
Mr. Mahinder Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The importance of credible evidence, corroboration of testimony, and examination of material witnesses in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 365, 120B, 367, 386, 291, 506, 323 and Arms Act Section 25 - The court upheld the judgment of acquittal of the accused Davinder Singh based on the lack of credible evidence and inherent improbabilities in the victim's testimony.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Gurmail Singh was allegedly kidnapped by respondent Davinder Singh and others. The police filed a cancellation report, but the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused was acquitted by the trial court, and the appellant filed the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the victim was not corroborated by convincing evidence, and the alleged eye witness did not support him. The son-in-law's testimony was based on hearsay, and there were inherent improbabilities in the victim's statement. No material witnesses were examined, and the owner of the alleged confinement place was not examined. The court upheld the judgment of acquittal, finding no merit in the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, corroboration of evidence, reliability of witnesses, and the lack of material witnesses and examination of the alleged confinement place owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence, corroboration of testimony, and the examination of material witnesses in criminal cases. It highlighted the inherent improbabilities in the victim's statement and the lack of corroboration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of acquittal, finding no merit in the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J. - Appellant Gurmail Singh was allegedly kidnapped by respondent - Accused Davinder Singh and others on 02.04.2009 in the alleged presence of his cousin Kulwinder Singh. On the statement of Kulwinder Singh, FIR No.140 dated 02.04.2009 under Sections 365 and 120B IPC was registered at Police Station Phase-I, Mohali. Sections 367, 386, 291, 506, 323 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added later on.
2. Though police filed the cancellation report, but ld. Judicial Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 17.05.2013 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The said order dated 17.05.2013 was challenged by the accused-respondent before this Court by filing CRM-M-572-2014 but the same was dismissed on 27.02.2016. After holding trial, the respondent-accused Davinder was acquitted vide judgment dated 19.03.2019 passed by ld. ASJ, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent-Davinder Singh by way of impugned judgment, the appellant Gurmail Singh has filed the present appeal.
4. As per prosecution case, on 02.04.2009, Kulwinder Singh (PW2) made a statement Ex.PW21/1 to the police to the effect that on that day, he along with his cousin Gurmail Singh (PW1 - now appellant), who is a property dealer, had come to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mohali in his Accent car. As the office was closed, they came back to the parking in front of office of the Deputy Commissioner. It was about 5.30 pm, when in the meantime Davinder Singh (Respondent herein), the supporter of the other party, accompanied by 9-10 boys, who could be identified if produced before him, came and forcibly took Gurmail Singh in their car No. PB-65F-0021 after giving him beatings. Said Gurmail Singh was kidnapped in furtherance of their common intention and when he (complaint Kulwinder) raised alarm, the other boys fled away from the spot in a Lancer car and another car. On this statement, FIR Ex.PW21/3 was initially registered under Section 365 and 120B IPC against Davinder Singh and 9-10 other unidentified persons.
5. Spot was inspected by Harbir Singh Atwal (PW21), the then SHO, Phase-I, Mohali along with complainant Kulwinder Singh and Jagtar Singh (PW3) and site plan Ex.PW21/4 was recorded. On the night intervening 2/3.04.2009, Jagtar Singh received information on his mobile that victim Gurmail Singh had reached home and so, the police party reached the house of Gurmail Singh at Khuda Ali Sher and got his medical examination conducted by moving application Ex.PW21/5. Statement of said Gurmail Singh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Necessary investigation was carried out. However, after concluding investigation, cancellation report was presented before Ld. CJM, Mohali, who did not agree with the report furnished by the police and on finding prima facie grounds to proceed accused Davinder, took cognizance under Section 365, 367, 386, 291, 506 and 120 IPC and committed the case against accused Davinder Singh to the Court of Sessions.
6. Accused Davinder was charge-sheeted on 15.03.2016 under Section 120B, 365, 367, 386, 342, 506, 323 and 506 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. After part examination of PW-Gurmail Singh i.e., victim, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved on 04.07.2016, which was allowed on 11.07.2016, summoning Chashamdeep Singh, Harvinder Singh @ Lucky, Sultan Singh @ Tani and Gagan as additional accused to face trial. Warrants of arrest & then proclamation were issued against them. However, these four accused were declared proclaimed offenders vide order dated 12.09.2016.
8. After examining as many as 21 witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed on 03.12.2018. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused pleaded innocence and false implication, submitting that Gurmail Singh had taken an amount of ?70 lakh from him and his family for investing in land deals, but as that deal was not materialised, so he demanded his money back. Instead of paying the
