DINESH KUMAR @ MONTU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/accused, Dinesh Kumar @ Montu son of Jai Pal, has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6.6.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which he was convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 364A and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced as under:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that Gurdial Singh, complainant, (PW -4) had five daughters but No. son and he had adopted Nishan Singh deceased son of one of his married daughter, Sukhwinder Kaur. His 5th daughter Deepika Rani (PW -5) was still unmarried and had been residing with him. On 19.9.2003, he had sold one of his properties for Rs. 8 lakh, vide sale deed dated PW12/A. On 14.10.2003 at about 5/5.30 p.m. the deceased, who was about 13 years old, went out of the house to play and thereafter never came back. The complainant and the other family members searched for him in the houses of their neighbours but he could not be traced. At about 9.30 p.m. a telephone call was received by Deepika Rani from telephone No. 500388. The caller told them that their child was with them and asked for a ransom of Rs. 2 lakh. All the family members with the help of neighbours and relatives searched for the deceased but he could not be found. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh and got lodged FIR Ex. PE/2, which was recorded by Ajaib Singh, ASI (PW -15), who conducted the initial investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared rough site plan Ex. PW15/A with correct marginal notes and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The subsequent investigation was conducted by Amarjit Singh, Inspector (PW -17). During the investigation, it was found that the telephone from where call for ransom was made by the kidnapper was installed in the PCO of Satpal (PW -3). On 19.10.2003, he was joined in the investigation by the SHO, who had received an information that Vinod Rai and Surjit Rai were present at the Railway Station, Gobindgarh. The SHO, accompanied by the other police officials and Satpal, went to that place and that Satpal identified both those accused as the same persons, who had come to his PCO for making the call. During the interrogation by the SHO, it was disclosed by Vinod Rai -accused that he had conspired with Surjit Rai and in pursuance of that conspiracy kidnapped the deceased from outside of his house on 14.10.2003 at about 4/4.30 p.m. and took him to Bhakra canal, where his arms were held by Surjit Rai and he, after strangulating him to death, threw his dead body in the bushes about which only he had the knowledge and could get the same recovered from that place. In pursuance of that disclosure statement, the accused got recovered the dead body of the deceased, which was duly identified by Gurdial Singh. The same was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW9/C. When Surjit Rai was interrogated by the SHO, he suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PW9/D that Vinod Rai had taken the deceased on a bi -cycle and that bi -cycle has been kept by him and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of that disclosure statement that accused got recovered that bi -cycle make 'Hero jet' from the tenanted quarter of Dinesh accused. That bi -cycle was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW9/E. The SHO prepared the inquest report Ex. PC in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, for post -mortem examination, alongwith his application Ex. PB. That dead body was produced before Dr. Parshottam Dass (PW -2) on 20.10.2003, who found the same to be highly putrefied. He referred the dead body to Forensic Expert, Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, by making his endorsement Ex. PB/2 on the application Ex. PB. On the same day, autopsy was conducted on the dead body by a Board of Doctors, consisting of Dr. S.S. Oberoi (PW -1) and Dr. Amardeep Singh. A ligature mark was found around the neck and it was opined by the doctors that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, which was ante -mortem in nature. On that very day, the SHO recorded the statement of Narinder Kumar (PW -18) under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure In that statement, he stated that on that date itself at about 10 a.m. he was standing in front of Civil Hospital, Gobindgarh, in connection of his personal work when a boy; named, Dinesh Kumar, who was very nervous, came to him and told him that he had very close friendly relation with Surjit Rai, who was a tenant of Gurdial Singh. He further told him that it was disclosed by Surjit Rai that Gurdial Singh had sold his plot a few days back for Rs. 8 lakh and that information had been collected by him from his son Nishan Singh. Dinesh Kumar further told him that thereafter both of them conspired with Vinod Rai for kidnapping Nishan Singh and making a demand of Rs. 2 lakh from Gurdial Singh as ransom and that for executing that plan, they fixed date as 14.10.2003. After making that plan for kidnapping of Nishan Singh, when he would be playing, he told his co -accused that they should take away Nishan Singh after kidnapping and they accordingly took him on their bi -cycle and he started waiting for them in Guru Nanak colony near PCO of Satpal. Dinesh Kumar further told him that at about 9.15/9.30 p.m., both those accused came to him and disclosed that after kidnapping Nishan Singh, they had thrown his dead body in the bushes on the left side of Sirhind canal/floating restaurant. Thereafter, all three of them made a telephone call from the PCO of Satpal to Gurdial Singh and made a demand of Rs. 2 lakh and that thereafter bi -cycle was given to him by his co -accused, which was taken by him to his house. He made a request to this witness Narinder Kumar to produce him before the police but he asked him to bring the other accused with him and then he would produce them before the court. On 22.10.2003, the SHO arrested Dinesh Kumar accused. In the course of investigation, the statements of other witnesses were recorded and the map on scale Ex.PW13/A was got prepared from Gurmail Singh, Halqa Patwari (PW -13).After completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before the JMIC, Amloh, against Dinesh Kumar accused only, as the other accused were found juveniles and the challan against them was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board. The JMIC committed the case to the Court of Session, vide his order dated 30.1.2004, on the ground that the offences were exclusively triable by that Court.

(3.) TO prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. S.S. Oberoi, (PW -1), Dr. Parshottam Dass (PW -2), Sat Pal (PW -3), Gurdial Singh, complainant (PW -4), Deepika Rani (PW -5), Devinder Singh, (PW -6), Gurcharan Kaur (PW -7), Vinod Kumar (PW -8), Tara Singh, ASI (PW -9), Vipan Kumar (PW -10), Bachan Singh (PW -11), Sukhjinder Singh (PW -12), Gurmail Singh, Patwari Halqa (PW -13), Gurcharan Singh, (PW -14), Ajaib Singh, ASI (PW -15), Bhag Singh (PW -16), Amarjit Singh, Inspector (PW -17) and Narinder Kumar (PW -18).