NARINDER SINGH @ NINDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT of conviction dated 27.10.2003/order of sentence dated 30.10.2003 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') has convicted the appellants Narinder Singh @ Ninder, Darbara Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Ram Asra @ Lakha for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Section 511, IPC, and has sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine amounting to Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one month each, are under challenge in this appeal brought by the convicts.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that PW1 -Tarsem Singh, author of the First Information Report, Exhibit PG, was not present at the time of the stated occurrence while PW2 -Kulwant Singh has failed to identify the appellants as the persons involved in the occurrence and PW -4 Baldev Singh is not only a close relative of the complainant and, thus, an interested witness but has also failed to depose with regard to disclosure statement Exhibit PL whereby the car statedly used in the occurrence is stated to have been taken in police possession. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court has based its judgment on the statements of PW -3 Prabhdeep Singh and PW -6 Amandeep Kaur, which is not sufficient to sustain the conviction as their testimonies have not been corroborated by independent evidence. It has also been submitted that FIR has been recorded after a delay of more than 24 hours which has remained totally unexplained and is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(3.) PER Contra, learned State counsel contests the submissions put up on behalf of the appellants and submits that in the evidence of PW -3 Prabhdeep Singh and PW -6 Amandeep Kaur, the victims of the occurrence, the entire sequence of events has been sufficiently proved and it has been explained that their father, namely PW -1 Tarsem Singh was not available at home on the day of occurrence and it was for that reason that police was approached on the next day, i.e., on 25.08.2000. Nothing more has been urged on either side. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 24.08.2000, Amandeep Kaur aged about 14 -15 years and her younger brother Prabhdeep Singh aged about 12 -13 years, daughter and son, respectively, of complainant Tarsem Singh were returning from their school to their village Rawal on a bicycle. On the way, they were intercepted by an Esteem Car bearing registration No. DL -3C -4061. Four -five persons were travelling in that car. Two of the occupants of the car alighted therefrom, stopped Amandeep Kaur and Prabhdeep Singh, told them that they had been called by their father immediately and on their refusal to oblige tried to make them board the car by force. In the meantime, Faqir Singh (not examined as a witness) and Kulwant Singh (PW -2) reached there. On seeing them, the accused persons ran away leaving the two children there on the spot. Matter was reported to the police vide statement, Exhibit PA, made by Tarsem Singh (PW -1) at 4.25 P.M. on 25.08.2000 and based thereupon a formal First Information Report, Exhibit PG, was recorded. Matter was investigated into. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Necessary recoveries were effected. All the accused, except Nagar Singh (proclaimed offender), were arrested. A report in terms of Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) was presented before the learned Area Magistrate. Learned trial Court on hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence found a prima facie case triable under Section 364/511, IPC, to be made out and the appellants were accordingly charged. On a plea of not guilty and a claim for trial having been put up on behalf of the appellants, prosecution examined Tarsem Singh -complainant as PW -1, Kulwant Singh, a witness of the occurrence as PW -2, Baldev Singh, who saw the accused planning to kidnap the victims and also riding the car in question, as PW -4, Surinder Singh a school teacher of Government Senior Secondary School as PW -5 to bring on record that two children were studying in afore -stated school, ASI Iqbal Singh PW -7 to bring on record various steps taken during the course of investigation, Shankar Dass as PW -8 (but he did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile), Mahinder Singh as PW -9 (he did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile) besides examining Prabhdeep Singh as PW -3 and Amandeep Kaur as PW -6.