# 8 S.C.R. 334 HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [2016] 8 S.C.R. 334
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2539of2014
- **Bench:** A.K. Sikri, Amitava Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/8-s-c-r-334-harpal-singh-chhota-v-state-of-punjab-31388
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Penal Code, I860: ss.364A, 395, 4I2, 47I, I20B- Conspiracy
and abduction for ransom and detaining victim under threat to cause
C death or hurt - Conviction by courts below - Challenged - Held:
Evidence of victim as a whole was truthful - His elaborate testimony
not only projected the stage-wise developments following his
abduction till his release, the same remained unshaken substantially
even by his cross-examination - Evidence adduced vis-a-vis the
stage-wise recovery of the currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda
D City car etc. from the successive disclosures made by the accused
persons also established their complicity in the offence - Apart
from the fact that there was nothing convincing on record to even
infer any false implication of the accused persons, the mere omission
on the part of the victim to mention at the first instance the name of
E appellant, having regard to the charge of conspiracy and the
concerted steps, to actualise the same was of no fatal bearing on
the prosecution case, more particularly he having named/identified
him at the trial as one of the perpetrators of the offence -
In this
perspective, the omission on the part of the investigating agency to
hold the TIP is not fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case
F - In the face of overall evidence on record, the purported deficiencies
do not at all detract from the veracity of the prosecution case -
Having regard to the proved facts, the prosecution was able to prove
the charges levelled against the appellants - No interference with
the conviction order called for.
G
H
s. I 20-B - Conspiracy - Elements of - Held: Conspiracy
requires an act i.e. actus reus and an accompanying mental state
i.e. mens rea - Whereas the agreement constitutes the act, the
intention to achieve the unlawful objectives of the agreement
comprises the required mental state - Qua a charge of conspiracy,
it is not necessary that all the conspirators should know each
334
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
335
and every detail of the plot so long as they are co-participators in
A
the main object thereof and it is also not necessary that all of
them should participate from the inception of the stratagem till the
end, the determinative factor, being unity of object or purpose
and their participation at different stages.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
B
HELD: 1. Admittedly, the only eye witness to the actual
act of abduction is the victim himself. The statement made by
the victim (PWl) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though had outlined
the whole incident in the bare essentials, his version under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at the trial are adequately elaborate to c
project the whole gamut of the development, commencing
from his forcible abduction till his release. There is as such no
mutually mutilative inconsistency in the three renditions of his,
so as to render the prosecution case untrustworthy and
discardable on all counts. No doubt, the victim in his statements
under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not specifically name the D
appellant while naming the other abductors who were the
occupants as well of the Honda City car in the dickey of which he
was abducted, he did identify and involve this appellant/accused
during his testimony at the trial. He might have omitted to name
the appellant, as he might be have been in a bewildered and
E
perplexed state of mind at the relevant point of time. In the
face of the other overwhelming evidence and materials on record,
nothing much turns thereon in favour of the defence. [Para
8][356-A-DJ
2. The progression of events as unveiled by the testimony,
F
in particular of the victim and supported by his father PW2, reveals
that the first caller to initiate the negotiations for the land deal to
which victim was drawn, was Gurinder Singh@ Ginda. The victim
in his deposition has in details narrated the developments which
indicate the keenness on the part of the negotiators to entrap
the victim in the bargain, by gradually building his confiden

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 70,624. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

A
B
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 334
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 2539of2014)
NOVEMBEK21, 2016
[A.K. SIKRI AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, I860: ss.364A, 395, 4I2, 47I, I20B- Conspiracy
and abduction for ransom and detaining victim under threat to cause
C death or hurt - Conviction by courts below - Challenged - Held:
Evidence of victim as a whole was truthful - His elaborate testimony
not only projected the stage-wise developments following his
abduction till his release, the same remained unshaken substantially
even by his cross-examination - Evidence adduced vis-a-vis the
stage-wise recovery of the currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda
D City car etc. from the successive disclosures made by the accused
persons also established their complicity in the offence - Apart
from the fact that there was nothing convincing on record to even
infer any false implication of the accused persons, the mere omission
on the part of the victim to mention at the first instance the name of
E appellant, having regard to the charge of conspiracy and the
concerted steps, to actualise the same was of no fatal bearing on
the prosecution case, more particularly he having named/identified
him at the trial as one of the perpetrators of the offence -
In this
perspective, the omission on the part of the investigating agency to
hold the TIP is not fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case
F - In the face of overall evidence on record, the purported deficiencies
do not at all detract from the veracity of the prosecution case -
Having regard to the proved facts, the prosecution was able to prove
the charges levelled against the appellants - No interference with
the conviction order called for.
G
H
s. I 20-B - Conspiracy - Elements of - Held: Conspiracy
requires an act i.e. actus reus and an accompanying mental state
i.e. mens rea - Whereas the agreement constitutes the act, the
intention to achieve the unlawful objectives of the agreement
comprises the required mental state - Qua a charge of conspiracy,
it is not necessary that all the conspirators should know each
334
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
335
and every detail of the plot so long as they are co-participators in
A
the main object thereof and it is also not necessary that all of
them should participate from the inception of the stratagem till the
end, the determinative factor, being unity of object or purpose
and their participation at different stages.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
B
HELD: 1. Admittedly, the only eye witness to the actual
act of abduction is the victim himself. The statement made by
the victim (PWl) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though had outlined
the whole incident in the bare essentials, his version under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at the trial are adequately elaborate to c
project the whole gamut of the development, commencing
from his forcible abduction till his release. There is as such no
mutually mutilative inconsistency in the three renditions of his,
so as to render the prosecution case untrustworthy and
discardable on all counts. No doubt, the victim in his statements
under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not specifically name the D
appellant while naming the other abductors who were the
occupants as well of the Honda City car in the dickey of which he
was abducted, he did identify and involve this appellant/accused
during his testimony at the trial. He might have omitted to name
the appellant, as he might be have been in a bewildered and
E
perplexed state of mind at the relevant point of time. In the
face of the other overwhelming evidence and materials on record,
nothing much turns thereon in favour of the defence. [Para
8][356-A-DJ
2. The progression of events as unveiled by the testimony,
F
in particular of the victim and supported by his father PW2, reveals
that the first caller to initiate the negotiations for the land deal to
which victim was drawn, was Gurinder Singh@ Ginda. The victim
in his deposition has in details narrated the developments which
indicate the keenness on the part of the negotiators to entrap
the victim in the bargain, by gradually building his confidence in
G
the same and in the proponents. [Para 8)[356-E-FJ
3. Th~ evidence of the victim (PWl) as a whole, is truthful,
having regard to the details provided with accompanying clarity
and conviction. His elaborate testimony has remained unshaken
H
336
A
8
c
0
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
substantially even by his cross-examination. This witness not only
had the opportunity of seeing his abductors but also had heard
their exchanges by referring to their nick names. He was in their
company and under their surveillance for almost two days in
course whereof they not only interacted with him but also had
closely followed his conversation with his father on more than
one occasion on the aspect of ransom. Apart from the fact that
there is nothing convincing on record to even infer any false
implication of the accused persons, the mere omission on the
part of the victim to mention at the first instance the name of
appellant, having regard to the charge of conspiracy and the
concerted steps, to actualise the same is of no fatal bearing on
the prosecution case, more particularly he having named/
identified him at the trial as one of the perpetrators of the offence.
In this perspective, the omission on the part of the investigating
agency to hold the TIP is not fatal, in the facts and circumstances
of the case. In the face of the overall evidence on record, the
purported deficiencies do not at all detract from the veracity of
the prosecution case. [Para 8][356-G-H; 357-A-D]
4. The evidence adduced vis-a-vis the stage wise recovery
of the currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda City car etc. from
the successive disclosures made by the accused persons also
establish their complicity in the offence. The testimony of the
witnesses to the above effect authenticate that the procedure
prescribed by law for effecting such seizures had been complied
with. The factum of each discovery based on the disclosures of
the accused persons is not only a relevant fact under Section 27
of the Act but also noticeably has not been very seriously disputed
by the defence. These seized articles have been produced and
identified in the court by the witnesses as well. The testimony
of the lenders and that of PW14 in particular, identifying some of
the packets of the currency notes by the initials or the names as
labelled by him also cannot be lightly ignored. PW2, the father
of the victim, apart from stating generally about the abduction
of his son and his release has however in minutest details
described the particulars of the ransom calls received and his
desperate endeavours to collect the amount to the extent possible
within the dead line of time to save his son in distress. The
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
337
witnesses examined by the prosecution as the lenders of different A
amounts not only were referred to by this witness in his
deposition, to reiterate they also endorsed to have responded to
his clarion call. [Para 8)[357-E-H]
5. Having regard to the captivity of a period of almost two
days, it is natural that the victim must have had sufficient
B
opportunity to note their features to enable him to identify them
even by their looks at a later point of time. That the abductors,
during the relevant time, had intimidated the victim as well as
his father that if the ransom amount demanded is not paid in time,
the hostage would be done away with, has been stated on oath by
C
both of them in categorical terms. The manner in which the victim
was abducted and was shifted from place to place parallely following
up the demand of ransom under the threat of his elimination leaves
no manner of doubt that they had resorted to a plot to extract
ransom under the threat to the life of victim. Thus the defence
plea of want of identification of the abductors including the
appellants is unconvincing. The omission on the part of the vict-im
to refer to the appellant-S by his name instead of his nick-name
Deputy is not fatal to prosecution case. The victim in his
deposition has clarified that though he knew appellant-S was a
Municipal Councillor, but had no personal intimacy with him so
as to be able to identify him by seeing him.[Para 8](358-A-D]
6. Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of
record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to
prove the same on the basis of the printed copy of the computer
generated call details kept in the ordinary course of business
and stored in a hard disc of the company server and to co-relate
the calls made from and to the cell phones involved including
those, amongst others recovered from the accused persons,
the prosecution has failed to adduce a certificate relatable thereto
as required under Section 65B(4) of the Act. The prosecution
has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed
copy of the call details. Even assuming that the mandate of
Section 65B(2) had been complied with, in absence of a certificate
under Section 65B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in
evidence. The charges against the accused persons including the
appellants, however, stand proved beyond reasonable doubt even
D
E
F
G
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A sans the call details. [Paras 11, 12][359-F-G; 360-A,D]
B
c
D
7. Conspiracy requires an act i.e. actus reus and an
accompanying mental state i.e. mens rea. Whereas the agreement
constitutes the act, the intention to achieve the unlawful objectives
of the agreement comprises the required mental state. Qua a
charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators
should know each and every detail of the plot so long as they are
co-participators in the main object thereof and it is also not
necessary that all of them should participate from the inception
of the stratagem till the end, the determinative factor, being
unity of object or purpose and their participation at different
stages. Such is therefore the encompassing sweep of culpability
of an offence of conspiracy, if proved, even from the established
attendant circumstances. Having regard to the proved facts and
the state of law, the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges levelled against the appellants. Both the courts below
have analysed the evidence in the correct perspectives and in
the face of the conclusions recorded on the different aspects of
the imputations levelled against them, no interference is called
for with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
recorded against them. [Paras 13, 14J[J'.'i0-E-F; 361-F-G, H; 362E A-BJ
F
G
H
Anvar P. V. v. P.K. Basheer and others 2014 (11) SCR
399 : (2014) 10 sec 473: Pullukuri Kotajya and others
v. King Emperror AIR 1947 PC 67; Bodhraj @ Bodha
and Others v. State of Jammu & Kash:nir 2002 (2) Suppl.
SCR 67 : (2002) 8 SCC 45 - relied on.
Ferozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kera/a
(2001)7 SCC 596; Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau
of Investigation 2009 (13) SCR 124 : (2009)15 SCC
643; Mohd. Amin v. CBI 2008 (16) SCR 155 : (2008)
15 sec 49 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2014 (11) SCR 399
relied on
Para 7
AIR 1947PC 67
relied on
Para 10
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 67
relied on
Para 10
(2001)1 sec 596
referred to
Para 13
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
339
2009 (13) SCR 124
referred to
Para 13
A
2008 (16) SCR 155
referred to
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2539of2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cri. Appeal No. D-1085-DB of B
2011.
WITH
Crl.A. No. 388 of2015.
Subromaniam Prasad, R. Basant, Sr. Advs, Himanshu Gupta,Arun
Poomulli, Anil Kumar Tandale, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. Madhukar, AAG, Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Ms. Lubna Naaz,
Kuldip Singh, Ad vs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
AMITAVAROY, J. I. The appellants, two out of the six persons,
0
convicted under Sections 364A, 395, 412, 471, 1208 IPC and the
appellant-Harpal Singh @Chhota in Criminal Appeal No.2539of2014
also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, hereby impeach the affirmation
of their conviction by the High Court by the common impugned judgment
and order dated 21.04.2014 rendered in a batch of appeals. Though
eight persons including the appellants were indicted of the charges
corresponding to the offences proved, one Gurinder Singh@Ginda died
during trial and Rupinder Singh was exonerated therefrom. Following
their conviction on the aforementioned charges, the appellants and other
similarly situated have been awarded sentences ranging from one year
to imprisonment for life and fine commensurate therewith. It has been
ordered that all the sentences would run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2539of2014, Mr. Subromaniam Prasad,
learned senior counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal number 388
of 2015 and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned counsel for the State.
3. The records divulge that on 11.01.2008 at about 7.45 p.m., while
lnspector/SHO ofNunnahal Police station was on patrol duty, he received .
a secret information that on 09.01.2008 at about I 0/1 I a.m., four persons
had kidnapped one Gagan Mahendru son ofSubhash Mahendru, resident
of Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar in their Honda City car from near Preet
E
F
G
Palace at gun point, most probably for extracting ransom.
H
340
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
As the input disclosed offence under Sections 364, 364A/34 IPC
r/w Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, the information was forwarded
to the police station for its registration and consequential steps.
FIR No. I 0 dated 11.01.2008 under the afore-mentioned provisions
oflaw, accordingly was registered with the Nurmahal Police Station and
investigation was initiated, in course whereof, the statement of Gagan
Kumar Mahendru as aforestated was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
In his statement Gagan, who claimed to be the victim of kidnapping,
stated that on 09.01.2008 Sukhmeet Singh @Deputy, Gurinder Singh
@ Ginda, Jasbir Singh@ Jassi etc. had kidnapped him, tied his hands
and bundled him in the dickey of their car, with the dishonest intention of
realising ransom and took him in the house ofRupinder Pal Singh from
where he was released on 11.01.2008. He claimed to have identified
the places where he had been kept captive and also the places to which
he had been shifted in between.
The statements of the victim and his father Sub hash Mahendru
were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On pursuing the
investigation, the pol ice also visited the place from where the victim had
been kidnapped. The Lancer car bearing No.PB- 08-BA-4 700 of the
victim was found parked outside Hotel Taj, Jalandhar which was
recovered and handed over to him. The accused persons were arrested
between 16.01.2008 and 23.01.2008 and the following mobile phones
were recovered from their possession:
Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy
98553-64086
(appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 388 of 2015)
Gurinder Singh@Ginda
98148-81082
Jatinder Singh@ Sappi
Jasvir Singh @ Jassi -
98151-58151
98151-58161
Harpal Singh @ Chhota
98760-87794
(appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 2539 of 2014)
G
Harpreet Singh @ happy.
98158-54784
Surinder Singh@ Manga
98154-03503
On the basis of disclosure statements made by appellant Sukhbir
Singh @Deputy a sum ofRs.25 lakhs and a point .32 revolver belonging
to the victim, Honda City Car bearing number HR l 6F 733 7 lying
H
HARPAL SINGH@ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
341
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]
concealed, as well as two iron chains with which Gagan, the victim had
A
been tied were recovered by the investigating agency.
On the same day, Gurinder Singh @ Ginda also suffered a
disclosure statement following which an amount of Rs. I I lakhs was
recovered from his room. Similar disclosure statements were also made
by Jatinder Singh @ Jatin, Jasvir Singh @ Jassi and Harpal Singh @ B
Chhota, acting whereupon, huge amounts of cash were recovered
together with a country made pistol with live cartridges.
On 22.01.2008 and 23.01.2008, as well disclosure statements were
made by Harpreet Singh @ Happy and Surinder Singh @ Manga and
pursuing the same, several lakhs of currency notes were recovered from
the almirah/room of these persons along with one Qualis car bearing
C
number PB I 0 A Y 4144 said to have been used by the appellant Sukhmeet
Singh@ Deputy, in the commission of the crime.
Noticeably, the Honda City car recovered bore engine number
30125 765 and chassis number 377271 standing in the name ofone Deepak
Bhiwani, s/o Raj Singh Bhiwani, resident ofBhiwani and was of model
2007, as disclosed by the registration certificate found inside the vehicle.
The documents recovered also disclosed that the insurance policy of the
car stood in the name ofDeepak Bhiwani issued on 18.11.2007. Further
from the dicky of the car, a driving licence of the victim Gagan Kumar
was also retrieved along with one small roll of tape, one scissor and one
black colour rope.
Investigation divulg.:d that the Hona City car did bear fake number
HR 16 F 7337 which was stolen in the intervening night of30. I I .2007/
Gl.12.21)07 from Delhi and for which FIR number255 dated 01.12.2007
was registered with Rajinder Nagar Police Station. Though the Engine
number and the chassis number did match, the actual registration number
was DL 4C AH 4492.
On the completion of the investigative drill, charge-sheet under
Sections 364A, 392, 395, 397, 412, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 1208 IPC
and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was laid against the accused persons.
As hereto before stated, Gurinder Singh @Ginda died during the trial
and the accused Rupinder Pal was acquitted by the trial court. The
other co-accused Prabhijit Singh@ Sonu could not be arrested and was
declared a proclaimed offender. The investigation however revealed
that his mobile number 94636-12914 had been used in the commission
of the offence.
D
E
F
G
H
342
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
4. Charges were framed against the accused persons including
the appellants under the above Sections of law to which they pleaded
'not guilty', whereafter the prosecution examined 27 witnesses. The
accused persons in the course of their statements under Section 313
Cr.P.C. stood by their denial of the charge. While the appellant Sukhmeet
Singh alleged political vendetta to frame him in the case and that the
police had raided his house and had forcibly lifted Rs. 25 lakhs which
belonged to his father Jarnail Singh and was arranged by him for the
purchase of land, the others generally, but consistently imputed false
implication in the offence. Fourteen witnesses were also examined in
defence. The Trial Court on an assessment of the evidence on record,
to reiterate, convicted the appellants and their co-accused under the
above mentioned sections of law. By the verdict assailed in the instant
appeals, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court have
been sustained.
-
5. It is considered appropriate to revert to the rival assertions for
D
better comprehension after traversing the evidence adduced to the extent
unavoidable.
E
F
G
H
PW 1 Gagan Kumar, the person kidnapped, testified that at the
relevant time, he was involved in Real Estate Business with his father
Subhash Chandra (PW2). About 15-20 days before the incident on
09.01.2008, he received a call from mobile number9914413696 and the
caller introduced himself to be Ginda and expressed his keenness for
effecting a property deal at Jandiala, District Jalandhar, in course whereof,
he offered to sell the land of his aunt. The witness, though suggested
that the caller ought to get in touch with his father, the latter insisted for
necessary discussion with him. According to the witness, after 2/3 days,
another call was made by the same person and accordingly, they fixed
up a time at 9.00 a.m. on the next date, whereupon the victim along wi:h
his friend Chetan Chopra went to the scheduled place of meeting. The
witness stated that at the time fixed, three persons came in a Innova car
and thereafter the victim and his friend along with two persons proceeded
in the car of the victim to survey the land. After the visit, they parted.
The witness deposed that thereafter on many occasions, the same caller
made telephone calls to further the deal and eventually, they decided to
meet on 09.01.2008 at 9.00 a.m. for further discussions.
According to the witness, he was there at the site in his car bearing
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
343
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]
no. PB 08 BA 4700 and as stated by him on oath, at the first instance,
A
two persons came there and boarded his vehicle. The victim was
thereafter asked to proceed to the colony where the owner i.e the aunt
referred to, used to reside. The witness stated that he took the vehicle
to the place as directed. The person sitting by his side then pointed a
revolver on his ear. Almost immediately thereafter, a Honda City car,
B
driven at a high speed, pulled up in front of his car, wherefrom 4-5 persons
alighted and attacked the victim. The witness stated that whereas one
person pointed the revolver on his thigh, the other removed his licenced
revolver along with his cell phone, keys of the car and currency notes
amounting to Rs.15,000/-. The witness stated that thereafter a cap was
placed on his face and a tape was pasted on his mouth. After some time,
C
his hands were also tied and he was forcibly put into the dickey of the
Honda City car. As the victim resisted, he was threatened to be killed
with his own revolver. After moving the car for some distance, the
abductors burrowed a hole in the rear seat of the car and the victim was
asked to contact his father over a cell phone. Under compulsion, the
D
victim talked to his father and acquainted him with his state of distress
and requested him to concede to their request for his safety. The phone
was thereafter disconnected. According to the victim, for the whole
day, he remained in the dicky and could hear the exchanges of the
occupants who were addressing each other as Happy, Jassi, Ginda,
Deputy and Sabbi.
He further stated that in the night, he was taken
to a room with an attached bathroom where he was allowed to ease
himself and thereafter was put on chains on his hands and. feet and was
blindfolded as well. He was thereafter taken to different places and
was also offered food. Later, he was drugged. On objection being raised,
he was threatened to be killed with his revolver. The victim stated that
in the next morning, he found himself tied with iron chain, whereafter he
was restored in the dicky of the car and the miscreants wandered around
with him. In between, he was made to talk to his father, whereupon he
repeated his request to do the needful for his release. Later in the night,
the victim was informed by abductors that as the ransom amount was
received, he would be released soon. He was threatened that in case,
after his let off, he would disclose about the incident to anyone, he would
be killed along with his family members. It was intimated, that they had
strong political links and even if they were arrested, they would come
out of custody soon and appropriately retaliate. The victim was thereafter
dropped at Nakodar Chowk.
E
F
G
H
344
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
The witness identified Sukhmeet Singh@ Deputy, Ginda, Harpreet
Singh @Happy, Sabbi, Jassa and Harpal Singh @ Chhota in Court to
be those present in the Honda City in the car and thus the perpetrators
of the crime. The witness also narrated, that on 12'\ he was taken by
the police to the place from where he was kidnapped and that his
statements were duly recorded as well. He claimed to have identify the
place and also disclosed that he had dropped his driving licence in the
dicky of the car. He identified as well the driving licence produced in
court along with the iron chains by which his hands were tied and the
tape roll by which his mouth was muzzled.
In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the appellant
Sukhmeet Singh at the relevant time was a Municipal Councillor and he
knew him from before the incident. He however clarified that he did not
have any personal acquaintance/intimacy with him and that he was also
not conversant with his voice. He admitted as well, that he knew the full
name of the appellant at the time of making of the statement before the
D police and the Magistrate. He however elaborated that as the accused
persons used to address him as Deputy, he did use that name while
making the statements. He also claimed to be unaware then that
Sukhmeet Singh and Deputy was one and the same person. He also
conceded qua his earlier statement that at the time of his release at
Nakodar Chowk, he had not seen the appellant Sukhmeet present
E there. He also admitted that there was no test identification parade held
and that he as well did not furnish the physical features of the miscreants
to the police. According to this witness, neither the recovered money
nor the weapons had been shown to him by the police. He stated that
by 24.01.2008, he could come to know the names of all the accused
F persons from the newspaper. Vis-a-vis the name of Harpal Singh @
Chhota, the witness stated in particular that he did not know him prior to
the incident and that he mentioned his name for the first time in the
court.
A perusal of the statement made by the victim under Section 164
G Cr.P.C. demonstrates that the same is substantially identical to the one
on oath at the trial. The sequence of events are in the same order and
in particular, he reiterated the names ofSonu Bhaiji, Happy Bhaiji, Ginda,
Sabbi and Deputy while referring to the persons in the car, while he was
languishing in the dickey thereof.
H
PW2 Subhash Chander, the father of the victim deposed that at
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]
the time of the incident, his son was in real estate business with him.
He admitted that his son had mentioned to him about the proposed deal
which was being promoted by a party of Jandiala on which he had advised
the victim to inspect the site so that a decision could be taken lateron.
The witness testified that on 9.1.2008, his son informed him that he had
received a telephone call in connection with the deal and that he had
fixed 9 .30 in the morning for the said purpose. That on the same day, his
son had left for negotiations in his Lancer car PB 08 BA 4700, was
stated by him. According to the witness, at about 11.45 a.m. on that day,
he received a telephone call conveying to him that his son had been
kidnapped and further a ransom amount of Rs. 5 crores was demanded
for his release. The witness stated that the caller also threatened him
that ifthe money demanded was not arranged, his son would be killed.
Thereafter, on his entreaties, he was allowed to talk to his son who
pleaded that the ransom amount be paid as otherwise, his abductors,
who were equipped with deadly weapons, may do harm to him.
345
A
B
c
The witness stated that thereafter, he received a telephone call
D
from a mobile phone No. 9814804700 enquiring of him about the
arrangements made about the ransom amount. According to the witness,
subsequent thereto from time to time, he kept on receiving telephone
calls at the interval of 3/4 hours about the progress in the collection of
the ransom amount with the insistence that the amount should be paid
early, ifhe wished the welfare of his son. In response to a call received
at 9 pm on the same day and on the expression of his inability to arrange
more than Rs. I crore, the caller asked him to await further instructions.
By the next phone call at I 0 pm, the abductors informed the witness that
no amount less than Rs. I crore was acceptable to them.
E
F
The witness further stated that on the next date i.e. I 0.1.2008, he
received a call from the cell phone of his son at 8.30 a.m., and on the
query made, he stated that by then, he could arrange only 90-92 lakhs
with great difficulty. This was followed by another call at I 0/11 a.m.
from the same person enquiring about the amount arranged to which the
witness replied that somehow he had been able to arrange Rs. I crore
G
and requested the abductors to close the deal. Eventually at 4.20 p.m.,
through another call, the abductors instructed the witness to fill the
money in two bags and take the train
"Shane Punjab" for Delhi .
The witness on his request was allowed to be accompanied by one
attendant and he was instructed to sit in the last compartment of the
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 8 S.C.R.
A
train with the caveat that in case he would try to act smart or against
the instructions or inform the police, all his family members would be
eliminated. He was informed as well that he would be under watch on
the train.
B
c
D
According to the witness, he took the money in two bags and
along with his friend Munish Berry boarded the train from Jalandhar.
He stated that on the way, he kept on receiving telephone calls from the
abductors to ascertain the stages of the journey. He stated that when
the train reached near Sirhind Railway Station, they directed both of
them to come near the left side door of the compartment and wait for a
flash signal while the train would be reaching Raj Pura and to drop the
bags when the train would slow down near an over-bridge, 3/4 k.m.
before Raj Pura so that the same could be collected by them. The
abductors also assured them to release the victim after the money was
received.
The witness stated that as the train slowed down at the place
indicated,. they threw away the two bags containing the ransom money
and proceeded towards Delhi. Subsequent thereto, they took a train back
to Jalandhar. Meanwhile, he received a telephone call from the victim
that he had reached home safely. The witness deposed that on 12.1.2008
he along with victim and 2/3 friends, met the police at Jandiala on their
E
way to police station and narrated the entire incident. The witness stated
that on 13 .1.2008, he received a call from the police that the Lancer car
No. PB 08 BA 4700 has been located near Taj Hotel, Garha Road,
Jalandhar and thereafter on completion of the formalities, the vehicle
was handed over to his son. The witness in course of his testimony,
F
identified the two bags in which the ransom money had been taken i.e.
Ex. P9 and P 10.
He mentioned that the currency was in the
denominations of Rs. 1000, Rs. 500 and Rs. 100. He also clarified that
on 5/6 packets of the currency notes, he had inscribed initials/names
like AS, KK, Om Namah Shivah, Om Sri Ganeshay Namah, and Jai
Hanuman. The witness at the trial, identified the currency notes as a
G
part of the ransom money. The bundles of currency notes produced in
the court were marked as Ex. Pl I to Ex. P68.
In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that though he knew
Sukhrneet Singh atthe time ofincident as he was a Municipal Councillor,
he clarified that he did not have any personal relationship with him. He
H
conceded that he had not informed the police/Magistrate about the
HARPAL SINGH@ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
347
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]
initials and names on the packets of the currency notes. He however
A
claimed that even in absence of such initials/names, he could have
otherwise identified the currency notes from the denominations thereof.
He however disclosed that his relations from whom money was collected
did inform that such initials/names had been inscribed on the packets.
He admitted that the FIR was registered on 11.1.2008. He elaborated
8
on the names of the persons and relations from whom different sums of
money was taken on loan. He specified the amounts as well. He stated
that his statement was recorded by the police on 12.1.2008.
PW4 SI Pritam Singh, who at the relevant time, was posted at
the Nurmahal Police Station, deposed that he did partake in the
investigation and had accompanied the 1.0. Inspector Satish Kumar
Malhotra. He reiterated that on 11.1.2008, the 1.0. received a secret
information that the accused persons Sukhmeet Singh, Gurinder, Jatinder
and Jaspreet had been seen moving near the office of DIG to surrender
before the police whereupon, they were arrested thereat and cell phones
were recovered from their possession vide Ex. PF/I to PF/3. He also
stated about the disclosures made by the accused persons following
which various amounts were recovered from the places shown by
them. Vis-a-vis, Sukhmeet Singh, he stated that the revolver of the
victim was also recovered from the living room of the accused.
He
further testified that on the disclosure of the accused appellant Sukhmeet
Singh subsequent thereto, along with cash ofRs. 25 lakhs, one revolver
of .32 bore bearing No. B-3211 wrapped in a plastic packet was recovered
from the room of his house. The witness stated that the cash as well as
the other articles recovered/seized were duly deposited in the malkhana.
He further deposed that ou the basis of another secret information
received on 18.1.2008, appellant Harpal Singh@Chhota was arrested
and acting on his disclosure statement, cash together with one country
made pistol and one live cartridge wrapped in a plastic packet was
recovered from underneath a tree on a Jandiala Road as shown by him.
The witness stated as well about further disclosure statements made by
the appellant Sukhmeet following which Honda City car HR 16 F 7337
was recovered from near the well ofGurinder Singh@Ginda at village
Bir Pind kept parked under the cover of standing maize crop. The witness
confirmed the recovery of one driving licence, registration certificate,
tape roll, small scissor and black string from the dicky of car which
were duly seized vide recovery memo Ex. P0/2. The witness also
c
D
E
F
G
H
348
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 8 S.C.R.
identified these items when confronted therewith. He also stated about
the collection of finger prints on the car by a finger print expert.
He also stated about the arrest of accused Harpreet Singh and
recovery of mobile phone from him.
He referred to a disclosure
statement made by said accused person leading to discovery of Rs. 3.5
lakhs from the almirah of his house. That a Qualis Car bearing number
PB 10 A Y 4144 was also recovered on the disclosure statement made
by the accused Harpreet was stated by the witness.
He did similarly mention about the arrest of accused Surinder
Singh and recovery of Rs. 1,05,000 on the basis of his disclosure
statement, from the roofofmotor at village Mullewal Arian wrapped in
a plastic envelope. The witness stated as well about the arrest of accused
Rupinder Pal and the recovery of cash from him.
In his cross-examination, the witness conceded that the arrest
memo pertaining to Sukhmeet did not contain either his signature or the
signature of any public witness. He however denied that the memo was
a forged one. He asserted to have attested the disclosure statement of
the appellant Sukhmeet Singh which had led to the recovery of the
Honda City car, otherwise kept concealed. His statement made in the
course of his further cross-examination, being neither of any particular
significance nor referred to in course of the arguments, are not being
dilated upon.
PW5 Kashmir Singh, Finger Print Expert and photographer from
Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, stated that on 21.1.2008, he had taken the
photographs of the chance prints on the window panes of the front door
of the Honda city car bearing HR 16F 7337 and also on the rear mirror
fitted thereto. He claimed to have prepared negatives of the chance
prints and had compiled the report on the basis thereof which he proved
Ex. PW5/A.
>
In cross-examination, he stated that the prints were available on
the glass surface and he did not rule out any other type of print. He also
G stated that the prints collected were of the palm surface of the hand.
H
He also did not enquire as to who had marked the chance prints.
PW8 Inspector Satish Kumar Malhotra, S.H.O. P.S., Phillaur, is
the investigating officer. He testified that on 11.1.2008, he was posted
at Police Station Nurmahal and while on patrol duty, he received a
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
349
[AMITAVA ROY, J.]
secret information that four persons, who had kidnapped Gagan
A
Mahendrau at gun point and had abducted him in a Honda City car with
a purpose to extract ransom. He deposed to have forwarded the
information for the registration of the FIR and thereafter visited the
place of occurrence, where he could not find any one present. According
to him, he visited the same spot with other police personnel on 12. I .2008
B
and happened to meet, amongst others, the victim and his father Subhash
Mahendru there. On the basis of a secret information received on
I 3 .1.2008, the witness stated to have recovered the victim's Lancer
Car bearing No. PB 08 BA 4 700 parked near Taj Hotel, Garah Road,
Jalandhar. He summoned the finger print expert and on the completion
of the exercise undertaken by the latter, handed over the car to the
C .
victim on the completion ofnecessary formalities.
The witness stated that on I 4. I .2008, from the call details collected,
amongst others the appellant Sukhmeet @ Deputy was a suspect,
whereupon he was arrested. The witness stated that on 16.1.2008, on
the basis of a secret information, the appellant Sukhmeet was arrested
along with Jatinder, whereupon on their search, mobile phones were
recovered. He also referred to the disclosure statements made by the
appellant Sukhmeet Singh and Jatinder, on the basis of which, cash of
Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively were recovered from their
residences, kept in the plastic bags. According to the witness, acting on
the disclosure statement of appellant Sukhmeet, one revolver of the
victim was also recovered from his house. Similarly, after the arrest
of Gurinder Singh @ Ginda, Jasbir Singh @ Jassi, Jatinder Singh @
Sabbi, on the basis of their disclosure statements, different amounts in
lakhs were recovered from the places indicated by them. A .32 bore
revolver bearing No. B-32I1 was also recovered on a later disclosure
statement of the appellant Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy. Subsequent
thereto, according to the witness, again acting on the secret information,
appellant Harpal Singh@ Chhota was arrested and one mobile phone
D
E
F
was recovered from his possession. These accused persons also made
disclosure statements and acting thereon, currency notes were
recovered along with a pistol along with a live cartridge from beneath a G
tree near canal Jandiala. This witness further deposed that the appellant
Sukhmeet Singh also made a disclosure statement pursuant whereto,
the Honda City car HR-16-F 733 7 used in the commission of offense
was recovered being parked near the well of accused Ginda at.Village
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 8 S.C.R.
A Beer being kept camouflage by standing maize crop thereat. The witness
also stated that on the search of the car, two iron chains, a small scissor,
tape roll, a black colour rope and a driving licence in the name of the
victim were recovered from the dickey of the car. The finger print
expert also took the photographs of the prints available on the car. That
B
a hole was also detected in the rear seat of the car was mentioned in
particular by the witness. He also stated about the arrest of accused
Harpreet Singh and Surinder Singh as well, following which the phones
mobile were recovered from them. These accused also made disclosures
following which recoveries of huge cash kept in plastic envelopes was
effected. Apart from getting recorded the statement of the victim and
C his father Subhash under Section 164 Cr.PC., the witness claimed to
have obtained the call details of mobile phones of the accused recovered
from accused persons.