Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 96 (PNJ)

Jagat Singh v. State of Haryana

2006-01-11

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2006
JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Appellants Jagat Singh and Narinder Singh have challenged their conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 1.6.1987, Ishwar Chand, Taxi Driver of Taxi Fiat bearing No. CHZ-64 belonging to Attar Singh, was present at Bus Stand, Ambala Cantt. Three person with two children hired the taxi in the presence of Ishwar Chand’s brother Narinder Kumar and one Mohan Sagar for going to Bhiwani. Ishwar Chand never returned and a report of his missing was lodged with Ambala Contonment Police by his cousin Raj Kumar on 13.6.1987. During investigation, the appellants were apprehended by the police on 1.12.1987 moving in the said vehicle with a fake number plate HYG-5190. The Engine number and Chassis number were comparable to CHZ-64. Disclosure statements was made that after hiring the taxi, the accused strangulated to death the taxi driver Ishwar Chand with a rope and threw him in the Canal Sunder Sub Branch Bara Chappar. After investigation, the appellants were challenged and were charged under sections 302/364/392/34 IPC. Co-accused Naresh who was granted bail, jumped bail and was declared proclaimed offender during the trial. 3. Prosecution examined Rulda Ram, Draftsman PW-1, Attar Singh PW-2, Rekha Gupta PW-3, Prem Singh, Sub Inspector PW-4, Narinder Kumar, Head Constable PW-5, Kapil Dev, PW-6, Ashok Kumar PW-7 Narinder Kumar son of Om Parkash PW-8, Som Nath, Head Constable PW-9, Rattan Singh, Head Constable PW-10, Ram Chand PW- 11, Raj Kumar PW-12, Gurdip Singh PW-13, Ashok Kumar Nijhawan PW- 14, Sham Narain Head Constable PW-15, Suresh Chand PW-16, Mohan Sagar PW-17, Murari Lal PW-18 and Ranbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector PW-19. 4. The trial court acquitted the appellants of charge of kidnapping and murder by giving following reasons:- (i) There was no satisfactory evidence of accused appellants having hired taxi of Ishwar Chand. PW-8 Narinder Kuamr, brother of the deceased and Mohan Sagar, PW-17, husband of sister of deceased’s wife could not be believed that the taxi was hired by the appellants in their presence. (ii) Dead body of Ishwar Chand was never recovered. Disclosure statement of the accused before the police while in custody was inadmissible in evidence. (iii) No witness from the taxi stand was examined to link the identity of the accused as persons who hired the taxi. 5. (ii) Dead body of Ishwar Chand was never recovered. Disclosure statement of the accused before the police while in custody was inadmissible in evidence. (iii) No witness from the taxi stand was examined to link the identity of the accused as persons who hired the taxi. 5. The appellants have been convicted mainly on account of evidence of ASI Randhir Singh, PW-19 and SI Prem Singh, PW-4 to the effect that they over-powered the appellants alongwith the car with the fake number. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once prosecution case of the appellants hiring the car was rejected, the appellants could not be convicted. It was submitted that witnesses to the recovery Suresh Chand PW-16 and Murari Lal PW-18 had turned hostile. It was also submitted that charge under section 411 IPC was not made out as there was no evidence as to from whom the appellants received the vehicle and who had stolen the vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that evidence of Randhir Singh PW-19 and Prem Singh Sub Inspector PW-4 was independent evidence and there was no reason to reject the same, even if Suresh Chand, PW-16 and Murari Lal, PW-18 became hostile. He referred to the statement of Suresh Chand PW-16 to the effect that he had made a statement Ex.PY before the police that car was recovered from the possession of the appellants. He further submitted that the fact that car was recovered from the appellants and they were using fake number, was enough to show that the car had been stolen and even if charge under section 379 IPC could be made out for which same sentence was provided. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 9. Evidence of PW-4 Prem Singh, Sub Inspector and PW-19 Randhir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, has been rightly belived by the trial court. Their evidence is quite natural and consistent. Conviction of the appellants is upheld and charge is altered to Section 379 IPC. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were aged 22 and 28 years respectively at the relevant time. The alleged offence was committed more than 18 years ago. Conviction of the appellants is upheld and charge is altered to Section 379 IPC. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were aged 22 and 28 years respectively at the relevant time. The alleged offence was committed more than 18 years ago. The appellants are claimed to have undergone one and a half years and one year of imprisonment respectively. There is no appeal by the State against acquittal of the appellants under sections 364/302/392 IPC. 12. Having regard to all the circumstances, the appellants are sentenced to undergo RI for two years each. 13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.