Hardeep Singh vs State of Haryana

Surinder Gupta, J.—Appellant Hardeep Singh was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 419, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') and sentenced as follows:-

An FIR bearing No. 117 dated 26.02.1995 was registered at Police Station Sadar Gurgaon on the statement of Onkar Nath, who was having a service station under the name and style of ''Khanna Motors'', at plot No. 86 Sector 18, Gurgaon. As usual, he locked the workshop on 25.02.1995 at about 6.00 PM. At that time, a new white Maruti 800CC car bearing engine No. 1113072 and chasis No. 0734934 was lying parked in the garage while another car bearing registration No. DL-1C-8567 was parked outside the gate for repair. Surinder Watchman and Raghunath Helper were present at the workshop during the night time. At about 4.00/4.30 AM on 26.02.1995, four persons armed with pistol and knives entered the workshop, tied Surinder and Raghunath with a rope in a room and took away new Maruti car as well as two number plates of the car standing outside. On reaching the workshop, complainant came to know about the incident and informed the police.

Police arrested Pritam and Sukhram and at later stage, Radhey @ Gurcharan for committing the crime. At later stage, appellant Hardeep Singh was also arrested. During investigation, it transpired that the stolen Maruti car was given to the appellant by Radhey @ Gurcharan with fake registration No. DL-1C-8567 but Hardeep Singh sold the said car to one Daljit Singh of Chandigarh after getting a fake bill and registration certificate got prepared in the name of Satender Singh, resident of 162/2 Pocket-B Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Appellant got recovered from his house two number plates bearing registration No. DL-1C-8567 and the photocopy of the forged registration certificate in the name of Satender Singh in respect of Maruti car which was sold with registration No. HR-02C-1397. The car was recovered from Chandigarh lying parked in front of Shop No. 1, Sector 17-A. Daljit Singh produced copy of forged registration certificate of the said car as well as receipt regarding its purchase.

After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 IPC against accused Pritam, Sukh Ram, Radhey @ Gurcharan, whereas appellant Hardeep was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 419, 468 and 471 IPC. The trial resulted in conviction of accused Pritam for the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC and the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 419, 468 and 471 IPC.

In the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of PW 2 Inderpal who has stated that Maruti 800CC car was sold by the appellant to Daljit Singh Gill. The said Daljit Singh has not been examined. Another factor which weighed against the petitioner was his refusal to give specimen signatures when required by the Investigating Agency. During the pendency of trial, appellant had moved an application for taking his specimen signatures which, however, was not decided. The Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined as a result of which the statements of witnesses and the documents taken into possession were not duly proved. Satender Singh in whose name the registration certificate of the car was allegedly got prepared, has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

Learned State counsel argues that PW 2 Inderpal is the star witness of the prosecution in this case. This fact is not disputed that Maruti 800CC car was stolen from the workshop of the complainant. There is direct evidence that the appellant had sold that car to Daljit Singh Gill for Rs. 1,60,000 against receipt given by the appellant. The non-examination of Daljit Singh Gill does not affect the prosecution case in view of the statement of Inderpal PW 2. Two number plates bearing registration No. DL-1C-8567 along with photocopy of registration certificate of Maruti 800CC car in the name of Satender Singh were got recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant. The prosecution has also examined PW 9 Inspector Rohtash Singh, who had partly investigated the case, proved the recovery of number plates and photocopy of registration certificate from the appellant and Head Constable Pohap Singh PW 13 who was a witness of the above recovery. Constable Mohan Singh PW 11 is a witness of recovery of the stolen Maruti 800CC car which was bearing registration No. HR-02C-1397.

Learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel have also actively assisted this Court in perusal of the record of the trial Court.

As per prosecution, a Maruti 800CC car was taken away from the workshop of complainant Onkar Nath. This Maruti car was bearing engine No. 1113072 and chasis No. 0734934. This car was recovered by the police of CIA Staff, Gurgaon during investigation while it was lying parked in front of Shop No. 1, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. PW 11 Mohan Singh is the witness of recovery of this car.

In order to prove that this car was a stolen car, the prosecution has examined complainant Onkar Nath Khanna PW 1 who was the Managing Partner of the workshop M/s. Khanna Motors, Industrial Area, Gurgaon. Rajesh Mehra, Assistant in Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon has appeared as PW 6 and proved the invoice Ex. PE issued by Maruti Udyog regarding the vehicle in question. This vehicle was given temporary No. HRU-0691A as per the temporary certificate of registration Ex. PF. Complainant has stated that he has received this new car on 23.02.1995 for pre-delivery inspection (PDI).

From the evidence discussed above, it is established that the car in question was stolen from the premises of complainant.

After ascertaining the above facts, the statement of Inderpal Singh PW 2 becomes all the more relevant to understand as to whether any offence was committed by the appellant. Inderpal Singh PW 2 has stated as follows:-

On or about 22.6.95, the brother-in-law of my brother had come to me from Delhi. His name is Balvinder Singh. He was accompanied by one Bhupinder Singh. They wanted to sell a Maruti car and for that purpose we made an advertisement in the newspaper at my address. They went to Simla and came back after 2-3 days. On 26.6.95 one Daljit Singh Gill came in order to purchase the car. He was accompanied by Satnam Singh. The car had been sold away by said Bhupinder Singh to Daljit Singh for Rs. 1,60,000/-. Payment was made in my presence and the delivery of the car was given. Registration number of the car was HR-02-C-1397. I do not remember the chasis and engine number. A receipt was prepared. Ex. PB is the copy of Newspaper containing the Advertisement (Objected to). Mark PA is the photostat copy of the receipt. It was signed by me also, as well as Satnam Singh. Bhupinder Singh had also signed it, c/o Satinder Singh. I have seen that man today present in the court who had signed the receipt as Bhupinder Singh and had received payment (The witness has pointed towards accused Hardeep Singh). Later on I came to know from Balvinder Singh that his name was Kakka. The car was to be get registered at Chandigarh. For that NOC was to be obtained. I had seen the original RC of the vehicle.

The above statement of Inderpal Singh proves some very relevant facts:

(i) The appellant accompanied a relative of Inderpal posing himself as Bhupinder Singh.

(ii) He wanted to sell his Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-02C-1397.

(iii) The advertisement was given in the newspaper at the address of PW 2 Inderpal Singh for the sale of car.

(iv) The car was sold by the appellant to Daljit Singh Gill and he received the payment in present of Inderpal Singh after issuing receipt Mark-PA. That receipt was also signed by Inderpal Singh. He has specifically pointed out towards appellant as the person who posed as Bhupinder Singh at the time of selling of car to Daljit Singh Gill.

(v) The original registration certificate and original receipt were delivered by him to the purchaser who was satisfied as he (Inderpal) had told him that the car belonging to the friend of brother of his brother-in-law. The appellant had delivered the receipt and sale letter after two days of the sale and these documents were also delivered by Inderpal Singh to the purchaser.

(vi) The facts mentioned at serial No. (iv) and (v) have come in cross-examination of the witness and are unrebutted.

From the above evidence, it is duly proved that the appellant was in possession of the stolen car. It is also proved that he had sold the car under a fake number after receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000 from Daljit Singh Gill. The prosecution has not examined Daljit Singh Gill and the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order on 08.12.2001.

So far as the identification of the appellant is concerned, the statement of PW 2 Inderpal Singh is sufficient and has been rightly relied by the trial Court. He has specifically stated that the appellant came along with brother of his brother-in-law to his house. The entire sale transaction of the car had taken place in his presence. This fact is also proved that the car bearing registration No. HR-02C-1397 was the same car having engine No. 1113072 and chasis No. 0734934. Daljit Singh, purchaser of the car had produced the original registration certificate (Ex. PD) of the car which was in the name of Satender Singh and receipt (Ex. PK). The statement of Inderpal Singh PW 2 shows that the appellant had remained with this witness for a considerable time. This witness had occasion to converse with him and note all his distinctive features. Appellant had used his address for giving advertisement in the newspaper for sale of his vehicle. The purchaser of the vehicle had purchased the same on assurance given by this witness that the owner is known to the brother of his brother-in-law. PW 2 Inder Pal has absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Nothing has come on file to show that he had any enmity with the appellant or any relations or dealings with the appellant prior to this occurrence, so as to give him any motive for his false implication.

The question arises at this stage is that the person to whom the car has been sold, has not appeared to support the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, his statement was material and relevant and would have further strengthened the case of the prosecution. However, even in the absence of statement of Daljit Singh, the prosecution is not bereft of any evidence against the appellant. The entire sequence of evidence required to prove his guilt for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 419, 468 and 471 IPC is complete. I find no factual or legal infirmity in the findings of learned trial Court while recording the conviction of the appellant for the above mentioned offences and I affirm the same.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant had been facing the trial for the last 19 years and suffered a lot of harassment and mental agony during this period and has requested leniency with regard to quantum of sentence.

There is no evidence that the appellant was a party to the robbery at Khanna Motors, Gurgaon. He somehow came in possession of stolen car which was further sold by him. Keeping in view the fact that he is not a previous convict and this case is pending against him for the last 19 years, the sentence awarded to him for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC is reduced from 2 years to 1 year. The sentence awarded to the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 419 IPC is maintained. The sentence of fine is also maintained.

With above modification of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon within four weeks for serving remaining part of the sentence. In the event of his failure of surrender within four weeks, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon shall initiate steps to procure his custody and send him to jail to undergo remaining part of the sentence. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon for compliance.