Malkiat Singh alias Titu and Another vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present appeal has been filed by Malkiat Singh alias Titu and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha. They were nominated as accused in a case FIR No. 9 dated 15.01.1999 registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind under Sections 364/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, vide its judgment dated 13th November, 2002, held the Appellants guilty of an offence punishable u/s 364 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months u/s 364 IPC. The Appellants were, however, acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 386 IPC and the State has not opted to file any appeal against their acquittal on this count.

In the present case, FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered on the basis of a statement Ex.PA made by Gulab Singh PW-1. He stated that he was a resident of village Farandipur. He had four sons and one daughter, namely Gursharan Singh, Navjit Singh, Harpreet Singh, Jodhvir Singh and Gurpreet Kaur. The youngest son Jodhvir Singh aged about seven years was a student of LKG class. All the four sons were studying in BST Senior Secondary School, Patti Road, Bhikhiwind. The daughter Gurpreet Kaur aged about 13 years was a student of seventh class in Gurdaspur. On 15th January, 1999 all the four sons of the complainant, as a routine, had left the house at about 8.15 a.m. for going to school on their bicycles. Harpreet Singh and Jodhvir Singh were on one bicycle, whereas Navjit Singh and Gursharan Singh were on the other. Complainant had also gone to the fields to ease himself. Outside the village, Gursharan Singh eldest son of the complainant was seen coming on his bicycle to the village. While reaching near the complainant, Gursharan Singh, while weeping, told that Harpreet Singh and Jodhvir Singh have been taken away by Sukhdev Singh and his brother Malkiat Singh, who were armed with pistols. They had forcibly taken away the children and had given a ruqa to Gursharan Singh to hand it over to his father. Complainant read the ruqa, wherein it was written that Rs. 30.00 lakh be paid as a ransom for release of the children. On reading the ruqa, the complainant raised a noise, whereupon, Kala Singh member panchayat, Tarlok Singh son of Bahal Singh and other villagers gathered there. Accompanied by the villagers, the complainant searched for Sukhdev Singh and Malkiat Singh but could not trace them out. Thereafter, he was going to the Police Station to lodge a report, when on the way, the investigating officer met him and he got his statement Ex.PA recorded. He also handed over the slip Ex.P1, wherein a demand of ransom was made, to the investigating officer.

The above said FIR was investigated and a report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted.

After commitment, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 7th June, 1999, charged the Appellants u/s 364 and 386 IPC. The first charge stated that on 15th January, 1999 at about 8.15 a.m. in the area of village Farandipur in furtherance of a common intention, the Appellants kidnapped Harpreet Singh and Jodhvir Singh, minor sons from the lawful guardianship of Gulab Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 364 IPC. The second charge stated that both the Appellants had intentionally put Gulab Singh under fear of death by kidnapping his sons, namely Harpreet Singh and Jodhvir Singh, and thereby dishonestly induced Gulab Singh to deliver Rs. 3.00 lakh for the release of his sons. Thereby the Appellants also committed an offence punishable u/s 386 IPC.

The Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Complainant Gulab Singh appeared as PW-1 and reiterated as to what was stated in his statement Ex.PA. In cross-examination, it was suggested that since wife of the complainant was elected as a Sarpanch of the village, therefore, due to party faction accused have been named.

Gursharan Singh, who had carried the slip Ex.P1 and had delivered the same to his father complainant Gulab Singh, appeared as PW-2. He was a witness to kidnapping of the children.

Harpreet Singh, who was kidnapped, appeared as PW-3 and stated that Sukhdev Singh and Malkiat Singh were having pistols in their hands and they lifted this witness and his brother Jodhvir Singh and took them towards their fields. He further stated that they were detained in a tubewell room, their arms and mouth were tied and they were made to sit on paddy straw. In cross-examination, this witness stated that on 17th January, 1999, they were recovered by the police and were then released.

Mr. Surinder Singh Siao, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants, has stated that in view of the evidence of complainant Gulab Singh PW-1 and his son Gursharan Singh PW-2, in whose presence the children were abducted, he will not be able to assail the conviction, especially when Harpreet Singh PW-3, who was abducted, has deposed against the Appellants. Counsel for the Appellants has further stated that considering the fact that occurrence, in the present case, pertains to January 1999 and more than 12 years have elapsed, this Court may consider reduction in sentence awarded to the Appellants.

Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has stated that on completion of sentence of 5 years, 5 months and 27 days, Appellant Sukhdev Singh was released from jail after he was given benefit of remissions. He has placed on record an affidavit of Balbir Singh Bisla, PPS, Superintendent of Central Jail, Amritsar, wherein it is stated that Appellant Sukhdev Singh was released from jail on 15th July, 2004.

Since counsel for the Appellants has made a prayer for reduction in sentence awarded to the Appellants, this Court has to take into consideration mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The story regarding demand of ransom has not been believed by the trial Court. The Appellants have been acquitted of the charge u/s 386 IPC. State has preferred no appeal against acquittal. Occurrence pertains to the year 1999, Appellants have already suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. At the same time, Appellants have kidnapped two children aged less than 10 years. Therefore, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that it will be appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded upon the Appellants from seven years to six years rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained.

With the modification in sentence noticed above, present appeal is dismissed.