State of Punjab vs Niranjan Singh

Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J.—This appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, preferred by the State is directed against judgment dated 02.09.2013 (for short, ''impugned judgment''), whereby court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala (trial court, for short), while convicting and sentencing Niranjan Singh (Respondent No. 1) u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC'', for short), has acquitted him of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 406, IPC and u/s 24 of the Immigration Act, 1985 (''1985 Act'' for short), and Manjit Singh (Respondents No. 2) and Rupinder Kaur alias Sukhi (Respondent No. 3) of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 406 and 420, IPC read with Section 24 of the 1985 Act.

In the appeal it has been prayed that respondents Niranjan Singh be convicted for the offences punishable u/s 364, IPC, and Section 24 of the 1985 Act. However, on an oral prayer of the learned Additional Advocate General, the prayer is ordered to be amended as regards setting aside acquittal of respondent Manjit Singh and Rupinder Kaur alias Sukhi as well.

We have heard learned Additional Advocate General, representing the appellant-State, on merits.

Learned State counsel has argued that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents by ignoring the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, which proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside/modified and the respondents deserve to be convicted and punished appropriately for the offences/charges against them.

Prosecution story, put in brief, is that the accused Niranjan Singh took from the complainant an amount of Rs. 6,75,000/- to send his son to Spain. Complainant''s son, though, was made to board a flight from Delhi on 25.11.2004, but thereafter his whereabouts were not known. During investigation it surfaced that 37 persons sent by travel agents to Spain were missing. This led to addition of offence of Section 364, IPC, also in the case. On completion of investigation challan was presented before the jurisdictional magistrate. Learned trial court charged the accused under Sections 364, 406 and 420, IPC read with Section 24 of the 1985 Act. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the charge against the accused, prosecution examined seven witnesses. Rattan Singh (PW1) reiterated contents of her complaint on oath while Surjit Singh (PW2) deposed to prove the payment stated to have been made by the complainant to the accused; Joginder Kaur (PW6) deposed on the lines of deposition of Rattan Singh (PW1); Balkar Singh (PW4) stated on oath that the accused (including Gurmeet Kaur, an accused in the connected matter) had taken away 37 boys in the year 2004 in order to kill them; ASP Sukhchain Singh Gill (Now SSP) (PW5) placed on record report of inquiry, Exhibit PW5/A; and SI Ajit Singh (PW3) recounted on oath various steps taken in aid of the investigation.

When examined u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (''Cr.P.C.'', for short) the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution and reiterated plea of their innocence and false implication and examined Charanjit Kaur (DW1) and Sarabjit Singh (DW2) in their defence.

Learned trial court, on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and on appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded the matter as here-in-above stated.

As noted in the impugned judgment, the complaint, based whereupon First Information Report (''FIR'', for short) was recorded, and evidence brought on record by the prosecution, are conspicuously silent as regards involvement of respondent Manjit Singh and Rupinder Kaur alias Sukhi in the matter. Learned State counsel has not been able to bring to our notice any evidence to suggest that accused Manjit Singh and/or Rupinder Kaur alias Sukhi demanded or accepted from the complainant or his son any money on the assurance of sending complainant''s son abroad or kidnapped or abducted him with an intention to put him in danger of being killed.

As regards accused Niranjan Singh the learned trial court has observed that in the FIR there is no allegation of kidnapping or abduction of complainant''s son in order to put him in danger of being killed. On the contrary, it is the case of the prosecution complainant''s son boarded a flight from Delhi of his own volition. In the report, Exhibit PW5/A, though it has been stated that 37 persons sent by the travel agents to Spain were missing but author of this report, Sukhchain Singh (PW5) has admitted in his cross examination that during the course of inquiry no material was produced before him to show that complainant''s son had died. The Investigating Officer, SI Ajit Singh (PW3) has also admitted that he did not receive any complaint of kidnapping of complainant''s son.

As noted by the learned trial court, no evidence to establish that the accused are engaged in the business of travel agent, has been brought forth.

Needless to stress, a judgment of acquittal can be interfered with only if it is shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence and even if two views emerge from the evidence, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Learned State counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the above findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record or which part of the evidence has been ignored.

In view of what has been said and discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The appeal is found to be meritless and is dismissed.