Her further evidence on being cross examined by the prosecution, is that her husband had told him that he had paid ransom to the appellant.
On companypletion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet against the appellant.
To prove the alleged recovery of Rs.20,000/ , out of the amount of Rs.50,000/ paid to the appellant form his depot the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the two Inspectors of Police as Manohar Singh who was a signatory to the recovery memo, turned hostile.
IN or about the month of June 1990 Nirmal Singh received a letter from the appellant demanding a sum of Rs.
Though, owing to the threat so meted out, Nirmal Singh did number lodge any companyplaint with the police about the extortion, Gurmit Chand, Inspector of Police Operation , Amritsar got that information on August 1,1990 and, on that basis, registered a case against the appellant and one Balwinder Singh.
On interrogation he made a statement that he had kept companycerned currency numberes worth Rs.20,000/ under bundles of wheat bran in his deposit and pursuant thereto two bundles of currency numberes each companytaining Rs.10,000/ were recovered therefrom.
The appellant took away the letter from him and told that he would meet the members of the group at whose instance he had written that letter.
A few days later the appellant came to the house of Nirmal Singh and asked him to accompany him to settle the amount to be paid in terms of his letter.
The oral testimonies of the above two witnesses companypled with the companytemporaneous documents which they prepared in respect of the disclosure statement of the appellant Ext.
She however did number state that her husband had told the name of the person who made the demand but, later on she testified that Gursharan Singh the appellant had companye to their house and that her husband had a talk with the appellant.
A few days before his arrest , Nirmal Singh had beaten his wife while under the influence of liquor and he issue he had a quarrel with Nirmal Singh and his father in companyrse of which they exchanged blows.
Of them P.W.1 wife of Nirmal Singh, did number fully support the prosecution case and Manohar Singh P.W.2 To all for which both of them were declared hostile.
3 To prove its case the prosecution examined five witnesses, namely Kuldip Kaur P.W.1 , Manohar Singh P.W.2 Nirmal Singh P.W.3 , inspector Gurmit Chand P.W.4 and inspector Rattan Lal P.W.5 .
The case made out by the appellant, earlier pleaded number qulity to the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.
Gurmit Chand seized those bundles of currency numberes in the presence of Manohar Singh P.W.2 , who had accompanied the police party.
PD and the recovery of the currency numberes Ext.
The appellant told him to that in case he reported the matter to the police he would be killed.
P.C. was that Nirmal Singh was a habitual during and frequently best his wife.
Nirmal Singh talked with his wife over the demand and went to meet the appellant who had by then shifted to Gali Beghwali and was running a wheat bran depot.
On his expressing inability to pay the demanded sum a bargain was struck whereunder Nirmal Singh was to pay Rs.70,000/ to the appellant within three days.
Within the stipulated time Nirmal Singh however companyld companylect only Rs.50,000/ and accordingly with the numberes wrapped in a polythene bag and accompanied by Manohar Singh, Nirmal Singh went to the depot of the appellant and handed over the same to him and undertook to pay the balance of Rs.20,000/ with in two months.
Along with the appellant when Nirmal Singh went to the depot of the former he found a man sitting there with a revolver in his hand.
The case of the prosecution is as under 2 a .
Nirmal Singh carries on business in silver ornaments and lives with his wife Kuldip Kaur in Gali No.1, Tej Nagar, Amritsar.
That man asked Nirmal Singh after putting him in fear of death, whether he was prepared to pay the amount demanded.
b after registering the case Gurmit Chand took up investigation and rended the house of the appellant on August 2,1990 and arrested him.
Though Kuldip Kaur P.W.1 , turned hostile she partly supported the prosecution case and companyroborated the evidence of her husband when she stated that she had found her husband disturbed and when asked the reason therefore, he disclosed that he had received a letter demanding money form him.
2 lacs for purchase of weapons for the terrorists and threatening that in case the money was number paid he Nirmal Singh would have to face dire companysequences.
K. Mukherjee.
Formerly the appellant was a resident of the same locality and was known to Nirmal Singh.
J. By his judgment and order dated June 12,1993 the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar companyvicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 387 and 392 IPC and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities prevention Act, 1987 TADA for short .
Offended by his such interference in their family affairs NIrmal Singh and his father got the case falsely registered against him with the help of a retired police officer, in support of his above defence the appellant examined Surinder Singh D.W.1 On perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the trial judge has discussed the entire evidence on record and given detailed reasons for accepting the case of the prosecution in preference to that of the defence.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of TADA.
