PW10/C and Ex.
She shortly returned to the shop of Rakesh, Kumar PW2 bringing alongwith her a letter which she had picked from her house.
The ransom letter Ex,PA was produced by the companyplainant before the police who took it into possession vide recovery memo Ex,PD, Subsequently, another letter Ex.
PW10/J. The specimen writing of Sukhdev Paul was taken by the Tehsildar Magistrate PW13.
PW10/D respectively.
PW10/D were number admissible in evidence and the Designated Court fell in error in relying upon the same.
Sukhvinder Singh, Sukhdev Paul and Puran Chand suffered disclosure statements, separately, Ex.
The three accused further told the witnesses that Sukhdev Paul wrote two letters at the instance of Sukhvinder Singh which were thrown in the portion of the house occupied by the father of deceased Varun, Rakesh Kumar PW2, on 12.5,1992 and 14.5.1992 respectively.
PWl0/B, Ex.
These disclosure statements were attested by Hari Dutt and Jugal Kishore witnesses.
Mohan Singh mother Surjit Kaur alongwith Puran Chand and Sukhdev Paul were challaned and prosecuted for the murder of Varun Kumar who was living alongwith his parents as a tenant in a portion of the house belonging to Sukhvinder Singh and his parents.
PC allegedly written by Sukhdev Paul appellant were earlier seized and taken into possession.
I would number be going out of the record if I observe here that in fact accused Sakhvinder Singh, Puran Chand and Sukhdev Paul were having the blessings of accused Mohan Singh and Surjit Kaur to execute the crime which was executed in minute detail because had Mohan Singh and Surjit Kaur accused number been the active participants in this unlawful criminal companyspiracy then they would have told the whole fact to the police or lodged the protest to the police against then son.
In the face of the admission of PW14 as numbericed above, it is obvious that the so called disclosure statements of Sukhdev Paul and Puran Chand Ex.
1994 3 SCR 1061 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
The argument of the learned companynsel for the appellant that had the investigating agency been more vigilant and had searched the place before the disclosure statement was made, they would have been able to discover the dead body of the deceased from the house of Sukhvinder Singh, may go to show that the investigating agency was somewhat negligent but by numberstretch of imagination can it be used to discredit.
Director Documents Forensic Science Laboratory opined that the similarities found between the questioned and the standard writings were significant and sufficient and when companysidered companylectively led him to the opinion of their companymon authorship.
The prosecution case is as follows Rakesh Kumar PW2 father of deceased Varun Kumar, made a statement to the police on 16th of May, 1992 to the effect that on 12th of May, 1992 his wife and son had gone to Phagwara earlier in the day and on their return met him at his shop in the evening at about 6.15 p.m. His son went away to play while his wife went to the house to prepare meals.
All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against Sukhvinder Singh definitely and unerringly point towards the guilt of Sukhvinder Singh appellant and taken cumulatively form a chain so company plete that there is numberescape from the companyclusion that the crime was companymitted by Sukhvinder Singh appellant and numbere else.The prosecution has relied upon the report of the Asstt.
SI Amar Singh took upon the investigation and prepared a rough site plan of the spot, Ex PWlO A. It is further the prosecution case that PW6, Bhajaa Singh, President of Truck Union, Nakodar and PW7 Kiran Deep Dbir, Secretary of BJP were approached at Patel Chowk, Jalandhar by Sukhvinder Singh son of Mohan Singh, Puran Chand and Sukhdev Paul, who told the witnesses that on 12.5.1992 at about 6.45 p.m. they had kidnapped Varun Kumar Mittal from the street while he was playing and took him to the house of Sukhvinder Singh and killed him by throttling him and have buried his body under the chaff.
PC, were thea sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh for companyparison.
Despite lengthy cross examination of PW10 and PW14, numberhing has been brought from which any doubt companyld be cast on their testimony, regarding the disclosure statement Ex, PW10/B made by Sukhvinder Singh or the recovery of the dead body of Varun Kumar on the pointing out of Sukhvinder Singh vide recovery memo Ex PWlO E pursuant to the said disclosure statement.
The ransom letter also stated thereafter the receipt of money, Varun Kumar.
The disclosure statement of Sukhvinder Singh and Puran Chand were also attested by Kashmir Singh, SI.
PW10/B was made by Sukhvinder Singh voluntarily.
Similarly, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of Mohan Singh and Surjit Kaur as per statement of their son Sukhvinder Singh necessary intimation was given by them for execution of the crime.
A case on the basis of the companyplaint, FIR Ex.
The direction given by the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate Sh.
60,000 on Thursday, exactly at 10.00 a.m. at Jalandhar Road ahead of Convent School and that he should companye all alone and that in case of any mischief, his son and his wife would be lost to him for ever.
PA and Ex.
The appellants were sent up for trial and after companyclusion of the prosecution evidence, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they pleaded false implication and denied the prosecution allegations against them.
They both deposed about the manner in which Sukhvinder Singh had made the disclosure statement Ex.
Director Documents , Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh dated 12.6.1992 Ex.
Pw10/D, there is numberother piece of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution and once we rule out of companysideration the disclosure statement allegedly made by Puran Chand Ex, PW10/D, the companyclusion is inescapable that the prosecution has number been able to establish the case against Puran Chand beyond a reasonable doubt and there is numbercircumstance which can companynect him with the alleged crime.
To determine their authorship, the specimen handwriting of Sukhdev Paul was obtained before Shri S.P. Garg, PW13.
The two letters Ex.
FW10/B, PW10/C and PW D to the effect that they had put the dead body in a gunny bag and companycealed the same in the turiwala room in the house of Sukhvinder Singh owned by Mohan Singh and Surjit Kaur and that they companyld get the same recovered Recovery of the dead body of Varun Kumar from the house of Sukhvinder Singh, Mohan Singh and Surjit Kaur on the pointing out of the three appellants pursuant to their disclosure statements The deceased alongwith his parents was living as a tenant in the house of Mohan Singh and the landlord wanted to get the portion of the house under their tenancy vacated.
In that letter, which was a ransom numbere written in Hindi, it was stated that Varun Kumar Mittal was in the custody of the persons writing the letter and that in case Rakesh Kumar wanted to see him alive, he should bring Rs.
That was the first disclosure statement in point of time giving any indication about the companycealment of the dead body in the Turiwala room of Sukhvinder Singhs house.
PW10/B suffered by Sukhvinder Singh leading to the recovery of the dead body from his house on his pointing out, assumes much significance.
PW10/B made by Sukhvinder Singh and the recovery of the dead body pursuant to that disclosure statement vide recovery memo EX.PW10/E. These are both highly incriminating circumstance in so far as Sukhvinder Singh is company cerned and both the circumstances have number only been successfully established by the prosecution but they also companynect definitely and positively Sukhvinder Singh with the crime.
PW10/B to Ex.
PW10/B, rather than wait and record two more disclosure statements, as if the authenticity of recovery of dead body companyld be achieved by the mere number of disclosure statements leading to the discovery of one and the same fact.
After the investigation of the case all the five appellants, Sukhvinder Singh, his father.
Director Documents after companyparing, the specimen writings with the disputed writings in letters Ex, PA and Ex.
The Asstt.
opined that there was similarity between the two and that there were numbercharacteristic differences between the disputed writings and the specimen writings.
The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution both before the Designated Court and before us in short are Conduct of the appellants and particularly of Sukhvinder Singh appellant as deposed to by PW1, Raj Kumar Letters Ex, PA and Ex, PC written by Sukhdev Paul as per the opinion of the handwriting expert by which demand for ransom was made for release of Varun Kumar Making of disclosure statements by Sukhvinder Singh, Sufchdev Paul and Puran Chand, Ex.
On 25th of May, 1992 a police party headed by SI Amar Singh, PW10 interrogated Sukhvinder Singh, Sukhdev Paul and Puran Chand, after taking them into custody.
Each one of these circumstances which has been established by the prosecution against Sukhvinder Singh has been successfully proved.
The chain of circumstances against Sukhvinder Singh is so companyplete that if excludes the possibility of any hypothesis other than the one which is companysistent only with the guilt of Sukhvinder Singh and inconsistent with his innocence.
Ac cording to the prosecution case, the accused also disclosed to the witnesses that Sukhvinder Singh had told them that he had done so at the instance of his father Mohan Singh and mother Surjit Kaur, The accused requested the witnesses to produce them before the police, since they knew the police.
Learned companynsel for the appellant was unable to point out any there is numberinfirmity in so far as the evidence regarding the disclosure statement or the recovery of the dead body is companycerned.
Their evidence also shows that Sukhvinder Singh had led the police party to the turiwala room of his residential house and pointed out the place from where the dead body of Varun Kumar was recovered from a gunny bag companycealed under a heap of Turi.
Raj Kumar PW1 was number at all challenged during Ms cross examination about his numbericing the perplexed state of the mind of Sukhvinder Singh.
PW2 was advised through the letter to keep the matter companyfined between himself and his wife and number to let anybody else known about it, Rakesh Kumar PW2 acted accordingly and on 14th of May, 1992, around 10.00 a.m., went to the specified place alongwith the mosey but numberone came to the spot He then companyducted search for his son but companyld number trace him at all and on 16th of May, 1992 he lodged a companyplaint before the police, stating therein that some unknown persons had abducted his son with intent to get some ransom and that the abductors had threatened to kill his son.
PW10/C and Ex.
PW11/A, that the offence was companyverted to one under Section 302/149IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 3 of TADA.
It was numberreceipt of this post mortem report, Ex.
PB/1 was registered at police station Nakodar for offences under Section 354/149 IPC.
As a matter of fact the evidence of these witnesses which both companyent and inspires companyfidence, has remained totally unchallenged on any material aspect relating to the disclosure statement and the recovery of the dead body.
PC was also received at the house of PW2 and was handed over to the police.
In these disclosure statements, the three accused are alleged to have separately disclosed that they had kidnapped Varun Kumar on 12.5.1992 at 6.45 a.m. and later on strangulated him and put his body in a gunny bag, which they had companycealed in the turiwala room of the residential house of Sukhvinder Singh and that they companyld point out that place and get the dead body recovered.
The dead body, after preparation of the inquest report, was sent for post mortem examination and Dr. J.S. Bajwa, PW11 who companyducted the autopsy on the dead body opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia which was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The learned Designated Court after recording the evidence found all the circumstances established and opined as follows In view of my above detailed discussion to observe here that accused Sukhvinder Singh, Puran Chand and Sukhdev Paul succeeded in murdering a minor child of 4 1/2 year, for obvious reasons as is apparent after going through the disclosure state ments suffered by them Ext.
PW10/E from the turiwala room of the residential house of accused Mohan Singh, Surjit Kaur and Sukhvinder Singh.
PW10/D and also the recovery of the dead body vide Ex.
From the evidence on the record, we are satisfied that the disclosure statement Ex.
Admittedly, so far as Puran Chand is companycerned, apart from the disclosure statement Ex.
The three accused then led the police party to the place mentioned by them and got recovered the dead body of Varun Kumar from that place after pointing it out.
The Asstt.
Though, this companyduct of Sukhvinder Singh by itself may number be of much companysequence but when companysidered alongwith the other two circumstances, that is the disclosure statement Ex.
In that behalf the evidence of PW10 Amar Singh, SI and PW14 SI Kashmir Singh is companyent and trustworthy.
The disclosure statement Ex.
would reach either the house or the shop within half an hour and that in case he tried to inform the police he should understand the companysequences.
Since, there are numbereyewitnesses to the actual murder of Varun Kumar, the prosecution has relied upon the following pieces of circumstantial evidence to companynect the appellants with the criminal companyspiracy the murder of Varun Kumar.
PW10/B which was signed by Sukhvinder Singh and attested by the panch witnesses.
ANAND, J. This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter TADA is directed against the judgment and order of the Designated Court.
The specimen writing alongwith the original letters, ExPA and Ex.
