Punjab-Haryana High CourtJasvir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 October, 2008Author:S.S. SaronBench:S.S. Saron,SabinaIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                    ......


                   Criminal Appeal No.1150-DB of 2008
                                   .....

                                                 Date of decision:17.10.2008


                          Jasvir Singh and others
                                                                 ...Appellants
                                      v.

                         State of Punjab and another
                                                               ...Respondents


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
             Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina



Present:     Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the appellants.

             Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
             for the respondent-State.

             Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                   .....


S.S. Saron, J.Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2

has filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is

taken on record.This appeal has been filed underSection 454of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) against the order dated 14.5.2007

(Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby

the application filed by the appellants Jasvir Singh and others for the release

of an amount of Rs.2,76,000/-, which is the case property, has been

dismissed.The facts of the case are that Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2)
                                            Cr. Appeal No.1150-DB of 2008[2]was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur for having committed

the offence underSection 302Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short). The

prosecution case is that on 1.12.2002, SI Mukhtiar Singh was posted at

Police Station Mallanwala as Station House Officer.       On the said date

Shangara Singh-complainant along with Jassa Singh came to the police

station and lodged a complaint to the effect that he was having his house at

Village Mahalam which is on the western side of Makhu-Ferozepur railway

track and on the eastern side of the railway track they had sown sugar-cane

crop in an area of 5½ acres of land. Adjacent to the sugar-cane crop there

were three tube-well bores in the Haveli.      On 1.12.2002 at 7.00 a.m.,

Shangara Singh-complainant had gone to irrigate his sugar-cane crop

through the underground pipe. While removing the cover of a pipe in the

corner, he saw in the sugar-cane fields in the area of Village Akku Maste

Ke, a dead body of a girl aged 9/10 years and another dead body of a

woman aged 35 years were lying. The child had been strangulated with a

`Dupatta' whereas the woman was found strangulated with the `Salwar'.

The matter was reported to the police. After investigation Sukhdev Singh

(respondent No.2) was tried for having committed the offence underSection

302IPC.    Vide judgment and order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure-P.5)

Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2) has been convicted for the offence underSection 302IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life;

besides to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Against the said

order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure-P.5) Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2)

has filed Criminal Appeal No.144-DB of 2006 which is pending in this
                                            Cr. Appeal No.1150-DB of 2008[3]Court.   In terms of the said order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure-P.5) it has

also inter alia been observed that Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2) had a

pre-plan to get the money amounting to Rs.2,89,500/- withdrawn from the

bank account of Sukhwinder Kaur (deceased) and then eliminate her. The

learned trial Court in terms of its order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure-P.5) has

observed that the accused pre-planned to get money and then to eliminate

Sukhwinder Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur (deceased). It is for this reason that

he (Sukhdev Singh-respondent No.2) suggested that Sukhwinder Kaur

should withdraw the entire amount from her bank account with the State

Bank of India, Makhu and deposit the same with some other bank at

Ferozepur or with some commission agent. Sukhdev Singh (respondent

No.2) being a close relative had suggested this to Sukhwinder Kaur

(deceased) and there was no reason for her not to accept the said proposal.

It was observed that the withdrawal of the amount to the tune of

Rs.2,89,500/- on 29.11.2002 by Sukhwinder Kaur (deceased) from her bank

account with the State Bank of India is proved from the statement of Jaspal

Singh, Manager of the Bank who appeared as PW-14. It was held that the

recovery of Rs.2,76,000/- at the instance of the accused had been

established. The same bundles of currency notes with the Bank seal and

slips were recovered.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Sukhwinder Kaur and Gurvinder

Kaur. It is submitted that the application dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure-P.2)

moved by the appellants before the learned trial Court for withdrawal of the

amount of Rs.2,76,000/-, which is the case property has erroneously been

dismissed in terms of the impugned order. It is also submitted that the
                                                 Cr. Appeal No.1150-DB of 2008[4]appellants had filed an application (Annexure-P.4) underSection 372of the

Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of succession certificate in their

favour in respect of the said amount. The said application (Annexure-P.4)

has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur

vide her order dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure-P.3). Therefore, it is submitted

that the amount of Rs.2,76,000/- be released in their favour.In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the

said amount is the case property and is liable to be retained with the State

till the disposal of the appeal.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed

the prayer of the appellants. It is submitted that a perusal of the impugned

order dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure-P.1) would show that Sukhdev Singh

(respondent No.2) had made a statement to the effect that he sold some land,

the sale proceeds of which were at his home. He claimed the said amount

and had stated that the appellants had no concern with the same. It was

submitted that the amount said to be the case property in fact is the amount

of sale consideration of the land sold by respondent No.2. Therefore, it is

submitted that till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.144-DB of 2006

that has been filed by respondent No.2 against his conviction and sentence

ordered vide order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure-P.5), the amount should be

kept as it is.After giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter

and perusing the record we are of the view that in the facts and

circumstances         it would be just and expedient that the amount of

Rs.2,76,000/- is released in favour of the appellants on their furnishing

surety. It may be noticed that at this stage the learned trial Court vide its
                                             Cr. Appeal No.1150-DB of 2008[5]order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure-P.5) has held Sukhdev Singh (respondent

No.2) guilty for the murder of Sukhwinder Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur. The

motive for the murder has been held to be that Sukhdev Singh (respondent

No.2) had surreptitiously got Sukhwinder Kaur to withdraw the amount of

Rs.2,89,500/- from her bank account with the State Bank of India at Makhu.

The withdrawal of the amount on 29.11.2002 is proved from the deposition

of Jaspal Singh, Manager of the State Bank of India, who appeared as PW-14. In the occurrence of the present case, the dead bodies of Sukhwinder

Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur were found by Shangara Singh informant on

1.12.2002.    The learned trial Court observed that the recovery of

Rs.2,76,000/- at the instance of the accused has been established. The same

bundles of currency notes with the bank seal and slips were recovered.

Therefore, in the face of said findings of the learned trial Court it would be

just and expedient without commenting on the merits of the case which is

subject matter of appeal in Criminal Appeal No.144-DB of 2006 that the

amount of Rs.2,76,000/- is released in favour of the appellants on their

furnishing necessary surety to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge,

Ferozepur.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated

14.5.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur

is set aside and the amount of Rs.2,76,000/- which is the case property, is

ordered to be released in favour of the appellants on their furnishing surety

to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur with an

undertaking to refund the amount in case so ordered in Criminal Appeal

No.144-DB of 2006. It is made clear that any observation made in this

order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
                                            Cr. Appeal No.1150-DB of 2008[6]pending appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.144-DB of 2006 and the same are

only for the purpose of disposing of this appeal for the release of amount of

Rs.2,76,000/-.(S.S. Saron)
                                                             Judge



October 17, 2008.                                         (Sabina)
                                                           Judge
*hsp*


NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No