NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL

CRIMINAL LAW -1

TRIMESTER 5

AN ANALYSIS OF HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA VS STATE OF PUNJAB

21 November, 2016

Submitted to: Sumitted by:

Ms. Divya Salim Himanshu Ahirwar

2018 BALLB 88

Page 1 of 15
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................................3
MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................................................................................................... 4
ISSUE-......................................................................................................................................................5
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETIONER ................................................................................................... 6
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT .............................................................................................9
INTERPRETATION OF LAW ..................................................................................................................... 10
CONCRETE JUDGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 12
ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................... 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Page 2 of 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people .I would like to
acknowledge and extent my heartfelt gratitude to Director (DR.) V. Vijaykumar and Ms Divya
salim for guiding me throughout the development of this paper into a coherent whole by
providing helpful insight and sharing their brilliant expertise .I would also like to thank the
official of the Gyanmandir library ,NLIU BHOPAL for helping me to find the appropriate
research material for this study.I am deep indebted to my parent ,senior and friend for all the
moral support and encouragement.

Page 3 of 15
MATERIAL FACTS

1- An incident was reported to SHO that a person was abducted by four people in a car.
2- After the abduction of the person they kept him in one of the appellant’s house and asked
for ransom from his father.
3- During investigation a .32 revolver of victim was found in appellant’s house. In another
house of the appellant huge amount of cash with arms and live cartridges were recovered.

Page 4 of 15
ISSUE-

1- Whether there was a criminal conspiracy?

2- In what circumstances the electronic evidences are admissible?
3- Whether there was an involvement of Harpal Singh @ Chota in the commission of the
abduction?

Page 5 of 15
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETIONER
1- Arguing for the appellant the counsel urged that having regard to the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the complicity of the accused Harpal Singh @
Chota remains unproved.According to him, the charge of this accused being either a
part of the alleged conspiracy or a partner in the execution thereof, is belied by th
materials on record.

2- The learned senior counsel has maintained that the sequence of events, as sought to
be unfolded by the prosecution, warrant that the roles of the accused persons
allegedly involved be analysed individually in order to determine the nature
and extent of their involvement.

3- He asserted that not only the evidence forthcoming after the arrest of Harpal Singh @
Chhota together with the recovery of cash or fire arm and the Honda City car does not
in any way establish any nexus with him and the crime perpetrated, the calls details of
the cell phones said to have been involved are per se inadmissible in evidence in the
face of apparent non-compliance of the mandatory prescriptions of Section 65B of the
Act.

4- The learned senior counsel underlined that the finger prints collected from the Honda
City car did not match with that of any of the accused persons sent up for trial and in
absence of the TIP, their identity, as participants in the offence, has also
remained unproved.
5- The learned senior counsel was particularly emphatic on the aspect that the
victim noticeably did not either name or refer to the appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota
in his statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which were the earliest in
point of time, to be one of his abductors and that he sought to improve on him by
naming him
only at the trial.

Page 6 of 15
 6- The learned senior counsel maintained as well that the inexplicable omission on the
part of the prosecution to examine Chetan Chopra, the friend of the victim, who had
accompanied him in the first round of discussion on the land deal, laid as a preface
according to the prosecution, culminating in the abduction, renders the charge,
doubtful.

7- The examination of the appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
had been general and omnibus without laying the specific
incriminating circumstances against him, thus, denying him the opportunity to explain
the same. On this count as well, the impugned conviction is unsustainable in law and
is liable to be set-aside, he urged.

8- The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Anvar
P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others, 2014(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 504 : 2014(5) Recent
Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 459 : (2014) 10 SCC 473.

9- The learned senior counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2015 in
supplementation repudiated the testimony of the victim in particular in
identifying appellant Sukhmeet @ Deputy to be one of his abductors. He has urged
that it having been admitted by the victim that the appellant Sukhmeet was
known to him from before the incident, reference about him by his nick-name
Deputy, renders his testimony to this effect wholly untrustworthy.

10- The learned senior counsel has similarly dismissed the recovery/seizure of currency
notes, fire-arms and the Honda City car in particular, as unworthy of any reliance or
significance, besides being effected without adhering to the legally
prescribed procedure, therefor. Referring to the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 in
particular, about the seizure of cash from the house of Jarnail Singh, the father
of appellant Sukhmeet Singh, Mr. Prasad has insisted that this amount had no nexus
at all with the
ransom money, said to have been paid.

Page 7 of 15
 11- According to the learned senior counsel, the prosecution has utterly failed to adduce
unimpeachable evidence to establish the culpability of the appellants and thus
the
impugned decision, as a whole, is liable to be set at naught.

Page 8 of 15
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1- Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State, has maintained that the evidence
adduced when considered in entirety, does establish the indictment against all the accused
persons convicted, beyond all reasonable doubt.
2- He urged that the prosecution has been successful in substantiating the involvement of
the accused persons in the nefarious and willful design of theirs to abduct the victim for
ransom and having regard to the gravity of the proved offences, no interference is called
for.
3- In particular, he has contended that the defence having failed in its endeavor to de-link
the currency notes, seized from the house of Jarnail Singh, the father of the
appellant
Sukhmeet Singh from the ransom money paid, he is not entitled to any benefit there from.

Page 9 of 15
INTERPRETATION OF LAW

Section 364A of IPC

Kidnapping for ransom, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person
in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such
person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to
death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or 2[any
foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person] to do or
abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 395 of IPC

Punishment for dacoity.—Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for
life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Section 412 of IPC

Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.—Whoever

dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has
reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly
receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have
belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have
been stolen, shall be punished with
1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 471 of IPC

Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].—Whoever fraudulently

or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has
reason
Page 10 of 15
to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner
as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].

Section of 120B

Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with

death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,
shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

Page 11 of 15
CONCRETE JUDGEMENT
The evidence relating to electronic record being a special provision, the general law on
secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to
yield thereto. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form of secondary evidence
cannot be admitted in evidence unless the requirements of Section 65B are satisfied. This
conclusion of ours is inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65A and
65B of the Act as above. 12 Be that as it may, on an overall assessment of the entire gamut of
evidence, we are of the comprehension that the charges against the accused persons including the
appellants stand proved beyond reasonable doubt even sans the call details. To reiterate,
the gravamen of the imputations levelled against them is that of conspiracy and abduction
of the victim pursuant thereto for ransom by detaining him under the threat to cause death or
hurt and thereby to compel his father to meet their demand.

Conspiracy is a clandestine activity and by the sheer nature thereof, an agreement to that effect
can rarely be established by direct proof and must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of
cooperation between the conspirators. It has been enunciated that conspiracy is not only a
substantive crime but also serves as a basis for holding one person liable for the crime of others
where application of the usual doctrines of complicity would not render that person liable and
thus the test of the role of a co-conspirator would be decisively significant in determining the
liability of the others in the face of the supervening fact that the crime was performed as a part of
a larger division of labour to which the accused had also contributed his efforts. Qua the
admissibility of evidence, it was proclaimed that loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial
and contrary to the usual role, in conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one
conspirator made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible
against each co- conspirator. It was thus ruled that conspirators are liable on an agency theory
by the statements of co- conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by
their confreres

Having regard to the proved facts and the state of law, adverted to hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against
the
appellants. Both the courts below have analysed the evidence in the correct perspectives and in
Page 12 of 15
the face of the conclusions recorded on the different aspects of the imputations levelled against
them, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment
of
conviction and sentence recorded against them.

Page 13 of 15
ANALYSIS
For proving a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each and
every detail of the conspiracy so long as they are co-participators in the main object of
conspiracy. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception
of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object or purpose, all participating at different stages
of the crime will be guilty of conspiracy.” As would be patent from the above excerpt that qua a
charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators should know each and
every detail of the plot so long as they are co-participators in the main object thereof and it is also
not necessary that all of them should participate from the inception of the stratagem till the end,
the determinative factor, being unity of object or purpose and their participation at different
stages. Such is therefore the encompassing sweep of culpability of an offence of conspiracy, if
proved, even from the established attendant circumstances.

It is unnecessary, in view of such a settled propounded legal postulation to multiply authorities

on the point. Suffice it to state in the backdrop of the state of law on the admissibility of
the information of a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer so far
as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, the irresistible conclusion in the facts of the
case in hand is that the disclosures made by the accused persons leading to the recoveries and
seizures are indeed relevant facts in support of the charge levelled against them.

It is no longer res integra that the “fact discovered” as envisaged under Section 27 of the Act, in
consequence of any information received from a person in the custody of a police
officer, embraces the place from which any object is produced and the knowledge of the accused
as to this provided the information given relate distinctively to the fact, as had been held by the
Privy Council in Pullukuri Kotayya and others vs. King Emperror, AIR 1947 PC 67. This
enunciation, hallowed by time, has been oft quoted with approval by this Court in a plethora of
subsequent
pronouncements while interpreting the scope and purport of the above legal provision.

Page 14 of 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10360544/
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5833221b53bee73114398127
- INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860

Page 15 of 15