2016 (11) TMI 1506 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds conviction for abduction conspiracy and arms possession. Witness testimonies crucial. Accused identified by victim.

The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 364A, 395, 412, 471, 120B IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution ... Offence under Sections 364, 364A/34 IPC r/w Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act - victim of kidnapping - realisation of ransom - Held that: - There is as such no mutually mutative inconsistency in the three renditions of his, so as to render the prosecution case untrustworthy and discardable on all counts. True, it is that the victim in his statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not specifically name Harpal Singh @ Chhota, while naming the other abductors who were the occupants as well of the Honda City car in the dickey of which he was abducted, he did identify and involve this appellant/accused during his testimony at the trial. Not only, in our comprehension, it is likely that in his bewildered and perplexed state of mind at the relevant point of time, he might have omitted to name Harpal Singh @ Chhota, in the face of the other overwhelming evidence and materials on record, nothing much turns thereon in favour of the defence. The evidence of the victim (PW1) as a whole, in our estimate, is truthful, having regard to the details provided with accompanying clarity and conviction. His elaborate testimony not only has projected the stage-wise developments following his abduction till his release, the same has remained unshaken substantially even by his cross- examination. This witness not only had the opportunity of seeing his abductors but also had heard their exchanges by referring to their nick names. He was in their company and under their surveillance for almost two days in course whereof they not only interacted with him but also had closely followed his conversion with his father on more than one occasion on the aspect of ransom - Apart from the fact that there is nothing convincing on record to even infer any false implication of the accused persons, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the mere omission on the part of the victim to mention at the first instance the name of appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota, having regard to the charge of conspiracy and the concerted steps, to actualise the same is of no fatal bearing on the prosecution case, more particularly he having named/identified him at the trial as one of the perpetrators of the offence. In this perspective, the omission on the part of the investigating agency to hold the TIP is not fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The above purported deficiencies do not at all detract from the veracity of the prosecution case. 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 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the conviction under Sections 364A, 395, 412, 471, and 120B IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.2. Admissibility and reliability of evidence, including call details and witness testimonies.3. Identification of the accused and the validity of their involvement in the crime.4. Compliance with legal procedures during the investigation and trial.5. The defense's claim of political vendetta and false implication.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Conviction:The appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 364A, 395, 412, 471, 120B IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court upheld the conviction, noting that the prosecution had successfully established the involvement of the accused in the conspiracy to abduct the victim for ransom. The court emphasized that the evidence, including witness testimonies and recoveries, supported the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.2. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:The defense argued that the call details were inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court acknowledged this issue, stating, 'the prosecution has failed to adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section 65B(4) of the Act.' Despite this, the court concluded that the overall evidence, including witness testimonies and recoveries, was sufficient to prove the charges even without the call details.3. Identification of the Accused:The defense questioned the identification of the accused, particularly Harpal Singh @ Chhota, arguing that the victim did not name him in initial statements. The court found that the victim's testimony at trial, where he identified the accused, was credible. The court noted, 'the omission on the part of the victim to mention at the first instance the name of appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota... is of no fatal bearing on the prosecution case.'4. Compliance with Legal Procedures:The defense contended that the investigation and trial procedures were flawed, including the lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The court held that the absence of a TIP was not fatal to the prosecution's case, given the overwhelming evidence. The court stated, 'the omission on the part of the investigating agency to hold the TIP is not fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case.'5. Defense's Claim of Political Vendetta:The defense claimed that the appellants were falsely implicated due to political vendetta. The court dismissed this argument, finding no convincing evidence to support the claim. The court noted that the evidence, including recoveries and witness testimonies, pointed to the appellants' involvement in the crime.Conclusion:The court upheld the conviction and sentences of the appellants, finding that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeals, stating, 'Both the courts below have analysed the evidence in the correct perspectives... no interference is called for with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against them.' The registry was directed to transmit the original record to the Trial Court immediately.