Ranbir Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2010 Latest Caselaw 3348 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Judgment delivered on: July 19, 2010

+      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 947/2004

       MUKESH KUMAR                                        ....APPELLANT
              Through:               Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate.

                             Versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                  .....RESPONDENT
               Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, APP

                                          WITH

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 951/2004

       1.     THAKUR VIRENDER SINGH
       2.     DAVID LAL
                                                            ....APPELLANTS

                      Through:       Ms.   Nitika     Sharma,    Advocate     for
                                     Appellant No.   1.
                                     Mr. Bharat       Bhushan,   Advocate    for
                                     Appellant No.   2.


                             Versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                  .....RESPONDENT
               Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, APP

                                          WITH

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40/2005

       RANBIR SINGH                            ....APPELLANT
                Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate with
                         Mr. Vishwajeet Singh & Mr. Shishir Mathur,
                         Advocate.

                             Versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                  .....RESPONDENT
               Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, APP
Crl.A.Nos. 947/2004, 951/2004 & 40/2005                                Page 1 of 9
         CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be
       reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J. (ORAL)

1. Above referred three appeals are directed against the impugned

judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 03.12.1998 in

Sessions Case No.96/01 arising out of FIR no.309/98 under Section

306/330/342/34 IPC P.S. Mangol Puri, in terms of which the learned trial

Judge found the appellants David Lal, Thakur Virender Singh, Raj Singh,

Mukesh Kumar and Ranbir Singh guilty of the offences punishable

under Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as well as Section 330

IPC and sentenced them accordingly in terms of the order on sentence

dated 04.12.2004.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 03.04.1998, a

telephonic information was received at P.S. Mangol Puri that one boy

has committed suicide by hanging himself at House No. E-59-60, Vijay

Vihar. This information was recorded as DD No.15 at the Police Station

and copy of the DD report was entrusted to SI Rajesh Rathi for

verification. SI Rajesh Rathi reached at the spot of occurrence and

there he met PW Deepak, brother of the deceased and recorded his

statement.

3. Deepak in his statement disclosed that the deceased Kanwar Pal

@ Bunty was his brother. Kanwar Pal was friendly with one Sonu. On

31.03.1998, said Sonu and one another boy Gorey who had failed in

class 8th examination, went missing. On 02.04.1998 at about 12:00 in

the afternoon, appellant Ranbir, father of Sonu along with the

appellants David Lal and Thakur Virender Singh visited the house of the

complainant and took the deceased KanwarPal @ Bunty and one Dabu

with them, accusing that they had hidden away Sonu. The deceased

and Dabu were taken to the office of a property dealer Rajey Pradhan

where both of them were given severe beating. Deepak further

claimed that at around 9:00 pm on 02.04.1998, the deceased came

back and told that appellant David Lal and one Cementwala had given

him beating to elicit information about the whereabouts of Sonu. On

03.04.1998 when the parents of the deceased had gone to their

respective workplaces, at about 11:30 am, the deceased Kanwar Pal @

Bunty asked Deepak to go outside and bolt the door of the house from

outside. Deepak thus went to play. Half an hour later, when he

returned, he found the man from Gas Agency who had come to deliver

gas cylinder so he asked the deceased Kanwar Pal to open the door.

The deceased, instead of opening the door, asked Deepak to call their

mother. So Deepak went to call his mother from Mother Devion Public

School. When Deepak and his mother returned to the house, they

found the door was closed from inside. They got suspicious and

peeped through the window and found that the deceased Kanwar Pal

was hanging from the ceiling fan. SI Rajesh Rathi is claimed to have

found a suicide note lying on the bed on which it was written "Maine

Sonu Ko Nahi Bhagaya. Mere Jeete Tumne Yakin Nahi Kara. Mere

Marne Par Yakin Kar Lena. Bunty".

4. On the basis of this statement, a case under Section 306/330/342

IPC was registered. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet

against the appellants as well as Raj Singh was filed.

5. The learned Additional Sessions, on consideration of the material

collected during investigation, charged the appellants as well as Raj

Singh for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC, Section 330 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342

read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants as well as Raj Singh pleaded

not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants as well as Raj

Singh, prosecution examined 14 witnesses, including the complainant,

parents of the deceased, PW2 Harkesh and PW5 Govind @ Dabu. After

conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, statements of the

accused persons were recorded in which they claimed that they were

innocent and they did not have any hand in the death of the of the

deceased KanwarPal. Accused Raj Singh examined one witness Rishi

Pal in his defence. The appellants did not lead evidence in defence.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of

evidence on record and the statements made on behalf of the

appellants found them guilty of having committed the offence

punishable under Section 342/34 IPC as also Section 330/34 IPC and

convicted them accordingly. The learned trial Judge, however,

acquitted the appellants on charge under Section 306 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC.

8. In terms of the order dated 04.12.2004, the appellants were

sentenced to pay a fine Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section

342/34 IPC with the direction that in default of payment of fine, they

shall undergo RI for the period of two months each respectively. As

regards the charge under Section 330/34 IPC, the appellants were

sentenced to undergo RI for the period of four years each and also to

pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to

undergo RI for the period of six months respectively.

9. Learned Shri Bharat Bhushan, advocate appearing for the

appellants Mukesh Kumar and David Lal, Ms. Nitika Sharma, advocate

appearing for the appellant Thakur Virender Singh and learned Shri

Mohit Mathur, advocate appearing for the appellant Ranbir Singh, on

the instructions from the appellants who are present in the court,

conceded their challenge to their conviction for the charge under

Section342/34 IPC. They submitted that the appellants give up their

grounds of challenge in appeal so far as the conviction of Section 342

IPC read with Section 34 IPC is concerned. They, however, have

challenged their conviction for the offence punishable under Section

330 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

10. As regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence

punishable under Section 330 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the learned

counsels appearing on behalf of the respective appellants have argued

on almost similar lines. They have submitted that prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 330 IPC

against the appellants or anyone of them, as such their conviction

under Section 330 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is not sustainable.

11. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that as per the case

of the prosecution, the appellants had wrongfully confined the

deceased and caused him hurt with a view to extort from him

information relating to missing son of the appellant Ranbir Singh,

whereas there is no evidence on record to suggest that any offence

relating to Sonu S/o Ranbir Singh having gone missing had actually

taken place. Thus, learned counsels for the appellants have strongly

contended that most essential ingredient of Section 330 IPC is missing

in this case and as such the conviction of the appellants for the said

offence with the aid of Section 34 IPC is unwarranted.

12. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has argued in

support of the impugned judgment. He submitted that from the

evidence on record, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able

to establish that the deceased Kanwar Pal @ Bunty was beaten by the

appellants with a view to extort information about Sonu S/o appellant

Ranbir Singh. As such Section 330 IPC has been rightly invoked by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge by returning a finding of conviction

against the appellants.

13. In order to properly appreciate the submissions made on behalf

of the appellants, it would be useful to have a look on Section 330 of

the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus:

"Section 330 - Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property.-- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".

14. Bare reading of above referred provision of law reveals that

Section 330 IPC has been provided in the Penal Code with the object of

preventing use of third degree methods by the police/investigating

officers or someone on their behest for extorting confession or

information regarding commission of offence from the suspect or from

any other person interested in the person suspected of commission of

an offence. The basic ingredients which the prosecution required to

prove to bring home the charge under Section 330 IPC are :

(a) That the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the victim/sufferer;

(b) The hurt was caused with the purpose of extorting confession or information from the victim/sufferer;

(c) That the information is of such a nature, which would have lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct.

15. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellants had given

beating to the deceased KanwarPal, who committed suicide, with a

view to extort information about the whereabouts of Sonu. Apparently,

no case has been registered by the police under any provision of law in

respect of any offence committed in relation to Sonu S/o Ranbir Singh

having gone missing on 31.03.1998. Ex.PW14/H is DD No.24 recorded

at the Police Station Mangol Puri on the information given by grand-

father of Braham Singh @ Sonu on 02.04.1998. As per this DD report,

it is apparent that vide this report, the police was informed that Sonu

had gone missing since 31.03.98 and on enquiry from one Dabu and

Bunty @ KanwarPal, the informant had come to know that Sonu had

gone to Vaishno Devi. There is not even a whisper of any offence

having been committed or suspected in relation to Sonu having gone

missing. It is not the case of the prosecution that even after the

missing report Ex.PW14/H, any complaint regarding any offence in

respect of Sonu having gone missing was registered at the Police

Station. Thus, it is obvious that the missing of Sonu has no connection

whatsoever with commission of any offence. When no offence was

committed, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the

deceased Kanwar Pal was hurt by the appellants with a view to extort

information from him regarding commission of any offence. Thus, it is

obvious that the most essential ingredient of Section 330 IPC is not

satisfied in this case, as such I find that the learned trial Judge has

erred in appreciating the above provision of law. Therefore, I find it

difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 330

IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

16. Accordingly, I partly accept the appeal and set aside the

conviction of the appellants on the charge under Section 330 read with

Section 34 IPC while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the

appellants for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC.

17. It is stated that the appellants have deposited the fine imposed

upon them in respect of charge under Section 342 IPC.

18. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JULY 19, 2010 pst/akb