BALDEV SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 20-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 547 
BALDEV SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No.1303 of 2005 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 302 read with s. 120-B - Police party picking up 7 c 
members of complainant's family - Victims did not return -
Conviction by courts below u/ss 364, 452, 120-B and 302 -
Held: Evidence adduced is that the seven persons abducted 
by appellants were seen in different police stations and also 
in residential quarters near the police station -
On this 
0 
evidence, court cannot hold that the two appellants have killed 
the seven abducted persons only because they have not been 
traced or are found missing -
No material has been placed 
before the court to establish that the last police station in which 
the seven persons or any of them were kept was under the 
E 
control of the appellants -
In absence of such evidence, the 
finding of guilt recorded by courts below u/s. 302 against 
appellants, was not correct either on facts or on law -
Therefore, conviction of appellants u/s. 302 read with s. 120-
B is set aside. 
ss. 364 and 452 - Seven members of a family picked 
up by police party - Victims did not return - Held: It has been 
established that appellants had gone to the house of 
complainant in the early morning and picked up 7 members 
F 
of his family - Therefore, conviction of appellants u/ss 364 
G 
and 452 was rightly maintained by High Court- The sentence 
of three years with fine uls 452 is maintained - However, in 
the facts of the case, keeping in view l/lustration (h) to 
s.220(1)CrPC, as seven persons had been abducted by 
547 
H 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A appellants, they were guilty of seven offences and should be 
punished for each of these offences u/s. 364 -
Therefore, it 
is directed that the fine of Rs.40001- as imposed by trial court 
and the period of rigorous imprisonment of five years will be 
for each of the seven offences of abduction and the five years 
B rigorous imprisonment for each of the seven offences of 
abduction will run consecutively and not concurrently - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.220(1), /11.(h). 
Delay!Laches: 
C 
Delay in lodging of FIR - Held: Delay in lodging of FIR 
often results in embellishment as well as the introduction of 
a distorted version of what may have actually happened, but 
the facts of each case have to be examined to find out 
whether the delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to prosecution 
D case -
In the instant case, there is enough evidence of the 
fact that complainant was afraid of lodging the complaint to 
local police station which was under the control of one of the 
.. accused-appellants - Delay of 2 months and 21 days in 
lodging the FIR has been explained by the facts and the 
E evidence adduced - FIR. 
Delay in recording statements uls 161 CrPC - Held: 
Complainant in the very first complaint had named the 
appellants as the persons who raided their house and picked 
up seven members of his family, and therefore, the fact that 
F there was considerable delay of two years from the date of 
lodging the FIR in recording of statements of witnesses does 
not make their evidence in this regard doubtful. 
G 
Evidence: 
Witness at enmity with accused - Evidence of -
Held: 
Testimony .of such a witness has to be carefully scrutinized 
by the court before it is accepted, but only on account of 
enmity, court cannot discard evidence of the witness 
H a/together. 
BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
549 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
ss.161 and 162, Explanation -
Improvements in 
deposition of witness over his statement u/s 161 - Held: In 
view of Explanation to s. 162, unless the omission in the 
statement recorded uls. 161 of a witness is significant having 
8 
regard to the context in which the omission occurs, it will not 
amount to a contradiction to the evidence of the witness 
recorded in court - In the instant case, courts below rightly 
considered the omissions as not material omissions 
amounting to contradictions covered by the Explanation to 
C 
s.162. 
The appellants (a DSP and a constable of police) and 
9 others were prosecuted for commiting offences 
punishable u/ss. 120-8, 148, 452, 364, 365, 302 read with 
s. 120-8 ands. 201, IPC. The prosecution case was that 
D 
on 29-10-1991 at about 5:00 am, the appellants and other 
policemen raided the house of the complainant (PW 13) 
and picked up seven members of his family, who 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.