GURSHARAM SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 10-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE

Judgment (excerpt)

GURSHARAM SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.) 
B 
The India Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 387, 390 and 392-Accused 
committing extortion of money putting the victim in fear of death-Trial Court 
convicting the accused under both Sections 387 and 392-0n Appeal held a 
person cannot be convicted of both the offences, the latter being the aggravated C 
f om1 of the fomier-Offender should have induced the person to deliver money 
then and there--Otherwise Extortion not proveti:-Conviction under Section 
387 upheld and conviction under Section 392 set aside. 
The Te"orist And Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section D 
3-Sentence and conviction upheld. 
The Appellant was prosecuted under S. 387 and S. 392 IPC. The 
appellant had been victim's neighbour earlier. He wrote a letter to the 
victim to pay Rs. 2 lacs for funding terrorist activities or face dire-conse-
quences. Meanwhile, the appellant shifted to some other locality. Later on, E 
the victim met the appellant to negotiate the amount and he was put in 
fear of death by a revolver-wielding man in the company of the appellant 
and asked to pay the amount. Finally a bargain was struck and the amount 
sought was reduced to Rs. 70,000. However, the victim paid only Rs. 
50,000. 
A case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. In 
pursuances of the information provided by the appellant, two bundles of 
currency notes were recovered from his premises. Subsequently, he was 
convicted and sentenced for committing not only Extortion but Robbery as 
F 
well. Hence this appeal. 
G 
The appellant had contended that he was falsely implicated in this 
case, as he had earlier intervened in a fight between the victim and his wife. 
In support of his above defence the appellant examined D~W, 1. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
705 
H 
A 
B 
c 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved 
conclusively on the basis of the recovery of the currency notes from the 
appellant, but the disclosure statement made by the appellant and the 
recovery pursuant thereto substantially corroborate the testimony of the 
victim. [709-D] 
2. Regarding the evidence of D.W. 1, there was no opportunity for the 
appellant to see the victim and his wife fighting in their house as the 
appellant had shifted his residence from their locality at the material time 
and consequently the question of his interventi_on therein could not have arisen. 
Therefore the defence version as given out by D.W. 1 is untrue. [709-E-F] 
; 
3:1. The designated Court was not justified in convicting the appel-
lant of offences both under S. 387 and S. 392 as the latter is an aggravated 
form of the former. [709-G] 
3~~ In the instant case, the victim was not induced to pay the money 
D . on the very day he was put in fear of instant death but a few days later. 
Therefore he cannot be said to have committed Robbery within the mean-
ing of S. 390, IPC for one of the ingredients of this offence is that the 
r 
offender. "induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up 
the thing extorted." The conviction of the appellant under S. 392 IPC for 
E committing robbery is set-aside. The conviction and sentence under Ss. 387 
IPC and 3 of TADA are upheld. (709-H; 710-A-B] 
;, 
F 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
lli~· 
" 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.6.93 of the Addi. Judge 
Designated Court, Amritsar in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1991. 
R.S. Sodhi for the Appellant. 
R.S. Y adave for R.S. Suri for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
... ! 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. By his judgment and order dated June 12, 
1993 the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar convicted 'and 
sentenced the appellant under Sections 387 and 392 IPC and Section 3 of 
H the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA' for 
' 
..., 
GURSHARAN SINGH v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.) 
707 
short). Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal under A 
Section 19 of TADA. 
The case of the prosecution is as under : 
2(a), Nirmal Singh carries on business in silver ornaments and lives with B 
his wife Kuldip Kaur in Gali No. 1, Tej Nagar, Amritsar. Formerly the 
appellant was a resident of the same locality and was known to Nirmal 
Singh. In or about the month of June, 1990 Nirmal Singh received a letter 
from th

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