HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 21-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 334 
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2539of2014) 
NOVEMBEK21, 2016 
[A.K. SIKRI AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I860: ss.364A, 395, 4I2, 47I, I20B- Conspiracy 
and abduction for ransom and detaining victim under threat to cause 
C death or hurt - Conviction by courts below - Challenged - Held: 
Evidence of victim as a whole was truthful - His elaborate testimony 
not only projected the stage-wise developments following his 
abduction till his release, the same remained unshaken substantially 
even by his cross-examination - Evidence adduced vis-a-vis the 
stage-wise recovery of the currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda 
D City car etc. from the successive disclosures made by the accused 
persons also established their complicity in the offence - Apart 
from the fact that there was nothing convincing on record to even 
infer any false implication of the accused persons, the mere omission 
on the part of the victim to mention at the first instance the name of 
E appellant, having regard to the charge of conspiracy and the 
concerted steps, to actualise the same was 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 
F - In the face of overall evidence on record, the purported deficiencies 
do not at all detract from the veracity of the prosecution case -
Having regard to the proved facts, the prosecution was able to prove 
the charges levelled against the appellants - No interference with 
the conviction order called for. 
G 
H 
s. I 20-B - Conspiracy - Elements of - Held: Conspiracy 
requires an act i.e. actus reus and an accompanying mental state 
i.e. mens rea - Whereas the agreement constitutes the act, the 
intention to achieve the unlawful objectives of the agreement 
comprises the required mental state - Qua a charge of conspiracy, 
it is not necessary that all the conspirators should know each 
334 
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
335 
and every detail of the plot so long as they are co-participators in 
A 
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. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. Admittedly, the only eye witness to the actual 
act of abduction is the victim himself. The statement made by 
the victim (PWl) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though had outlined 
the whole incident in the bare essentials, his version under 
Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at the trial are adequately elaborate to c 
project the whole gamut of the development, commencing 
from his forcible abduction till his release. There is as such no 
mutually mutilative inconsistency in the three renditions of his, 
so as to render the prosecution case untrustworthy and 
discardable on all counts. No doubt, the victim in his statements 
under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not specifically name the D 
appellant 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. He might have omitted to name 
the appellant, as he might be have been in a bewildered and 
E 
perplexed state of mind at the relevant point of time. In the 
face of the other overwhelming evidence and materials on record, 
nothing much turns thereon in favour of the defence. [Para 
8][356-A-DJ 
2. The progression of events as unveiled by the testimony, 
F 
in particular of the victim and supported by his father PW2, reveals 
that the first caller to initiate the negotiations for the land deal to 
which victim was drawn, was Gurinder Singh@ Ginda. The victim 
in his deposition has in details narrated the developments which 
indicate the keenness on the part of the negotiators to entrap 
the victim in the bargain, by gradually building his confidence in 
G 
the same and in the proponents. [Para 8)[356-E-FJ 
3. Th~ evidence of the victim (PWl) as a whole, is truthful, 
having regard to the details provided with accompanying clarity 
and conviction. His elaborate testimony has remained unshaken 
H 
336 
A 
8 
c 
0 
E 

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