This Article has been written by Ms. Karishma Singh , a 2nd year B.A LL.B student from Lloyd Law College
Case Title : Ravinder Kumar and Anr vs State of Punjab on 31st August, 2001
Petitioner : Ravinder Kumar and Anr
Versus
Respondent : State of Punjab
Date of Judgement : 31 / 08 / 2001
Case Details :
A railroad burial was planned to dispose of the body of a Ludhiana business broker. The coffin that was made for that purpose was disguised as a container for shipping packages to a faraway location. However, due to the foul odor of some Parcel Service Center employees, the parcel was unable to be placed in the railway bogie. The doubt prompted the disinterring of a choked body which was subsequently distinguished to be that of the previously mentioned business merchant. In the end it prompted the identification of an organized homicide committed by the appellants. In addition to the offenses of abducting the business broker and destroying the evidence, the appellants were found guilty by the trial court of murder. On the main count, they were given a life sentence, and on the other two counts, they were given shorter sentences. According to the judgment that is currently being challenged, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Facts :
In their house in Ludhiana, the late Amar Kumar Gupta and his wife Veena were living with their two young daughters, Sonia and Dimple. He was relying on the commissions he received from business dealings with hosiery product manufacturers to support himself. It would appear that the two appellants were Ludhiana-based manufacturers of hosiery products, and the manufacturing company’s name was “M/s. Kapoor Knitting, Harbans Pura,” and they had hired the deceased to act as a broker for the sale of their company’s products. By way of brokerage, the appellant owed approximately one lakh rupees to the deceased.
Now the prosecution narrative can be told simultaneously. On 2.2.1994 the litigant visited the place of the departed at around 11 A.M. what’s more, they had a discussion, probably about the financier guaranteed by the departed or because of him. The deceased was asked to accompany the appellants so that the accounts could be settled quickly. The deceased accepted the offer and joined them. He rode on a bike alongside Mohan Lal Jain (PW-8) who was a direct relation. As they got closer to the location where the appellants had passed away, PW-8, who was eager to return to his own work, was relieved.
The two appellants killed the deceased by strangling him with a ligature at some point during the day, but the specifics of what happened after that are unknown. The body was packed in a wooden container. They wrote “To self-Arun Goel;” on the top of a gunny bag that it was wrapped in. New Delhi, G-1.” To get the container to the parcel service center next to the Ludhiana Railway Station, they hired a rickshaw puller. PW-5 Daya Ram, a rickshaw puller, picked up the load from M/s. Kapoor Knitting and brought it to the aforementioned parcel service center in his rickshaw. The container was dumped from the vehicle to the package working by the cart puller with the assistance of the two appellants and someone else.
After that, the two appellants went to PW-11, one of the partners of a parcel service company, to get him to book the goods for delivery to New Delhi. Even though it was 4.30 p.m., they found out that the next goods train from that station would only leave on the next day. PW-11, on the other hand, agreed that the goods would be shipped the following day. However, when the Parcel Supervisor weighed the load, which weighed 152 kilograms, He noticed something odd about it. However, both appellants had already left the scene by that point. As a result, the box was kept outside the Parcel Office. Perhaps the parcel section employees were concerned about the suspicious nature of the load and wanted to know what was inside the container.
The Chief Parcel Supervisor reported the suspicious container at their office to the police on April 4, 1994. When the police arrived, the container was opened, and everyone was shocked to see a dead body stuffed inside the box with its legs tied with a string and a ligature around its neck. The body was found wrapped in black glazed paper, and the box was wrapped in a gunny bag on which, as previously mentioned, the address of the package was written. The examination was held by PW-17 Boota Smash who was the Station House Official, General Rail line Police headquarters (GRPS), Ludhiana.
Since neither of the accused nor the appellants were on the scene, the police assigned a guard to the accused’s residence. Ravinder Kumar, the first appellant, went back to his house on 11.2.1994, but he realized that he was under suspicion by the police when he saw that officers were nearby. He then took off from the spot. He swallowed some poison on the way, but he was admitted to the CMC Hospital in Ludhiana before he could die. After receiving his discharge from the hospital on February 25, 1999, he was taken into custody by the police.
Litigant Surinder Kumar was captured regarding another case on 2.5.1994 by the Jind Police. Aft
er formally arresting appellant Surinder Kumar in connection with this case, PW-17 Boota Ram went to that station after learning of his arrest and took over his custody.
Contentions :
The conflict connects with the proof of PW-5 Daya Smash (cart puller). He recalled the two appellants who drew in him to convey the heap in his cart up to the rail line station. The scribbles on the wooden box in which the load was packed also helped him identify it. The argument is that even a rickshaw puller like PW5 cannot remember who specifically hired him to carry a particular load on a particular day after several days have passed. This argument ignores the psychological phenomenon that human memory is frequently a conditioned trait. Anything which has any unique or exceptional lineament can make an effect on the human brain going on for a really long time. Even though it’s possible for a man to forget things that happen on a regular basis in his life, odd or bizarre things that happen to him or in front of him tend to stay with him forever. Assuming there is any reason for him to remember such occasions again they get revived once more. When asked to recount such events, he is able to do so in full detail. This applies to all observers in criminal cases including serious offenses. Typically, no porter or rickshaw puller could recall who or what he had previously carried. However, assuming the conveying of a heap on a specific day was before long followed by the blaze of hair-raising news in the territory – that the heap contained the cadaver of a killed individual, the natural response of the transporter is to become curious to know whether it was in regard of the heap which he, at the end of the day, conveyed. It is highly likely that he would recall all of the vivid details of that event if his curiosity had turned positive. This would not have been a typical occurrence for him, but it would have been extremely odd and strange. As a result, it is unlikely to vanish from his mind’s eye. The mere fact that the witness could not remember the identities of the people who hired him or the load he carried after a long period of time would not be enough to discredit his testimony. We, thusly, repulse such dispute.
The next argument is that the prosecution failed to prove its motive, leaving the question unanswered as to what prompted them to liquidate the broker. It is without a doubt the prosecution’s claim that the appellants owed Rs. one lakh to the deceased, and the prosecution may not have been able to prove that aspect to the hilt. Regardless a few materials were delivered for showing that there were exchanges between the appellants and the departed and that they had a record to be settled. It was only possible to establish this point, and nothing more. It is usually impossible for the prosecution to demonstrate exactly what motivated the murderers to kill a specific person. In many cases, the prosecution could only point to the possible mental factor that could have been the reason for the murder. In this regard, we believe it would be helpful to refer to the following observations made by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jeet Singh (1999 (4) SCC 370):
“It is without a doubt a sound principle to keep in mind that every criminal act was committed with a purpose, but its corollary is not that no criminal act would have been committed if the prosecution failed to demonstrate the precise motive of the accused to commit it. The prosecution’s inability to further document the manner in which the accused’s ire would have swelled up in his mind to the point where it would have compelled him to commit the crime cannot be construed as a fatal flaw. However, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the accused may have felt resentment toward the victim. The prosecution is almost unable to decipher the full scope of an offender’s mental disposition toward the person he offended.”
Judgement:
This Court’s earlier decision in Nathuni Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1998 (9) SCC 238), which addressed the same issue, has been cited, and a portion of that decision has been extracted. Because the prosecution is unable to fully demonstrate the motive aspect, we are therefore unable to shift the course of events.
We therefore deny this appeal.
References :
Case ; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jeet Singh (1999 (4) SCC 370):
Case ; Nathuni Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1998 (9) SCC 238),