HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                             [2016) 8 S.C.R. 334



A                      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA
                                      v.
                            STATE OF PUNJAB
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2539of2014)
B                          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          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
H
                                   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            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     substantially even by his cross-examination. This witness not only
      had the opportunity of seeing his abductors but also had heard
      their exchanges by referring to their nick names. He was in their
      company and under their surveillance for almost two days in
      course whereof they not only interacted with him but also had
      closely followed his conversation with his father on more than
 8
      one occasion on the aspect of ransom. Apart from the fact that
      there is 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
      appellant, having regard to the charge of conspiracy and the
c     concerted steps, to actualise the same is 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. In the face of the overall evidence on record, the
 0
      purported deficiencies do not at all detract from the veracity of
      the prosecution case. [Para 8][356-G-H; 357-A-D]
          4. The evidence adduced vis-a-vis the stage wise recovery
   of the currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda City car etc. from
   the successive disclosures made by the accused persons also
 E establish their complicity in the offence. The testimony of the
   witnesses to the above effect authenticate that the procedure
   prescribed by law for effecting such seizures had been complied
   with. The factum of each discovery based on the disclosures of
   the accused persons is not only a relevant fact under Section 27
 F of the Act but also noticeably has not been very seriously disputed
   by the defence. These seized articles have been produced and
   identified in the court by the witnesses as well. The testimony
   of the lenders and that of PW14 in particular, identifying some of
   the packets of the currency notes by the initials or the names as
   labelled by him also cannot be lightly ignored. PW2, the father
 G of the victim, apart from stating generally about the abduction
   of his son and his release has however in minutest details
   described the particulars of the ransom calls received and his
   desperate endeavours to collect the amount to the extent possible
   within the dead line of time to save his son in distress. The
 H
      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                          337


witnesses examined by the prosecution as the lenders of different       A
amounts not only were referred to by this witness in his
deposition, to reiterate they also endorsed to have responded to
his clarion call. [Para 8)[357-E-H]
      5. Having regard to the captivity of a period of almost two
days, it is natural that the victim must have had sufficient             B
opportunity to note their features to enable him to identify them
even by their looks at a later point of time. That the abductors,
during the relevant time, had intimidated the victim as well as
his father that if the ransom amount demanded is not paid in time,
the hostage would be done away with, has been stated on oath by         C
both of them in categorical terms. The manner in which the victim
was abducted and was shifted from place to place parallely following
up the demand of ransom under the threat of his elimination leaves
no manner of doubt that they had resorted to a plot to extract
ransom under the threat to the life of victim. Thus the defence
plea of want of identification of the abductors including the            D
appellants is unconvincing. The omission on the part of the vict-im
to refer to the appellant-S by his name instead of his nick-name
Deputy is not fatal to prosecution case. The victim in his
deposition has clarified that though he knew appellant-S was a
Municipal Councillor, but had no personal intimacy with him so
as to be able to identify him by seeing him.[Para 8](358-A-D]            E

      6. Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of
record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to
prove the same on the basis of the printed copy of the computer
generated call details kept in the ordinary course of business
and stored in a hard disc of the company server and to co-relate         F
the calls made from and to the cell phones involved including
those, amongst others recovered from the accused persons,
the prosecution has failed to adduce a certificate relatable thereto
as required under Section 65B(4) of the Act. The prosecution
has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed            G
copy of the call details. Even assuming that the mandate of
Section 65B(2) had been complied with, in absence of a certificate
under Section 65B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in
evidence. The charges against the accused persons including the
appellants, however, stand proved beyond reasonable doubt even
                                                                         H
338          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A sans the call details. [Paras 11, 12][359-F-G; 360-A,D]
        7. 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
B charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators
  should know each and every detail of the plot so long as they are
  co-participators in 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
c stages. Such is therefore the encompassing sweep of culpability
  of an offence of conspiracy, if proved, even from the established
  attendant circumstances. Having regard to the proved facts and
  the state of law, the prosecution has been able to prove the
  charges levelled against the appellants. Both the courts below
D have analysed the evidence in the correct perspectives and in
  the face of the conclusions recorded on the different aspects of
  the imputations levelled against them, no interference is called
  for with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
  recorded against them. [Paras 13, 14J[J'.'i0-E-F; 361-F-G, H; 362-
E A-BJ
        Anvar P. V. v. P.K. Basheer and others 2014 (11) SCR
        399 : (2014) 10 sec 473: Pullukuri Kotajya and others
        v. King Emperror AIR 1947 PC 67; Bodhraj @ Bodha
        and Others v. State ofJammu & Kash:nir 2002 (2) Suppl.
        SCR 67 : (2002) 8 SCC 45 - relied on.
F       Ferozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kera/a
        (2001)7 SCC 596; Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau
        of Investigation 2009 (13) SCR 124 : (2009)15 SCC
        643; Mohd. Amin v. CBI 2008 (16) SCR 155 : (2008)
        15 sec 49 - referred to.
G                         Case Law Reference
  2014 (11) SCR 399                relied on              Para 7
  AIR 1947PC 67                    relied on              Para 10
  2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 67           relied on              Para 10
  (2001)1 sec 596                  referred to            Para 13
H
      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                           339


2009 (13) SCR 124                referred to           Para 13       A
2008 (16) SCR 155                referred to           Para 13
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2539of2014.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cri. Appeal No. D-1085-DB of B
2011.
                                WITH
      Crl.A. No. 388 of2015.
      Subromaniam Prasad, R. Basant, Sr. Advs, Himanshu Gupta,Arun
Poomulli, Anil Kumar Tandale, Advs. for the Appellant.               c
      V. Madhukar, AAG, Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Ms. Lubna Naaz,
Kuldip Singh, Ad vs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       AMITAVAROY, J. I. The appellants,     two  out of the six persons,
                                                                          0
convicted under Sections 364A, 395, 412, 471, 1208 IPC and the
appellant-Harpal Singh @Chhota in Criminal Appeal No.2539of2014
also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, hereby impeach the affirmation
of their conviction by the High Court by the common impugned judgment
and order dated 21.04.2014 rendered in a batch of appeals. Though
eight persons including the appellants were indicted of the charges E
corresponding to the offences proved, one Gurinder Singh@Ginda died
during trial and Rupinder Singh was exonerated therefrom. Following
their conviction on the aforementioned charges, the appellants and other
similarly situated have been awarded sentences ranging from one year
to imprisonment for life and fine commensurate therewith. It has been
                                                                          F
ordered that all the sentences would run concurrently.
      2. We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2539of2014, Mr. Subromaniam Prasad,
learned senior counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal number 388
of 2015 and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned counsel for the State.
                                                                            G
       3. The records divulge that on 11.01.2008 at about 7.45 p.m., while
lnspector/SHO ofNunnahal Police station was on patrol duty, he received .
a secret information that on 09.01.2008 at about I 0/1 I a.m., four persons
had kidnapped one Gagan Mahendru son ofSubhash Mahendru, resident
of Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar in their Honda City car from near Preet
Palace at gun point, most probably for extracting ransom.                   H
340             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.



A            As the input disclosed offence under Sections 364, 364A/34 IPC
      r/w Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, the information was forwarded
      to the police station for its registration and consequential steps.
             FIR No. I 0 dated 11.01.2008 under the afore-mentioned provisions
      oflaw, accordingly was registered with the Nurmahal Police Station and
B     investigation was initiated, in course whereof, the statement of Gagan
      Kumar Mahendru as aforestated was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
      In his statement Gagan, who claimed to be the victim of kidnapping,
      stated that on 09.01.2008 Sukhmeet Singh @Deputy, Gurinder Singh
      @ Ginda, Jasbir Singh@ Jassi etc. had kidnapped him, tied his hands
      and bundled him in the dickey of their car, with the dishonest intention of
c     realising ransom and took him in the house ofRupinder Pal Singh from
      where he was released on 11.01.2008. He claimed to have identified
      the places where he had been kept captive and also the places to which
      he had been shifted in between.
             The statements of the victim and his father Sub hash Mahendru
D     were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On pursuing the
      investigation, the pol ice also visited the place from where the victim had
      been kidnapped. The Lancer car bearing No.PB- 08-BA-4 700 of the
      victim was found parked outside Hotel Taj, Jalandhar which was
      recovered and handed over to him. The accused persons were arrested
E     between 16.01.2008 and 23.01.2008 and the following mobile phones
      were recovered from their possession:
      Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy                    98553-64086
      (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 388 of 2015)
      Gurinder Singh@Ginda                              98148-81082
 F
      Jatinder Singh@ Sappi                              98151-58151
      Jasvir Singh @ Jassi -                             98151-58161
      Harpal Singh @ Chhota                       98760-87794
      (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 2539 of 2014)
G     Harpreet Singh @ happy.                           98158-54784
      Surinder Singh@ Manga                             98154-03503
            On the basis of disclosure statements made by appellant Sukhbir
      Singh @Deputy a sum ofRs.25 lakhs and a point .32 revolver belonging
      to the victim, Honda City Car bearing number HR l 6F 733 7 lying
H
      HARPAL SINGH@ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                341
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

concealed, as well as two iron chains with which Gagan, the victim had A
been tied were recovered by the investigating agency.
       On the same day, Gurinder Singh @ Ginda also suffered a
disclosure statement following which an amount of Rs. I I lakhs was
recovered from his room. Similar disclosure statements were also made
by Jatinder Singh @ Jatin, Jasvir Singh @ Jassi and Harpal Singh @ B
Chhota, acting whereupon, huge amounts of cash were recovered
together with a country made pistol with live cartridges.
       On 22.01.2008 and 23.01.2008, as well disclosure statements were
made by Harpreet Singh @ Happy and Surinder Singh @ Manga and
pursuing the same, several lakhs of currency notes were recovered from
the almirah/room of these persons along with one Qualis car bearing C
number PB I 0 AY 4144 said to have been used by the appellant Sukhmeet
Singh@ Deputy, in the commission of the crime.
       Noticeably, the Honda City car recovered bore engine number
30125 765 and chassis number 377271 standing in the name ofone Deepak
Bhiwani, s/o Raj Singh Bhiwani, resident ofBhiwani and was of model D
2007, as disclosed by the registration certificate found inside the vehicle.
The documents recovered also disclosed that the insurance policy of the
car stood in the name ofDeepak Bhiwani issued on 18.11.2007. Further
from the dicky of the car, a driving licence of the victim Gagan Kumar
was also retrieved along with one small roll of tape, one scissor and one E
black colour rope.
       Investigation divulg.:d that the Hona City car did bear fake number
HR 16 F 7337 which was stolen in the intervening night of30. I I .2007/
Gl.12.21)07 from Delhi and for which FIR number255 dated 01.12.2007
was registered with Rajinder Nagar Police Station. Though the Engine
number and the chassis number did match, the actual registration number       F
was DL 4C AH 4492.
       On the completion of the investigative drill, charge-sheet under
Sections 364A, 392, 395, 397, 412, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 1208 IPC
and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was laid against the accused persons.
As hereto before stated, Gurinder Singh @Ginda died during the trial          G
and the accused Rupinder Pal was acquitted by the trial court. The
other co-accused Prabhijit Singh@ Sonu could not be arrested and was
declared a proclaimed offender. The investigation however revealed
that his mobile number 94636-12914 had been used in the commission
of the offence.                                                               H
342             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 8 S.C.R.



A            4. Charges were framed against the accused persons including
      the appellants under the above Sections of law to which they pleaded
      'not guilty', whereafter the prosecution examined 27 witnesses. The
      accused persons in the course of their statements under Section 313
      Cr.P.C. stood by their denial of the charge. While the appellant Sukhmeet
      Singh alleged political vendetta to frame him in the case and that the
 B
      police had raided his house and had forcibly lifted Rs. 25 lakhs which
      belonged to his father Jarnail Singh and was arranged by him for the
      purchase of land, the others generally, but consistently imputed false
      implication in the offence. Fourteen witnesses were also examined in
      defence. The Trial Court on an assessment of the evidence on record,
 c    to reiterate, convicted the appellants and their co-accused under the
      above mentioned sections of law. By the verdict assailed in the instant
      appeals, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court have
      been sustained.                       -
             5. It is considered appropriate to revert to the rival assertions for
 D    better comprehension after traversing the evidence adduced to the extent
      unavoidable.
             PW 1 Gagan Kumar, the person kidnapped, testified that at the
      relevant time, he was involved in Real Estate Business with his father
      Subhash Chandra (PW2). About 15-20 days before the incident on
 E    09.01.2008, he received a call from mobile number9914413696 and the
      caller introduced himself to be Ginda and expressed his keenness for
      effecting a property deal at Jandiala, District Jalandhar, in course whereof,
      he offered to sell the land of his aunt. The witness, though suggested
      that the caller ought to get in touch with his father, the latter insisted for
      necessary discussion with him. According to the witness, after 2/3 days,
 F    another call was made by the same person and accordingly, they fixed
      up a time at 9.00 a.m. on the next date, whereupon the victim along wi:h
      his friend Chetan Chopra went to the scheduled place of meeting. The
      witness stated that at the time fixed, three persons came in a Innova car
      and thereafter the victim and his friend along with two persons proceeded
 G    in the car of the victim to survey the land. After the visit, they parted.
      The witness deposed that thereafter on many occasions, the same caller
      made telephone calls to further the deal and eventually, they decided to
      meet on 09.01.2008 at 9.00 a.m. for further discussions.
             According to the witness, he was there at the site in his car bearing
 H
      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                            343
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

no. PB 08 BA 4700 and as stated by him on oath, at the first instance, A
two persons came there and boarded his vehicle. The victim was
thereafter asked to proceed to the colony where the owner i.e the aunt
referred to, used to reside. The witness stated that he took the vehicle
to the place as directed. The person sitting by his side then pointed a
revolver on his ear. Almost immediately thereafter, a Honda City car, B
driven at a high speed, pulled up in front of his car, wherefrom 4-5 persons
alighted and attacked the victim. The witness stated that whereas one
person pointed the revolver on his thigh, the other removed his licenced
revolver along with his cell phone, keys of the car and currency notes
amounting to Rs.15,000/-. The witness stated that thereafter a cap was
placed on his face and a tape was pasted on his mouth. After some time, C
his hands were also tied and he was forcibly put into the dickey of the
Honda City car. As the victim resisted, he was threatened to be killed
with his own revolver. After moving the car for some distance, the
abductors burrowed a hole in the rear seat of the car and the victim was
asked to contact his father over a cell phone. Under compulsion, the D
victim talked to his father and acquainted him with his state of distress
and requested him to concede to their request for his safety. The phone
was thereafter disconnected. According to the victim, for the whole
day, he remained in the dicky and could hear the exchanges of the
occupants who were addressing each other as Happy, Jassi, Ginda,
Deputy and Sabbi.          He further stated that in the night, he was taken E
to a room with an attached bathroom where he was allowed to ease
himself and thereafter was put on chains on his hands and. feet and was
blindfolded as well. He was thereafter taken to different places and
was also offered food. Later, he was drugged. On objection being raised,
he was threatened to be killed with his revolver. The victim stated that
                                                                             F
in the next morning, he found himself tied with iron chain, whereafter he
was restored in the dicky of the car and the miscreants wandered around
with him. In between, he was made to talk to his father, whereupon he
repeated his request to do the needful for his release. Later in the night,
the victim was informed by abductors that as the ransom amount was
received, he would be released soon. He was threatened that in case, G
after his let off, he would disclose about the incident to anyone, he would
be killed along with his family members. It was intimated, that they had
strong political links and even if they were arrested, they would come
out of custody soon and appropriately retaliate. The victim was thereafter
dropped at Nakodar Chowk.
                                                                             H
344            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A            The witness identified Sukhmeet Singh@ Deputy, Ginda, Harpreet
      Singh @Happy, Sabbi, Jassa and Harpal Singh @ Chhota in Court to
      be those present in the Honda City in the car and thus the perpetrators
      of the crime. The witness also narrated, that on 12'\ he was taken by
      the police to the place from where he was kidnapped and that his
      statements were duly recorded as well. He claimed to have identify the
B
      place and also disclosed that he had dropped his driving licence in the
      dicky of the car. He identified as well the driving licence produced in
      court along with the iron chains by which his hands were tied and the
      tape roll by which his mouth was muzzled.
          In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the appellant
 c Sukhmeet Singh at the relevant time was a Municipal Councillor and he
   knew him from before the incident. He however clarified that he did not
   have any personal acquaintance/intimacy with him and that he was also
   not conversant with his voice. He admitted as well, that he knew the full
   name of the appellant at the time of making of the statement before the
 D police and the Magistrate. He however elaborated that as the accused
   persons used to address him as Deputy, he did use that name while
   making the statements. He also claimed to be unaware then that
   Sukhmeet Singh and Deputy was one and the same person. He also
   conceded qua his earlier statement that at the time of his release at
   Nakodar Chowk, he had not seen the appellant Sukhmeet present
 E there. He also admitted that there was no test identification parade held
   and that he as well did not furnish the physical features of the miscreants
   to the police. According to this witness, neither the recovered money
   nor the weapons had been shown to him by the police. He stated that
   by 24.01.2008, he could come to know the names of all the accused
 F persons from the newspaper. Vis-a-vis the name of Harpal Singh @
   Chhota, the witness stated in particular that he did not know him prior to
   the incident and that he mentioned his name for the first time in the
   court.
           A perusal of the statement made by the victim under Section 164
 G Cr.P.C. demonstrates that the same is substantially identical to the one
   on oath at the trial. The sequence of events are in the same order and
   in particular, he reiterated the names ofSonu Bhaiji, Happy Bhaiji, Ginda,
   Sabbi and Deputy while referring to the persons in the car, while he was
   languishing in the dickey thereof.
 H          PW2 Subhash Chander, the father of the victim deposed that at
      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                            345
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

the time of the incident, his son was in real estate business with him. A
He admitted that his son had mentioned to him about the proposed deal
which was being promoted by a party of Jandiala on which he had advised
the victim to inspect the site so that a decision could be taken lateron.
The witness testified that on 9.1.2008, his son informed him that he had
received a telephone call in connection with the deal and that he had
                                                                          B
fixed 9.30 in the morning for the said purpose. That on the same day, his
son had left for negotiations in his Lancer car PB 08 BA 4700, was
stated by him. According to the witness, at about 11.45 a.m. on that day,
he received a telephone call conveying to him that his son had been
kidnapped and further a ransom amount of Rs. 5 crores was demanded
for his release. The witness stated that the caller also threatened him c
that ifthe money demanded was not arranged, his son would be killed.
Thereafter, on his entreaties, he was allowed to talk to his son who
pleaded that the ransom amount be paid as otherwise, his abductors,
who were equipped with deadly weapons, may do harm to him.
       The witness stated that thereafter, he received a telephone call D
from a mobile phone No. 9814804700 enquiring of him about the
arrangements made about the ransom amount. According to the witness,
subsequent thereto from time to time, he kept on receiving telephone
calls at the interval of 3/4 hours about the progress in the collection of
the ransom amount with the insistence that the amount should be paid
early, ifhe wished the welfare of his son. In response to a call received E
at 9 pm on the same day and on the expression of his inability to arrange
more than Rs. I crore, the caller asked him to await further instructions.
By the next phone call at I 0 pm, the abductors informed the witness that
no amount less than Rs. I crore was acceptable to them.
       The witness further stated that on the next date i.e. I 0.1.2008, he F
received a call from the cell phone of his son at 8.30 a.m., and on the
query made, he stated that by then, he could arrange only 90-92 lakhs
with great difficulty. This was followed by another call at I 0/11 a.m.
from the same person enquiring about the amount arranged to which the
witness replied that somehow he had been able to arrange Rs. I crore       G
and requested the abductors to close the deal. Eventually at 4.20 p.m.,
through another call, the abductors instructed the witness to fill the
money in two bags and take the train "Shane Punjab" for Delhi .
The witness on his request was allowed to be accompanied by one
attendant and he was instructed to sit in the last compartment of the
                                                                           H
346            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A     train with the caveat that in case he would try to act smart or against
      the instructions or inform the police, all his family members would be
      eliminated. He was informed as well that he would be under watch on
      the train.
             According to the witness, he took the money in two bags and
B     along with his friend Munish Berry boarded the train from Jalandhar.
      He stated that on the way, he kept on receiving telephone calls from the
      abductors to ascertain the stages of the journey. He stated that when
      the train reached near Sirhind Railway Station, they directed both of
      them to come near the left side door of the compartment and wait for a
      flash signal while the train would be reaching Raj Pura and to drop the
 c    bags when the train would slow down near an over-bridge, 3/4 k.m.
      before Raj Pura so that the same could be collected by them. The
      abductors also assured them to release the victim after the money was
      received.
             The witness stated that as the train slowed down at the place
D     indicated,. they threw away the two bags containing the ransom money
      and proceeded towards Delhi. Subsequent thereto, they took a train back
      to Jalandhar. Meanwhile, he received a telephone call from the victim
      that he had reached home safely. The witness deposed that on 12.1.2008
      he along with victim and 2/3 friends, met the police at Jandiala on their
 E    way to police station and narrated the entire incident. The witness stated
      that on 13 .1.2008, he received a call from the police that the Lancer car
      No. PB 08 BA 4700 has been located near Taj Hotel, Garha Road,
      Jalandhar and thereafter on completion of the formalities, the vehicle
      was handed over to his son. The witness in course of his testimony,
      identified the two bags in which the ransom money had been taken i.e.
 F    Ex. P9 and P 10. He mentioned that the currency was in the
      denominations of Rs. 1000, Rs. 500 and Rs. 100. He also clarified that
      on 5/6 packets of the currency notes, he had inscribed initials/names
      like AS, KK, Om Namah Shivah, Om Sri Ganeshay Namah, and Jai
      Hanuman. The witness at the trial, identified the currency notes as a
 G    part of the ransom money. The bundles of currency notes produced in
      the court were marked as Ex. Pl I to Ex. P68.
             In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that though he knew
      Sukhrneet Singh atthe time ofincident as he was a Municipal Councillor,
      he clarified that he did not have any personal relationship with him. He
H     conceded that he had not informed the police/Magistrate about the
      HARPAL SINGH@ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                347
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

initials and names on the packets of the currency notes. He however          A
claimed that even in absence of such initials/names, he could have
otherwise identified the currency notes from the denominations thereof.
He however disclosed that his relations from whom money was collected
did inform that such initials/names had been inscribed on the packets.
He admitted that the FIR was registered on 11.1.2008. He elaborated
                                                                             8
on the names of the persons and relations from whom different sums of
money was taken on loan. He specified the amounts as well. He stated
that his statement was recorded by the police on 12.1.2008.
       PW4 SI Pritam Singh, who at the relevant time, was posted at
the Nurmahal Police Station, deposed that he did partake in the
investigation and had accompanied the 1.0. Inspector Satish Kumar
                                                                              c
Malhotra. He reiterated that on 11.1.2008, the 1.0. received a secret
information that the accused persons Sukhmeet Singh, Gurinder, Jatinder
and Jaspreet had been seen moving near the office of DIG to surrender
before the police whereupon, they were arrested thereat and cell phones
were recovered from their possession vide Ex. PF/I to PF/3. He also           D
stated about the disclosures made by the accused persons following
which various amounts were recovered from the places shown by
them. Vis-a-vis, Sukhmeet Singh, he stated that the revolver of the
victim was also recovered from the living room of the accused. He
further testified that on the disclosure of the accused appellant Sukhmeet
Singh subsequent thereto, along with cash ofRs. 25 lakhs, one revolver        E
of .32 bore bearing No. B-3211 wrapped in a plastic packet was recovered
from the room of his house. The witness stated that the cash as well as
the other articles recovered/seized were duly deposited in the malkhana.
       He further deposed that ou the basis of another secret information
received on 18.1.2008, appellant Harpal Singh@Chhota was arrested             F
and acting on his disclosure statement, cash together with one country
made pistol and one live cartridge wrapped in a plastic packet was
recovered from underneath a tree on a Jandiala Road as shown by him.
The witness stated as well about further disclosure statements made by
the appellant Sukhmeet following which Honda City car HR 16 F 7337            G
was recovered from near the well ofGurinder Singh@Ginda at village
Bir Pind kept parked under the cover of standing maize crop. The witness
confirmed the recovery of one driving licence, registration certificate,
tape roll, small scissor and black string from the dicky of car which
were duly seized vide recovery memo Ex. P0/2. The witness also
                                                                              H
348            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A     identified these items when confronted therewith. He also stated about
      the collection of finger prints on the car by a finger print expert.
         He also stated about the arrest of accused Harpreet Singh and
  recovery of mobile phone from him. He referred to a disclosure
  statement made by said accused person leading to discovery of Rs. 3.5
B lakhs from the almirah of his house. That a Qualis Car bearing number
  PB 10 AY 4144 was also recovered on the disclosure statement made
  by the accused Harpreet was stated by the witness.
             He did similarly mention about the arrest of accused Surinder
      Singh and recovery of Rs. 1,05,000 on the basis of his disclosure
c     statement, from the roofofmotor at village Mullewal Arian wrapped in
      a plastic envelope. The witness stated as well about the arrest of accused
      Rupinder Pal and the recovery of cash from him.
         In his cross-examination, the witness conceded that the arrest
  memo pertaining to Sukhmeet did not contain either his signature or the
D signature of any public witness. He however denied that the memo was
  a forged one. He asserted to have attested the disclosure statement of
  the appellant Sukhmeet Singh which had led to the recovery of the
  Honda City car, otherwise kept concealed. His statement made in the
  course of his further cross-examination, being neither of any particular
  significance nor referred to in course of the arguments, are not being
E dilated upon.
             PW5 Kashmir Singh, Finger Print Expert and photographer from
      Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, stated that on 21.1.2008, he had taken the
      photographs of the chance prints on the window panes of the front door
      of the Honda city car bearing HR 16F 7337 and also on the rear mirror
F     fitted thereto. He claimed to have prepared negatives of the chance
      prints and had compiled the report on the basis thereof which he proved
      Ex. PW5/A.
>        In cross-examination, he stated that the prints were available on
  the glass surface and he did not rule out any other type of print. He also
G stated that the prints collected were of the palm surface of the hand.
  He also did not enquire as to who had marked the chance prints.
             PW8 Inspector Satish Kumar Malhotra, S.H.O. P.S., Phillaur, is
      the investigating officer. He testified that on 11.1.2008, he was posted
      at Police Station Nurmahal and while on patrol duty, he received a
H
      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                             349
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

secret information that four persons, who had kidnapped Gagan A
Mahendrau at gun point and had abducted him in a Honda City car with
a purpose to extract ransom. He deposed to have forwarded the
information for the registration of the FIR and thereafter visited the
place of occurrence, where he could not find any one present. According
to him, he visited the same spot with other police personnel on 12. I .2008 B
and happened to meet, amongst others, the victim and his father Subhash
Mahendru there. On the basis of a secret information received on
 I3 .1.2008, the witness stated to have recovered the victim's Lancer
Car bearing No. PB 08 BA 4700 parked near Taj Hotel, Garah Road,
Jalandhar. He summoned the finger print expert and on the completion
of the exercise undertaken by the latter, handed over the car to the C .
victim on the completion ofnecessary formalities.
       The witness stated that on I4. I .2008, from the call details collected,
amongst others the appellant Sukhmeet @ Deputy was a suspect,
whereupon he was arrested. The witness stated that on 16.1.2008, on
the basis of a secret information, the appellant Sukhmeet was arrested D
along with Jatinder, whereupon on their search, mobile phones were
recovered. He also referred to the disclosure statements made by the
appellant Sukhmeet Singh and Jatinder, on the basis of which, cash of
Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively were recovered from their
residences, kept in the plastic bags. According to the witness, acting on
the disclosure statement of appellant Sukhmeet, one revolver of the E
victim was also recovered from his house. Similarly, after the arrest
of Gurinder Singh @ Ginda, Jasbir Singh @ Jassi, Jatinder Singh @
Sabbi, on the basis of their disclosure statements, different amounts in
lakhs were recovered from the places indicated by them. A .32 bore
revolver bearing No. B-32I1 was also recovered on a later disclosure F
statement of the appellant Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy. Subsequent
thereto, according to the witness, again acting on the secret information,
appellant Harpal Singh@ Chhota was arrested and one mobile phone
was recovered from his possession. These accused persons also made
disclosure statements and acting thereon, currency notes were
 recovered along with a pistol along with a live cartridge from beneath a G
tree near canal Jandiala. This witness further deposed that the appellant
 Sukhmeet Singh also made a disclosure statement pursuant whereto,
 the Honda City car HR-16-F 733 7 used in the commission of offense
 was recovered being parked near the well of accused Ginda at.Village
                                                                            H
350            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A Beer being kept camouflage by standing maize crop thereat. The witness
  also stated that on the search of the car, two iron chains, a small scissor,
  tape roll, a black colour rope and a driving licence in the name of the
  victim were recovered from the dickey of the car. The finger print
  expert also took the photographs of the prints available on the car. That
  a hole was also detected in the rear seat of the car was mentioned in
B
  particular by the witness. He also stated about the arrest of accused
  Harpreet Singh and Surinder Singh as well, following which the phones
  mobile were recovered from them. These accused also made disclosures
  following which recoveries of huge cash kept in plastic envelopes was
  effected. Apart from getting recorded the statement of the victim and
C his father Subhash under Section 164 Cr.PC., the witness claimed to
  have obtained the call details of mobile phones of the accused recovered
  from accused persons. He also identified the seized articles including
  the Honda City and Lancer cars at the trial and identified and exhibited
  other items like, revolver, iron chain, tape rolls, currency not~s etc. The
D witness, in course of his testimony mentioned that on every occasion of
  seizure, he had completed the necessary legal formalities in connection
  therewith.
          In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that the victim
   had in his statement before him not mentioned particularly about Harpal
   Singh @Chhota, He also admitted, that no TIP of the accused persons
 E had been conducted. According to him, he did make an application for
   such TIP, but the same was dismissed as the accused persons refused
   to participate in the process. He denied the suggestion, that the appellant
   Harpal Singh had not refused to take part in the TIP. He admitted of
   a press conference held on I 7. I .2008, in which Senior Superintendent
 F of Police, Jalandhar had participated but expressed his ignorance as to
   whether in the news item dated I 8. I .2008, it was suggested that there
   was a possibility of recovery of a country made pistol. According to this
   witness, this news item was got published by the accused persons. He
   denied the suggestion that no pistol/cartridge was recovered from the
   house of the accused Harpal Singh@Chhota. The remaining statements
 G made by this witness in the cross- examination are not of any added
   significance and further have also not been referred to or relied upon in
   course of the arguments.
             PWs IO, I I, I 2, I 4, I 6 are those, who on oath, stated to have lent
      different amounts to the fatherofthe victim to meetthe ransom demand.
 H
      HARPAL SINGH@ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                351
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

Of these witnesses, PW 14 in particular, claimed to have put his             A
identification marks on the ?ackets of currency notes like KK, AS, Jai
Hanuman etc. and on the basis thereof, he identified at the trial, the
same when shown to him. The common trend of cross- examination of
these witnesses had been to elicit from them that there was nothing in
writing to endorse such loan and that there was no transaction routed        B
through the bank as evidence thereof.
       PW23 H.C. Kamaljit Singh deposed that on 23.1.2008 he was a
member of the police party, in-charge of the investigation of the case.
According to him, appel !ant Harpal Singh@Chhota present in the court
and who was then in police custody, made a disclosure statement signed
by him and further led the police party to the eastern side of Jandiala, c
Nurmahal Canal, from where he dug out a country made pistol wrapped
in a polythene bag together with cash amounting to Rs. 650001-. The
witness stated that the recovered pistol was seized by memo PW23/A
on which he along with others put their endorsements by way of
attestation.                                                             D
      In cross-examination, the witness however admitted that no
independent witness was present when the disclosure statement was
recorded. He however denied that neither such statement had been
recorded nor was any recovery caused on the basis thereof and in his
presence.                                                                     E
       PW24 Sumesh Makkar proved the call details of cell phone number
94636-12914 of Prabhjeet Singh, absconder accused. In this regard, he
amongst others, proved the necessary documents to establish that the
said accused person had applied for such connection.
       PW25 Damandeep Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone, Essar South             F
Limited, Mohali, deposed with regard to the mobile SIM number 99881-
31831 standing in the name ofManjinder Singh r/o VPO Malsian Patti,
Saltan Nagar, Jalandhar. Apart from proving the documents, on the
basis of which the mobile connection was obtained by the holder thereof
as named herein above, the witness also proved computer generated             G
details of the said cell phone for the period 9.1.2008 to 16.1.2008 in the
form of a printed copy which, he asserted was the true extract of the
relevant data created in the usual and ordinary course of business and
stored in the hard disc of the company server. He exhibited the call
details as Ex. PW25/C.
                                                                             H
352            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A            Though this witness was formally cross-examined, not even a
      suggestion was made that the call details so proved, were inadmissible
      in law due to non-compliance of the requirements ofSection 658 of the
      Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter to be called as "the Act").
          PW26 Sunil Rana, Nodal Officer, Bhatti Ai1tel Limited, Mohali,
 8 aside the necessary records with regard to the applications pertaining
   to SIM number 98151- 58151 recovered from accused Jatinder Singh
   and standing in the name of Iqbal Singh, 98154-03503 standing in the
   name of accused Surinder Singh, 98150-29026 in the name ofDavinder
   Kumar, 98760-87794 of Jaspal Singh, 98760-63085 ofAmrik Singh, 98766-
 c 81782   of Pavittar Singh, 98158-54784 of Varinder Singh and 98723-
   00707 of Pradeep Singh, also proved the call details pe1taining to these
   cell phones for the period 8.1.2008 to 31.1.2008 and exhibited the
   corresponding documents. This witness stated that the call details proved,
   were computer generated and in the shape of printed copy which were
   true extracts of the relevant data created in the usual and ordinary
 D course of business and stored on the hard disc of the company server.
             In cross-examination, the witness expressed ignorance with regard
      to the names of the accused persons and further admitted that though
      the tower numbers qua the calls were not mentioned, the tower cell
      I.Ds. were referred to.
 E           PW27 Soaravdeep Singh, Nodal Officer, Spice Communications
      Limited, Mohali proved the location list ofall the towers of his company
      during January 2008 with the cell I.D. of various towers and exhibited
      the said document as Ex. PW27/A. He also proved the call details for
      the period 9.1.2008 to 16.1.2008 relating to mobile SIM numbers 98140-
 F    60441, 98148-81082 (recovered from accused Gurinder) and 98553-
      64086 (recovered from appellant Sukhmeet) and 99144-16396 ofNaresh
      Kumar and exhibited the documents with regard thereto separately.
          In cross-examination, the witness clarified that the cell numbers
   98148-81082 and 98553-64086 functioned between 11.1.2008 to
 G 16.1.2008 whereas the others were not put to use after I 0.1.2008. He
   further asserted that the call details had been issued by him from the
   computer which was under his control and did bear his signature on
   each of the pages. He conceded however that no certificate of correctness
   was appended thereto. The witness clarified that the calls were computer
   generated which did not admit of any manual intervention. He admitted
 H
      1-IARPAL SINGH@ CHI-IOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                           353
                    [AMITAYA ROY, J.]

fu11her that the call details did refer to cell l.D. indicating the tower   A
location. According to him, no document was taken into custody by the
police from him under his signature. He admitted as well that the
documents produced by him do not bear the date of their preparation
and further there was no reference of the server therein as well.
     6. To complete the narration of the evidence adduced, apposite it       B
would be to briefly survey the testimony of the defence witnesses.
       DWI Gurdeep Singh, who was then the Senior Assistant, State
Bank of India, New Grain Market, Jalandhar proved the statement of
account in the name of Jarnail Singh, father of appellant Sukhmeet for
the period 30.6.2007 to 30.6.2008 which disclosed, amongst others that      c
the holder had withdrawn Rs. I 0 lakhs from his account on 7.11.2007.
       DW2 Naginder Singh deposed about the proposed sale of the
land of Jarnail Singh situated at village Rasoolpur for Rs. 32 lakhs and
further that on the basis ofan written agreement, he had paid by way of
Rs. 8 lakhs by way of advance on 6.12.2007 and further Rs. 6 lakhs on D
21.12.2007 to Jarnail Singh. The witness however admitted that due to
some financial compulsions, the finalization of the deal had to be deferred.
In cross-examination, the witness conceded that the stamp papers of
the agreement had been purchased by Jarnail Singh, 1/2 months earlier
thereto. He however denied the suggestion that the written agreement
Ex. 02 referred to by him was a fabricated document.                         E
      DW3 Jarnail Singh, father of the appellant Sukhmeet Singh in
substance testified that the false implication of his son in the case was
motivated by political rivalry. He deposed that on 14.1.2008, the police
raided his house and and had taken away Rs. 25 lakhs which he had
kept for purchasing land near Jalandhar. According to him, out of the        F
said amount, Rs. I 0 lakhs had been withdrawn by him from the bank
and that the rest had been deposited with him by way of advance
money for selling his land to Naginder Singh and Manmohan Singh.
According to him, the agreement for sale of his land had been scribed on
6.12.2007 on the stamp paper purchased by him.                               G
       DW8 Sushi I Kumar on oath stated that he belonged to the Congress
Party and accused Jatinder Singh@ Sabbi was his supporter. He also
referred to recent confrontations with the members of the rival political
party during some elections for which criminal cases had also to be
                                                                            H
354            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     registered. According to the witness, accused Jatinder Singh @ Sabbi
      had been falsely implicated in the case.
         7. Mounting challenge to the decision impugned, Mr. R. Basant,
  learned senior counsel arguing forthe appellant in Appeal No. 2539 of
  2014, has insistently urged that having regard to the evidence adduced
B by the prosecution, the complicity of the accused Harpal Singh@Chhota
  remains unproved. According to him, the charge of this accused being
  either a part of the alleged conspiracy or a pa1tner in the execution
  thereof, is be! ied by the materials on record. The learned senior counsel
  has maintained that the sequence of events, as sought to be unfolded by
  the prosecution, warrant that the roles of the accused persons allegedly
c involved be analysed individually in order to determine the nature and
  extent of their involvement. Mr. Basant asse11ed that not only the evidence
  forthcoming after the arrest of Harpal Singh @ Chhota together with
  the recovery of cash or fire arm and the Honda City car does not in any
  way establish any nexus with him and the crime perpetrated, the calls
D details of the eel Iphones said to have been involved are per se inadmissible
  in evidence in the face of apparent non-compliance of the mandatory
  prescriptions of Section 658 of the Act. The learned senior counsel
  underlined that the finger prints collected from the Honda City car did
  not match with that of any of the accused persons sent up for trial and
  in absence of the TIP, their identity, as participants in the offence, has
E
  also remained unproved. The learned senior counsel was particularly
  emphatic on the aspect that the victim noticeably did not either name
  or refer to the appellant Harpal Singh @Chhota in his statements under
  Sections 161and164 Cr.P.C., which were the earliest in point of time,
  to be one of his abductors and that he sought to improve on him by
F naming him only at the trial. The learned senior counsel maintained as
  well that the inexplicable omission on the part of the prosecution to
  examine Chetan Chopra, the friend of the victim, who had accompanied
  him in the first round of discussion on the land deal, laid as a preface
  according to the prosecution, culminating in the abduction, renders the
  charge, doubtful. According to Mr. Basant, the examination of the
G appellant Harpal Singh @Chhota under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been
  general and omnibus without laying the specific incriminating
  circumstances against him, thus, denying him the opportunity to explain
  the same. On this count as well, the impugned conviction is unsustainable
  in law and is liable to be set-aside, he urged. In buttressal of the plea
H
      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                               355
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

against admissibility of the calls details, the learned senior counsel has   A
placed reliance on the decision of this Comi in Anvar P. V. vs. P.K.
Basheer and others (20 I4) I 0 SCC 4 73.
       Mr. Subromaniam Parsad, learned senior counsel for the appellant
in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of2015 in supplementation repudiated the
testimony of the victim in particular in identifying appellant Sukhmeet B
@ Deputy to be one of his abductors. He has urged that it having been
admitted by the victim that the appellant Sukhmeet was known to him
from before the incident, refere11ce about him by his nick-name Deputy,
renders his testimony to this effect wholly untrustworthy. The learned
senior counsel has similarly dismiS$td {he recovery/seizure of currency
notes, fire-arms and the Honda C!,y car in particular, as unworthy of C
any reliance or significance, besides being effected without r.qh·~ring to
the legally prescribed procedure, therefor. Referring to the evidence
of DWI, DW2 and DW3 in particular, about the seizure of cash from
the house of Jarnail Singh, the father of appellant Sukhmeet Singh, Mr.
Prasad has insisted that this amount had no nexus at all with the ransom D
money, said to have been paid. He discarded as well 1he enueavour on
the part of the prosecution through PWl 4 to identify some of the currency
notes on the basis of initials/names written on some of the packets
containing the same. According to the learned senior counsel, the
prosecution has utterly failed to adduce unimpeachable evidence to
establish the culpability of the appellants and thus the impugned decision, E
as a whole, is liable to be set at naught.
       Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State, has
maintained that the evidence adduced when considered in entirety, does
establish the indictment against all the accu:-ed persons convicted, beyond
all reasonable doubt. He urged that the prosecution has been successful F
in substantiating the involvement of the accused persons in the nefarious
and willful design of theirs to abduct the victim for ransom and having
regard to the gravity of the proved offences, no interference is called
for. In particular, he has contended that the defence having failed in its
endeavour to de-link the currency notes, seized from the house of G
Jarnail Singh, the father of the appellant Sukhmeet Singh from the ransom
money paid, he is not entitled to any benefit therefrom.
      8. We have extended our thoughtful scrutiny to the materials
available on record as well as the competing arguments based thereon.
                                                                              H
356             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A Admittedly, the only eye witness to the actual act of abduction is the
  victim himself who had suffered the ordeal. He thereafter encountered
  the treatment meted out to him in captivity and is privy too, to the ransom
  claim made by his abductors to his father. The statement made by the
  victim (PW 1) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though had outlined the whole
  incident in the bare essentials, his version under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
B
  and at the trial are adequately elaborate to project the whole gamut of
  the development, commencing from his forcible abduction till his release.
  There is as such no mutually mutative inconsistency in the three renditions
  of his, so as to renderthe prosecution case untrustworthy and discardable
  on all counts. True, it is that the victim in his statements under Sections
c 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not specifically name Harpal Singh @Chhota,
  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. Not only, in our comprehension, it is likely that in his bewildered
  and perplexed state of mind at the relevant point of time, he might have
D
  omitted to name Harpal Singh @ Chhota. in the face of the other
  overwhelming evidence and materials on record, nothing much turns
  thereon in favour of the defence.
             The progression of events as unveiled by the testimony, in
      particular of the victim and supported by his father PW2, reveals that
 E    the first caller to initiate the negotiations for the land deal to which the
      victim was drawn, was Gurinder Singh @ Ginda. The victim in hi~
      deposition has in details narrated the developments thereafter which do
      indicate the keenness on the part of the negotiators to entrap the victim
      in the bargain, by gradually building his confidence in the same and in
 F    the proponents. These endeavours, as the prosecution has asserted,
      really were the build up steps as a part of the conspiratorial scheme to
      eventually culminate in the abduction of the victim for realisation of
      ransom in return. Noticeably the perpetrators did not betray any haste
      on their part and designedly took their time to strike at the opportune
      moment.
 G
             The evidence of the victim (PW 1) as a whole, in our estimate, is
      truthful, having regard to the details provided with accompanying clarity
      and conviction. His elaborate testimony not only has projected the
      stage-wise developments following his abduction till his release, the same
      has remained unshaken substantially even by his cross-examination.
 H
      HARPAL SINGH@ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                 357
                  (AMITAVA ROY, J.]

This witness not only had the opportunity of seeing his abductors but         A
also had heard their exchanges by referring to their nick names. He
was in their company and under their surveillance for almost two days in
course whereof they not only interacted with him but also had closely
followed his conversion with his father on more than one occasion on
the aspect of ransom. Apart from the fact that there is nothing convincing
                                                                              B
on record to even infer any false implication of the accused persons, we
are oft~·,c unhesitant opinion thatthe mere omission on the part of the
victim to mention at the first instance the name of appellant Harpal Singh
@ Chhota, having regard to the charge of conspiracy and the concerted
steps, to actualise the same is of no fatal bearing on the prosecution
case, more particularly he having named/identified him at the trial as one    c
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.
       In the face of the overall evidence on record, the above purported
deficiencies do not at all detract from the veracity of the prosecution        D
case .
       The evidence adduced vis-a-vis the stage wise recovery of the
currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda City car etc. from the successive
disclosures made by the accused persons also do establish their complicity
in the offence. The testimony of the witnesses to the above effect             E
authenticate that the procedure prescribed by law for effecting such
seizures had been complied with') The factum of each discovery based
on the disclosures of the accused persons is not only a relevant fact
under Section 27 of the Act but also noticeably has not been very seriously
disputed by the defence. These seized articles have been produced and
identified in the court by the witnesses as well. The testimony of the         F
lenders and that of PW14 in particular, identifying some of the packets
of the currency notes by the initials or the names as labelled by him also
cannot be lightly ignored. PW2, the father of the victim, apart from
stating generally about the abduction of his son and his release has
however in minutest details described the particulars of the ransom            G
calls received and his desperate endeavours to collect the amount to the
extent possible within the dead line of time to save his son in distress.
The witnesses examined by the prosecution as the lenders of different
amounts not only were referred to by this witness in his deposition, to
reiterate they also endorsed to have responded to his clarion call.
                                                                               H
358            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2016] 8 S.C.R.



A         Having regard to the series of frightful experiences which the
   victim had to encounter during his captivity of a period of almost two
   <lays in the scary company of his abductors and the fearful moments
   that he had to pass under the constant threat of being killed by them, as
   threatened from time to time, it is natural that he must have had sufficient
   opportunity to note their features to enable him to identify them even
 B
   by their looks at a later point of time. That the abductors, during the
   relevant time, had intimidated the victim as well as his father that if the
   ransom amount demanded is not paid in time, the hostage would be
   done away with, has been stated on oath by both of them in categorical
   terms. The manner in which the victim was abducted and was shifted
 c from place to place parallely following up the demand of ransom under
   the threat of his elimination leaves no manner of doubt that they had
   resorted to a plot to extract a handsome amount by way of ransom
   under the threat to the life of victim. We are thus left unconvinced by
   the defence plea of want of identification of the abductors including the
   appellants. The omission on the part of the victim to refer to the appellant
 D
   Sukhmeet by his name instead of his nick-name Deputy also does not
   appeal to us. The victim in his deposition has clarified that though he
   knew Sukhmeet Singh was a Municipal Councillor, but had no personal
   intimacy with him so as to be able to identify him by seeing him.
            9. Noticeably all the recoveries, be it of currency notes, fire-
 E arms, the cars and the seizures of various articles therefrom have been
      on the basis of disclosures made by the accused persons from time to
      time which were duly recorded in the presence of the witnesses, as
      required in law. Not only the Honda City car proved to have been used
      in the commission of the offence was traced out being parked near the
 F    well of the accused Gurinder Singh@Ginda under the coverofstanding
      maize crop thereat, the seizure, amongst others of the driving licence of
      the victim from the dicky thereoflends formidable support to the credibility
      of the prosecution case. In all the cases of recovery, as the evidence
      demonstrates, the accused persons including the appellants after making
      the related disclosures had led the investigating agency to the places
 G    wherefrom seizures were made. That the seized articles were duly
      deposited in the appropriate custody and were produced at the trial and
      identified by the witnesses are also matters of record.
            I 0. It is no longer res integra that the "fact discovered" as
      envisaged under Section 27 of the Act, in consequence of any information
 H
      HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                  359
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

received from a person in the custody of a police officer, embraces the         A
place from which any object is produced and the knowledge of the
accused as to this provided the information given relate distinctively to
the fact, as had been held by the Privy Council in Pullukuri Kotayya
and others vs. KinK Emperror, AIR 1947 PC 67. This enunciation,
hallowed by time, has been oft.quoted with approval by this Court in a
                                                                                8
plethora of subsequent pronouncements while interpreting the scope
and purport of the above legal provision.
     Amongst others in Bodllraj@ Bodlm and Others vs. State of
Jamu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45, it has been elucidated that the
doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a        C
search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner,
while in the custody of a police officer, such a discovery is a guarantee
that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. It had been held
that the information may be confessional or non inculpatory in nature,
but if it results in discovery of facts, it becomes a reliable information.
       It is unnecessary, in view of such a settled propounded legal            D
postulation to multiply authorities on the point. Suffice It to state in the
backdrop of the state oflaw on the admissibility of the information ofa
person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer so far
as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, the irresistible
conclusion in the facts of the case in hand is that the disclosures made         E
by the accused persons leading to the recoveries and seizures are indeed
relevant facts in support of the charge levelled against them.
       11. Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter ofrecord
that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to prove on the
basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call details kept in         F
usual ordinary course of business and stored in a hard disc of the company
server, to co-relate the calls made from and to the cell phones involved
including those, amongst others recovered from the accused persons,
the prosecution has failed to adduce a. certificate relatable thereto as
required under Section 658(4) of the Act. Though the High Court, in its
impugned judgment, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the              G
plea of inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the
stipulations contained under Section 65 of the Act had been complied
with, in the teeth of the decision of this Comt in Anvar P.V. (supra)
ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of Sections 658(2)
                                                                                 H
360             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.



A     and (4) of the Act, we are unable to sustain this finding. As apparently
      the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of
      printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of
      Section 658(2) had been complied with, in absence of a certificate under
      Section 658(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence.
 B           This Cou1i in Anvar P. V. (supra) has held in no uncertain terms
      that the evidence relating to electronic record being a special provision,
      the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section
      65 of the Act would have to yield thereto. It has been propounded that
      any electric record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted
      in evidence unless the requirements of Section 658 are satisfied. This
 c    conclusion of ours is inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining
      to Sections 65A and 658 of the Act as above.
             12. Be that as it may, on an overall assessment of the entire
      gamut of evidence, we are of the comprehension that the charges
      against the accused persons including the appellants stand proved beyond
 D    reasonable doubt even sans the call details. To reiterate, the gravamen
      of the imputations levelled against them is that of conspiracy and
      abduction of the victim pursuant thereto for ransom by detaining him
      under the threat to cause death or hurt and thereby to compel his father
      to meet their demand.
 E            13. As it is, as has been exposited by this Court on umpteen
      occasions, 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. This Court in Ferozutldin Basheermldin
 F    anti Others vs. State of Kera/a (2001 )7 SCC 596 held that conspiracy
      is a clandestine activity and by the sheer nature thereof, an agreement
      to that effect can rarely be established by direct proof and must be
      inferred from cii·cumstantial evidence of cooperation between the
      conspirators. It has been enunciated that conspiracy is not only a
      substantive crime but also serves as a basis for holding one person liable
 G    for the crime of others where application of the usual doctrines of
      complicity would not render that person liable and thus the test of the
      role of a co-conspirator would be decisively significant in determining
      the liability of the others in the face of the supervening fact that the
      crime was performed as a part of a larger division of labour to which
 H
       HARPAL SINGH@ CHHOTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                 361
                   [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

the accused had also contributed his efforts. Qua the admissibility of         A
evidence, it was proclaimed that loosened standards prevail in a
conspiracy trial and contrary to the usual role, in conspiracy prosecutions,
any declaration by one conspirator made in furtherance of a conspiracy
and during its pendency, is admissible against each co-conspirator. It
was thus ruled that conspirators are liable on an agency theory by the          B
statements of co-conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and
crimes committed by their confreres.
      In a later pronouncement in Mir Naf(vi Askari vs. Central
Bureau of /11vestigatio11(2009)15 SCC 643, it was ruled in the same
vein that while drawing an inference from the materials brought on
record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charge of the criminal          c
conspiracy had been proved or not, it must be borne in mind that a
conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to
obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The following extract
from the decision in Molul A111i11 Vs. CBI (2008) 15 SCC 49 was quoted
with approval:                                                                  D
       "74. The principles which can be deduced from the above-
       noted judgments are that for proving a charge of conspiracy,
       it is not necessa1y that all the conspirators know each and
       every detail of the conspiracy so long as they are co-
       participators in the main object of conspiracy. It is also not           E
       necessary that all the conspirators should participate from
       the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of
       object or purpose, all participating at different stages of the
       crime will be guilty of conspiracy."
       As would be patent from the above excerpt that qua a charge of           F
conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators should know
each and every detail of the plot so long as they are co-participators in
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. Such is therefore the encompassing           G
sweep of culpability of an offence of conspiracy, if proved, even from
the established attendant circumstances.
       14. Having regard to the proved facts and the state oflaw, adverted
to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has
                                                                                H
362              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2016] 8 S.C.R.



A     been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. Both the
      courts below have analysed the evidence in the correct perspectives
      and in the face of the conclusions recorded on the different aspects of
      the imputations levelled against them, we are of the opinion that no
      interference is called for with the impugned judgment of conviction
      and sentence recorded against them. The appeals thus fail and are
 B
      dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit the original record to the Trial
      Court immediately.


      Devika Gujral                                               Appeals dismissed.