MANU/SC/1597/1996

Equivalent Citation: 1996VIAD(SC )697, 1996(2)ALD(C ri)711, 1997 (34) AC C 770, 1996(2)ALT(C ri)708, IV(1996)C C R39(SC ),
1996(3)C rimes274(SC ), JT1996(8)SC 189, 1996(3)RC R(C riminal)819, 1996(6)SC ALEP-15, (1996)10SC C 190, [1996]Supp5SC R705

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 1993
Decided On: 10.09.1996
Appellants: Gursharan Singh
Vs.
Respondent: State of Punjab
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.S. Sodhi, Adv
For Respondents/Defendant: R.S. Yadav, Adv. for R.S. Suri, Adv.
Case Note:
Criminal - extortion - Sections 387, 390 and 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
whether appellant can be punished for robbery and extortion - prosecution
story solely proved extortion - Trial Court held appellant guilty in robbery as
well as extortion - robbery and extortion cannot be tried in one case - robbery
aggravated from extortion - evidence shows that person put in fear to deliver
money - appellant liable to be convicted under extortion.
JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukherjee, J.
1 . By his judgment and order dated June 12, 1993 the Additional Judge, Designated
Court, Amritsar convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 387 and 392 IPC
and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA'
for short). Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19
of TADA.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
2(a), Nirmal Singh carries on business in silver ornaments and lives with his
wife Kuldip Kaur in Gali No. 1, Tej Nagar, Amritsar. Formerly the appellant was
a resident of the same locality and was known to Nirmal Singh. In or about the
month of June, 1990 Nirmal Singh received a letter from the appellant
demanding a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for purchase of weapons for the terrorists and
threatening that in case the money was not paid he (Nirmal Singh) would have
to face dire consequences. Nirmal Singh talked with his wife over the demand
and went to meat the appellant who had by then shifted to Gali Baghwali and
was running a wheat bran depot. The appellant took away the letter from him
and told that he would meet the members of the group at whose instance he
had written that letter. A few days later the appellant came to the house or

04-01-2022 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

 Nirmal Singh and asked him to accompany him to settle the amount to be paid
in terms of his letter. Along with the appellant when Nirmal Singh went to the
depot of the former, he found a man sitting there with a revolver in his hand.
That man asked Nirmal Singh, after putting him in fear of death, whether he
was prepared to pay the amount demanded. On his expressing inability to pay
the demanded sum, a bargain was struck whereunder Nirmal Singh was to pay
Rs. 70,000 to the appellant within three days. Within the stipulated time Nirmal
Singh however could collect only Rs. 50,000; and accordingly with the notes
wrapped in a polythene bag and accompanied by Manohar Singh, Nirmal Singh
went to the depot of the appellant and handed over the same to him and
undertook to pay the balance of Rs. 20,000 within two months. The appellant
told him that in case he reported the matter to the police he would be killed.
Though, owing to the threat so meted out, Nirmal Singh did not lodge any
complaint with the police about the extortion, Gurmit Chand, Inspector of Police
(Operation), Amritsar got that information on August 1, 1990 and, on that
basis, registered a case against the appellant and one Balwinder Singh.
(b) After registering the case Gurmit Chand took up investigation and raided the
house of the appellant on August 2,1990 and arrested him. On interrogation he
made a statement that he had kept concealed currency notes worth Rs. 20,000
under bundles of wheat bran in his depot; and pursuant thereto two bundles of
currency notes, each containing Rs. 10,000, were recovered therefrom. Gurmit
Chand seized those bundles of currency notes in the presence of Manohar Singh
(P.W. 2), who had accompanied the police party. On completion of
investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant.
3 . To prove its case the prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Kuldip Kaur
(P.W. 1), Manohar Singh (P.W. 2), Nirmal Singh (P.W. 3), Inspector Gurmit Chand
(P.W. 4) and Inspector Rattan Lal (P.W. 5). Of them P.W. 1, wife of Nirmal Singh, did
not fully support the prosecution case and Manohar Singh (P.W. 2) at all, for which both
of them were declared hostile.
4 . The case made out by the appellant, who had earlier pleaded not guilty to the
charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried, in his examination under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was that Nirmal Singh was a habitual drunkard and frequently beat his wife.
A few days before his arrest, Nirmal Singh had beaten his wife while under the influence
of liquor and he (the appellant) had intervened to save her. On this issue he had a
quarrel with Nirmal Singh and his father in course of which they exchanged blows.
Offended by his such interference in their family affairs Nirmal Singh and his father got
the case falsely registered against him with the help of a retired police officer. In
support of his above defence the appellant examined Surinder Singh (D.W. 1).
5. On perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the trial Judge has discussed that
entire evidence on record and given detailed reasons for accepting the case of the
prosecution in preference to that of the defence.
6 . We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length and gone
through the entire evidence on record. From the evidence of Nirmal Singh we find that
he reproduced the prosecution case detailed earlier and that though he was cross
examined at length, the defence could not succeed in discrediting him in any way.
Though Kuldip Kaur (P.W. 1) turned hostile, she partly supported the prosecution case
and corroborated the evidence of her husband when she stated that she had found her
husband disturbed and when asked the reason therefor, he disclosed that he had

04-01-2022 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

received a letter demanding money from him. She however did not state that her
husband had told the name of the person who made the demand but, later on, she
testified that Gursharan Singh (the appellant) had come to their house and that her
husband had a talk with the appellant. Her further evidence, on being cross examined
by the prosecution, is that her husband had told him that he had paid ransom to the
appellant.
7. To prove the alleged recovery of Rs. 20,000, out of the amount of Rs. 50,000 paid to
the appellant from his depot the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the two
Inspectors of Police as Manohar Singh, who was a signatory to the recovery memo,
turned hostile. The oral testimonies of the above two witnesses coupled with the
contemporaneous documents which they prepared in respect of the disclosure statement
of the appellant (Ext. PD) and the recovery of the currency notes (Ext. PE) pursuant
thereto fully support the prosecution case and we find no reason to disbelieve their
evidence. It is, of course, true that in the absence of any marks of any identification on
those currency notes in order to connect them with the notes which were handed over
by Nirmal Singh to the appellant, it cannot be said that the prosecution case stands
conclusively proved solely on the basis of the above recovery, but the disclosure
statement made by the appellant and the recovery pursuant thereto substantially
corroborates the testimony of Nirmal Singh.
8 . Coming now to the defence case and the evidence of Surinder Singh in support
thereof, we find, from the uncontroverted evidence of Kuldip Kaur, that at the material
time the appellant had shifted his residence from their locality and the other evidence
on record shows that he was then a resident of Gali Baghwali. There was, therefore, no
opportunity for the appellant to see Nirmal Singh and his wife fighting in their house
and consequently the question of his intervention therein could not have arisen. It must
therefore be held that the defence story as given out by D.W. 1 is untrue.
9 . For the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that the trial Judge was fully
justified in concluding that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case. The trial
Judge however was not justified in convicting the appellant both under Section 387 and
Section 392 IPC, as Section 390 IPC lays down that in all robberies there is either theft
or extortion; and that necessarily means that a person cannot be convicted both for
extortion and robbery, which is a special aggravated from of the former. As in the
instant case, Nirmal Singh was not induced to pay the money on the day he was put on
fear of instant death but a few days later, he cannot be said to have committed 'robbery'
within the meaning of Section 390 IPC for one of the ingredients of this offence is that
the offender "induces the person so put in fear them & there to deliver up the thing
extorted". Consequently the appellant's conviction under Section 392 IPC for committing
robbery has got to be set aside.
1 0 . For the foregoing discussion we uphold the conviction and sentence of the
appellant under Section 387 IPC and Section 3 of TADA but set aside his conviction and
sentence under Section 392 IPC.
The appeal is thus disposed of.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

04-01-2022 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University