Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Ramesh Narang & Ors. on 19 December, 2015
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh
ASJ/Special Judge : NDPS : Rohini Courts : Delhi
In the matter of :
SC No. 41/14
CBI Vs. Ramesh Narang & Ors.
RC no. 4(S)/95/DLI/CBI/N.D
(FIR No. 560 of 1994, P.S Samai Pur Badli)
U/s 304/323/325/354/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Ramesh Narang
S/o Sh. Dayal Narang
R/o Qr. No. 15-N,
Police Colony, Model Town, Delhi.
2. Balkishan
S/o Sh. Sambu Ram
R/o Village & P.S. Hatt,
Distt. Jind, Haryana.
3. Meer Singh
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o VPO Nara,
PS Rai Deva, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
4. Rohtash Singh
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
R/o VPO Banker,
PS Narela, Delhi.
5. Jasvir Singh................................(Expired)
SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 1 of 103
2
6. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Aman Singh
R/o VPO Narela,
Delhi.
7. Mohd. Hashim Khan
S/o Late Sh. Amantulla Khan
R/o Village Gaujheri,
PS Kudwar, Distt. Sultanpur (U.P.)
8. Udai Singh................................(Expired)
9. Jai Prakash @ Lullo
S/o Sh. Udai Singh
R/o Village Siraspur,
Delhi-42.
10. Krishan
S/o Sh. Udai Singh
R/o Village Siraspur,
Delhi-42.
Date of receipt : 04.12.1998
(Received in this court) : 09.05.2014
Date of arguments : 19.12.2015
Date of announcement : 19.12.2015
JUDGMENT
1. The above named ten accused were sent for trial U/s 304/325/354/323 r/w 34 of IPC. Out of the above mentioned ten accused, the accused no. 1 to 7, are police officials. They were posted in police station Samay Pur Badli at the relevant time. The SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 2 of 103 3 other three accused are public persons. Out of all the accused, Ct. Jasvir Singh and Uday Singh have expired and proceedings against them stood abated. The present judgment is therefore directed against the surviving accused only.
1.1. Initially this case was registered in local police station S. P. Badli on 16.12.1994 under FIR no. 560 of 1994. The incident pertains to 2.12.1992, i.e. two years prior to the date of registration of the FIR. Subsequently, vide order dated 17.1.1995 of Hon‟ble Delhi High court in Writ Petition no. 555 of 1994, the investigation was handed over to CBI. CBI registered the case as RC No. 4(S)/95/DLI/BI/ND. The matter was thereafter investigated by CBI and charge sheet was filed for the above mentioned offences. The case was registered on the complaint of Balbir Singh.
1.2. Balbir Singh stated that on 2.12.1992 at about 10.00 AM, accused SI Ramesh Narang along with the other policemen accused and Uday Singh, Jai Prakash @ Luloo & Kishan came to the residence of Balbir Singh at Village Siraspur. They called Balbir Singh from his house and enquired from him as to the whereabouts of his cousins Om Prakash, Jagdish etc. On the reply of Balbir Singh that he was not aware of their whereabouts, he was asked to come to the police station. He was threatened by SI Ramesh Narang. In the meantime Jaswant Singh, elder brother of Balbir Singh, also reached there and asked about the threat given by SI Ramesh Narang, on which Uday Singh shouted that they should be beaten to death. While altercation was going on SI Ramesh Narang fired thrice from his service revolver in the air.
SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 3 of 103 4Jaswant Singh got frightened and tried to run away, but he was over-powered by Uday Singh and his both sons, Jai Prakash and Kishan. When Jaswant Singh fell down, SI Ramesh Narang beat/thrashed Jaswant Singh with Lathi, and Uday Singh and his both sons thrashed him by fists and blows. Balbir Singh was also caught and beaten/thrashed by other accompanying constables. On hearing the commotion Smt. Bimla, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Phullo also reached the spot and enquired the reason for beatings. Enraged, SI Ramesh Narang shouted "catch hold of these prostitutes also". They were thereafter dragged by pulling their hairs and beaten by the accused constables. When Devender, nephew of Balbir Singh, came from inside the house, he was also caught and beaten by the above said constables. Dharmender S/o Jaswant Singh, who bolted the door from inside, was also dragged and beaten by Ramesh Narang & other police officials after breaking open the door. Similarly, Sultan Singh, father of Balbir Singh was also dragged and beaten by SI Ramesh Narang and the constables. In the meantime, extra force also reached the spot and they also helped the aforesaid accused persons in their atrocities. Thereafter, at about 11.15 AM, Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh, Sultan Singh, Dharmender, Devender, Smt. Bimla, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Phullo were brought to police station Samai Pur Badli in two vehicles with the help of extra force, and were detained for more than two and a half hours in police station Samai Pur Badli. Jaswant Singh and Balbir Singh were further thrashed in the police station by SI Ramesh Narang and the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 4 of 103 5 constables. SI Ramesh Narang subsequently brought Smt. Shanti Devi w/o Late Risal Singh, and Dayanand, S/o Sh. Nand Lal to police station Samai Pur Badli on 2.12.1992. At about 1.00 PM all of them were taken to Hindu Rao Hospital (HRH) Delhi for medical examination. After medical examination, all of them except Jaswant Singh were brought back to the police station at about 8.00 PM. Jaswant Singh was admitted in the HRH due to fracture of femur, where he died on 3.12.1992 at 6.15 P.M. Balbir Singh was again beaten in the night at police station by SI Ramesh Narang. It is also alleged in the FIR that four gold chains and cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- of the complainant was also taken away by the police party.
1.3. Investigation revealed that SI Ramesh Narang and Constables Bal Kishan, Meer Singh, Rohtash Singh, Jasveer Singh, Pawan Kumar and Mohd. Hashim Khan were posted and working in police station Samai Pur Badli, Delhi , on 2nd December, 1992. During the month of November and December, 1992 SI Ramesh Narang was investigating a case FIR No. 467/92 dated 23.11.92 of the same Police Station registered under section 324/34 of the IPC, which was subsequently converted under sections 307/324/34 of IPC, against Sh. Om Prakash, Surat Singh and Jagdish, cousins of Balbir Singh, and resident of Village Siraspur, registered on the complaint of one Sh. Rishi Rana, nephew of Sh. UdaySingh & Cousin of Jai Prakash & Kishan. On 2.12.1992 at about 10.15 AM, SI Ramesh Narang armed with revolver and a lathi, Constables Bal Kishan, Meer Singh, Rohtash Singh, Jasveer SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 5 of 103 6 Singh, Pawan Kumar and Mohd. Hashim Khan, armed with lathis and one of them also armed with stengun, along with Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Kishan, reached the house of Balbir Singh and committed the above mentioned acts.
1.4. Thereafter when on 2.12.1992 at about 10.00 PM Sh. Satbir Singh Rana went to police station Samai Pur Badli, Delhi to serve meals to Balbir Singh and his other relatives, he was also illegally detained and beaten by SI Ramesh Narang at the instance of Kishan. He was subsequently shown arrested by SI Nand Kishore on 3.12.92 at 9.15 P.M, in the cross case FIR No. 473/92 of police station Samai Pur Badli.
1.5. Thus, as per prosecution, the seven policemen accused and Uday Singh and his two sons committed offence U/s 304, 323, 325, 354 r/w section 34 IPC.
1.6. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the above mentioned ten accused for the above mentioned offences.
1.7. It may be mentioned here that on the complaint of SI Ramesh Narang, a cross case was registered against Balbir Singh and his family members under FIR no. 473/1992, wherein SI Ramesh Narang alleged that when he along with his police team comprising of six other constables went to the spot for investigation of the earlier FIR no. 467/1992, Balbir Singh and his family members attacked the police team with lathies, jailey, kasola, ustara and also a bullet was fired on the police team from a country made pistol, in which some of the members of the police SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 6 of 103 7 team sustained injuries.
2. Accordingly, charge U/s 304/323 & 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC was framed against all the ten accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed trial. During trial, as mentioned above, two accused Ct. Jasveer Singh and Uday Singh expired and proceedings against them stood abated.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined total 34 witnesses.
3.1. From the medical point of view, PW17 to PW20, have been examined.
3.1.1. PW17 Dr. S. K. Khanna, along with Dr. P. C. Dixit, conducted post mortem on the body of Jaswant Singh, on 17.12.1992, and proved the post mortem report Ex.PW17/A. In the post mortem of Jaswant Singh, following 11 external injuries were noticed :-
External Injuries
1) Contusion 9 x 2cm, outer aspect of lower part of forearm, blue in colour;
2) Contusion 8 x 5 cm, back of right hand, blue in colour;
3) Contusion 6 x 3 cm front of lower part of right leg, blue in colour;
4) Scabbed abrasion 3 x 2 cm, outer aspect of lower part of right leg;
5) Contusion 12 x 8 cm, outer aspect of right ankle joint and adjacent part of right foot, blue in colour;SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 7 of 103 8
6) Scabbed abrasion 3 x 1 cm mid front of left leg;
7) Scabbed abrasion 6 x 3 cm front of left knee;
8) Swelling of upper part of right thigh with fracture near the upper hand of the femur bone. About 1.5 litre of blood was present in the surrounding tissues;
9) Contusion 7 x 3 cm back of left hand blue in colour;
10) Contusion 15 x 4 cm ulnar aspect of lower and of middle part of left forearm. Blue in colour.
11) Contusion 6 x 4 cm on outer aspect of left elbow joint, blue in colour.
During internal examination, extravasation of blood was noticed in the left temporal and occipital region of scalp. Initially, no definite opinion as to cause of death could be given. After receipt of chemical analysis report, Ex.PW17/C, subsequent final opinion was given on 1.06.1993 regarding death of Jaswant.
The cause of death was opined as hemorrhage and shock consequent upon multiple injuries, mainly fracture of femur. All injuries were found ante mortem in nature caused due to blunt force impact. The subsequent opinion is proved as Ex.PW17/D. The witness deposed that since viscera examination tested negative for common poisons, therefore, the final cause of death was so given and that those injuries were possible while the deceased was trying to defend himself and might have fallen on the ground and those injuries were caused by blunt SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 8 of 103 9 weapon. Those injuries were opined as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Witness also deposed that the fracture of femur could be caused by blunt object impact with a large amount of force.
3.1.1 PW18 Dr. Bimla Bansal, proved the MLC of injured Kamla as Ex.PW18/A. The witness examined the said injured and claimed that the injured was brought to the hospital at 2.22 PM with the alleged history of injured being beaten by police. Multiple bruises over left shoulder; left forearm, left gluteal region and popliteal region and tenderness were noticed and all injuries were blunt in nature.
3.1.2 PW19 Dr. R. P. Kaur proved the MLCs of injured Balbir, Dayanand, Devinder and Dharmender as Ex.PW19/B to E, respectively.
3.1.3 PW20 Dr. Rajdeep Kapoor examined injured Jaswant Singh (deceased) and injured Dharmender Kumar vide MLCs Ex.PW20/A & B, respectively. The witness deposed that the two injured were admitted in the hospital at about 2 PM. Jaswant gave the history of injuries as being beaten by the police. His injuries were found to be blunt. There was tenderness on the left upper thigh (fracture of femur). Similarly, injured Dharmender gave history of being beaten by the police. He was having multiple contusions over right scapula, left forearm. This witness also identified hand writing and signatures of Dr. A. K. Dhingra on the MLCs of Balbir, Shanti Devi and Sultan Singh, Ex.PW20/C to F. SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 9 of 103 10 The witness during his cross examination deposed that Jaswant Singh was fit for statement at the time of MLC as had he not been fit for statement, it would have been noted specifically. The witness also explained that in the casualty, main focus is to provide first aid treatment and the injuries primarily visible or disclosed by the patient are noted in MLC.
3.2 PW4 Sardar Singh; PW15 Ramesh Gosain; PW27 Dhani Ram and; PW2 Satbir Singh deposed regarding false implication of Satbir as an accused in another cross case FIR no. 473/92.
3.2.1 PW4 Sardar Singh deposed that in the marriage of his daughter Sheela Devi on 2.12.1992, Satbir who was running a tent business came to his house at Village Kheda Khurd on 1.12.92 at about 7-8 PM with his labour and erected the tent by about 10-11 AM on 2.12.92 and then left the place. The witness also deposed that he did not know as to at what time, Satbir left the marriage pandal after erection of pandal.
3.2.2 PW27 Dhani Ram deposed that Satbir came to erect tent in the marriage of daughter of his cousine on 1.12.92 in the evening, and remained in village Kheda Khurd till 1.00 PM on 2.12.1992.
3.2.3 PW15 Ramesh Gosain deposed that on request of Satbir Singh, he accompanied Satbir on 2.12.1992 at 7.30 PM to the police station Samai Pur Badli. In the police station, this witness remained at the gate and then he noticed that Satbir was caught by the police, he was put under fetters and, he was also made to bend like a cock, and then the witness left. The witness also SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 10 of 103 11 deposed that Satbir was beaten by SI Ramesh Narang.
3.2.4 PW2 Satbir Singh is cousine of deceased Jaswant. He deposed that on 2.12.1992 from 6.30 AM till 12.30 PM, he was present in village Kheda Khurd in connection with erection of tent in the marriage of daughter of PW4 and thereafter he returned to his shop at Libaspur. Then he came to know about quarrel between his family members and police officials and the fact that some of his family members and relatives were taken away by the police officials. He then contacted his lawyer in Tis Hazari and sent telegrams to the SHO, DCP, Commissioner of Police, and other authorities. Thereafter, he along with Prem Singh and Surender Pal went to Police Station S. P. Badli. At the police station, he saw that Balbir, Dharmender, Devender, Shanti Devi and his bhabhi were in injured condition. Then, he sought permission from SI Ramesh Narang to offer tea and food and accordingly brought tea and food for his family members. After his relatives had food and the witness was collecting utensils, at that time Krishan son of deceased accused Uday Singh told SI Ramesh Narang that Satbir was also one of the family members of Balbir and that Satbir had sent telegrams. Upon it, SI Ramesh arrested Satbir also in the cross case. Subsequently, SI Ramesh Narang along with 3-4 police officials gave beatings to this witness. He was not produced in the court on the next day with other accused in the cross case. He was produced in the court only on 4.12.92. He was taken on one day police custody till 5.12.1992 and during PC also, he was given beatings.
SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 11 of 103 123.3 PW7 Prakash Chand, PW16 Surat Singh and PW22 SI Mohd.
Zafar deposed about earlier incident dated 22/11/1992.
3.3.1 PW7 Prakash Chand deposed that he was relative of both the sides i.e. Uday Singh and Jai Narain etc., and that some fight took place between those two sides on 22.11.92, regarding which FIR no. 467/92 was registered against Jai Narain and others and also this witness, but no FIR was registered against Uday Singh and others despite the fact that Jai Narain and others also received injuries. The witness claimed that though he is named as an accused in FIR no. 467/92, but he was not present at the time of earlier quarrel. The witness deposed that he and others as accused of case FIR no. 467/92 secured anticipatory bail with the active assistance and co-operation of Balbir Singh and others. The witness was not present at the time of incident dated 2.12.1992.
3.3.2 PW16 Surat Singh is also a witness qua incident dated 22.11.1992. The witness deposed that on that day Uday Singh, Chattar Singh, their sons, and 2-3 more persons attacked Surat Singh, Mehtab Singh, Kartar Singh and Jai Narain, as they had a dispute qua some wall with Surat Singh and Chattar Singh. In the said incident, Surat Singh, Mehtab Singh, Kartar Singh and Jai Narain sustained injuries. Police was called upon which SI Ramesh Narang accompanied by few policemen came to the spot. Two offenders Dharamvir and Raghuvir were handed over to the police. But since SI Ramesh Narang was in league with Uday Singh and others, instead of registering a case against Uday SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 12 of 103 13 Singh and others, the FIR no. 467/92 was registered against this witness and others. Witness deposed that though injuries were sustained by their side, still case was registered against them only and no case was registered against the offenders i.e. against Uday Singh & Ors. The witness also deposed that in the said incident of 22.11.92, neither Jaswant Singh, nor Balbir Singh was present.
3.3.3 PW22 SI Mohd. Zafar proved the registration of the earlier FIR no. 467/92 dated 22.11.92 which was registered qua the quarrel dated 22.11.92, as Ex.PW22/A. The witness admitted that in this FIR, name of Balbir, Jaswant and Dayaram are not mentioned.
3.4 PW25 Brajendra Ojha simply proved the grant of Sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C by the competent authority against the seven police officials A1 to A7 as Ex.PW25/A, dated 31.07.1997.
3.5 PW29 ASI Daya Chand, the duty officer, proved the cross FIR no. 473/92 as Ex.PW29/A, which FIR was registered on the complaint of SI Ramesh Narang against Balbir Singh and others. The witness deposed that the rukka of the said case was sent by SI Nand Kishore at 1.00 PM and that his duty hours on that day were from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM.
The witness also proved DD entry no. 8, recorded at 1.00 PM as Ex.PW29/B regarding Ct. Jasmer Singh being sent with copies of FIR to the senior officers.
The witness also proved DD no. 17A recorded at 4.00 AM in the midnight of 2nd and 3rd December 1992 as Ex.PW29/C. This SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 13 of 103 14 DD records arrival of SI Ramesh Narang after the incident in question.
The witness also proved DD no. 6A dated 4.12.92 recorded at 10.10 AM as Ex.PW29/D. In this DD no. 6A, it is recorded that one ASI Prakash Singh threatened the SHO of Police Station S. P. Badli to kill him since, his brother (Jaswant Singh) who was beaten by the police had died.
The witness also proved DD no. 7B, 11B and 13B as Ex.PW29/E, F & Ex.PW28/A, respectively.
DD no. 7B records that Lady Ct. Suman Lata no. 9333/DHG arrived at police station on 2.12.92 for her duties.
DD no. 11B records that SI Ramesh Narang along with Ct. Meer Singh, Ct. Pawan Kumar, Ct. Balkishan, Ct. Rohtash, Ct. Jagvir and Ct. Fayaz Ahmad departed for village Siraspur. In this DD entry, in a different ink, the FIR no. 467/92 with the sections thereof has been added. In this DD, it is apparent that the fact that the police team went in police vehicle along with arms & ammunitions have been added subsequently.
DD no. 13 was recorded at 10.45 AM regarding receipt of wireless message about quarrel at the spot at Siraspur Village and for sending police to the spot. In this DD also, the fact that Lady Ct. Suman Lata was taken to the spot apparently has been subsequently added with a different pen.
This witness also proved DD no. 18B as Ex.PW29/G dated 4.12.1992. This DD was recorded at 2.45 PM on 4.12.92 regarding re-medical examination of Balbir Singh, Dayanand and SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 14 of 103 15 Devinder, sent from jail to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.
3.6 PW26 HC Chander Phool deposed that he accompanied deceased Jaswant Singh from Police Station S.P. Badli to HRH on 2.12.1992 and there were other injured also in the vehicle in which Jaswant was taken to HRH. They reached HRH at 11.30 - 12 PM. The witness remained with Ct. Jaswant Singh in the hospital till next day in the morning. This witness also deposed that when Jaswant Singh was admitted in HRH, many persons visited him in the hospital, but in the next breath the witness claimed that he did not remember as to whether any person paid visit to Jaswant or not in HRH.
3.7 PW14 Narender Singh was the relieving constable who relieved PW26 HC Chander Phool in HRH. Even this witness deposed that during his stay in the hospital with Jaswant Singh, 2-3 relatives of Jaswant Singh came to meet Jaswant Singh.
3.8 PW31 Randhir Singh simply deposed that on 2.12.1992 at about 11.30 AM when he was returning to the house of his uncle, he came to know that some incident had occurred, but he did not personally see any incident. The witness also deposed that Delhi Police officials never recorded his statement nor met him at the spot or later.
3.9 PW30 Ram Pratap turned hostile to the case of prosecution and claimed that he did not witness anything qua the present matter on 2.12.1992 as his mother was ill. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Prosecutor for CBI but even in the cross SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 15 of 103 16 examination by CBI, the witness stuck to the stand that he did not witness any incident. He denied having made any statement to CBI and denied having seen Uday Singh and his two sons namely Jai Prakash and Kishan going towards the house of Balbir Singh along with the police on 2.12.1992.
3.10 PW24 Inspector Balbir Singh Dahiya was the SHO of police station S. P. Badli on the date of incident. This witness deposed that on 2.12.1992, he was not holding charge of SHO of the said police station and instead charge of police station was with SI Madanjit Singh, pursuant to order of the then DCP, North West. He deposed that he was sitting at lawns of the police station with SI Madanjit Singh and ACP M. R. Gothwal when at about 11.00 AM duty officer reported about the incident with police party at the spot. SI Nand Kishore was deputed to go to the spot. SI Madanjit also left for the spot and thereafter this witness along with the ACP went to the spot. At the spot, one PCR vehicle and two vehicles of Riot Control, which used to be called X-ray-1 and X- ray-2, were found present. Many public persons were there. Bricks etc. were lying on the spot. The witness claimed that at that time when he reached the spot, the situation was already under control and no quarrel or incident of beating took place in his presence.
3.11 PW32 Inspector Madanjit Singh deposed that on the date of incident he was posted as Incharge, Police Post, Prashant Vihar and at that time Inspector Balbir Singh Dahiya was the SHO of police station Samay Pur Badli. On 2.12.1992, he along with other SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 16 of 103 17 police officials posted at PP Prashant Vihar went to police station Samay Pur Badli for morning official briefing by the SHO. At that time, ACP Mr. M. R. Gothwal was also present in the police station for the purposes of meeting in the room of SHO. Inspector Balbir Singh Dahiya was also present. The ACP called SI Ramesh Narang and asked him to go and arrest Jaswant Singh and Dayanand etc. at about 8.55 AM. Thereafter, Inspector Balbir Singh briefed the staff of the police station. And at 9.45 to 10 AM, duty officer informed Inspector Balbir Singh about the occurrence with the police team headed by SI Ramesh Narang. Thereafter, this witness, Inspector Balbir Singh and other police officials rushed to the spot and reached there at about 10.30-10.45 AM. Riot control vehicle and PCR were already at the spot. Public persons were throwing bricks and stones on the police officials present there.
This witness was declared hostile by the CBI prosecutor and was cross examined. In the cross examination also, the witness claimed that when they reached the spot, no physical scuffling was going on. However, he volunteered that public persons were throwing stones. He denied that when they reached the spot, SI Ramesh, Balbir, Jaswant etc. had already sustained injuries or that Jaswant was lying on the road after sustaining injuries. The witness however admitted that when they reached the spot, they resorted to lathi charge, in order to bring the situation under control and to disperse the crowd. He claimed that during the lathi charge, public persons SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 17 of 103 18 sustained injuries. During cross examination by Ld. Prosecutor for the CBI, this witness admitted that CBI official recorded his statement and after statement was recorded by the CBI, it was read over to him and was accepted to be correct. But interestingly, the said statement of this witness recorded by the CBI official was not put to this witness specifically asking him whether it was his same statement or not. Nor the witness was confronted with the previous statement.
3.12 PW33 SI Nand Kishore was the investigating officer of the cross case FIR no. 473/92, in which the police team is complainant. This witness turned hostile in the present case and was cross examined by the Ld. Prosecutor for the CBI. This witness deposed that on 2.12.1992 the call recorded in DD no. 13B was assigned to him at about 10.45 AM and he along with other police officials including the then SHO and SI Madanjit Singh reached the spot at about 11.15 AM. At the spot, SI Ramesh Narang and other police officials were present but Ct. Mohd. Hashim Khan was not present at the spot. Witness deposed that certain villagers namely Balbir Singh, Dayanand, Jaswant, Dharmender, Devender and certain other persons were having weapons in their hands viz., iron rod, lathies etc. Some ladies including Kamla, Phullo, Bimla, Shanti and others were throwing stones upon the police team from the roof top of their houses. Police team members were trying to save themselves.
When the witness did not support the case of CBI, the witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 18 of 103 19 Prosecutor for CBI. In the cross examination by Ld. Prosecutor for CBI, witness admitted that when he reached the spot, bricks and stones were already lying at the spot and some public persons were also already injured. The witness however claimed that some public persons received injuries, subsequently, when the additional police personnel used force to control the mob. Witness admitted that in DD no. 13B Ex.PW28/A, all that was mentioned was that some quarrel was going on at the spot and it was not mentioned in the DD that the police team was attacked. Witness also admitted that SI Ramesh Narang was already injured when he reached the spot and that from visual appearance of the injury, he could not make out whether it was grievous or simple. Witness claimed ignorance whether his statement was recorded by CBI and stated that nothing was read over to him by the CBI. Witness also claimed that he remained at the spot till 3.00-4.00 PM on the date of incident. In his cross examination by the Ld. Prosecutor for CBI, witness also admitted that in the MLCs of public persons, the alleged history of sustaining injury was mentioned as "being beaten by police officials", and that in the MLC of Jaswant Singh "fracture sign" was mentioned and visible. On the point of delay in informing the SDM about custodial death, the witness offered an explanation that since it was holiday, it took time to trace out the SDM concerned and to convey information. However, he admitted that SDM was informed about the custodial death only on 4.12.1992. Witness also admitted that the weapons of offences SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 19 of 103 20 like lathies, iron rod etc. were not valuables but still those things went missing from the malkhana of the police station, even though they were claimed to be seized in FIR no. 473/92. Witness also admitted that no empty cartridge was seized from the spot and that he tried to find out empty cartridges but could not find them. During cross examination, the witness also admitted that in DD no. 15 recorded on 4.12.1992 Ex.PW33/1, the last few lines in the entry are unduly cramped. The witness tried to offer explanation in this regard explaining that he had put a line so that the DD Writer could record other DD entries but when the DD no. 15 was completed by him, space was little and therefore, the lines are cramped. A perusal of Ex.PW33/1 would reveal that the explanation offered by this witness is nothing but false. If one reads the content of this DD, it would reveal that the entry was written and closed at the point where it is written that the DD is in the hand writing of SI Nand Kishore. After the words "bakalam SI khud", again the words were added "va darj hai", clearly signifying that after the initial entry was stopped, the last few lines were added subsequently. In the last few lines, there is a mention about death of Jaswant in custody and regarding information to the SDM for inquest proceedings. A bare reading of the DD would reveal that the fact qua death of Jaswant and inquest proceedings were added subsequently. In any case, the claim of SI Nand Kishore that he had put a bottom line before completing the DD in order to enable the DD writer to make other entries is false on the face of it for the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 20 of 103 21 reason that this DD no. 15 was lodged at 5.28 PM whereas the next entry i.e. DD no. 16 was lodged at 8.30 PM. Therefore, there was a gap of three hours between these two entries and therefore there was no reason for SI Nand Kishore to put bottom line of the DD before completing the DD no. 15 as there was no urgency in recording of any other DD at that time. In any case, if the explanation of SI Nand Kishore is accepted, that itself would show that even DD no. 15 was subsequently written as the witness himself claims that he appended a bottom line to the DD and then subsequently he noted down the contents of it. This fact reveal tampering with the DD entries consequent upon death of Jaswant in custody. This fact also throws suspicion upon the conduct of this witness in not deposing correctly before the court and trying to shield his fellow policemen.
3.13 PW9 Ct. Duli Chand also turned hostile to the case of CBI. He claimed that on 2.12.1992 when he was posted as a constable at Police station S. P. Badli, he had gone to serve certain summons in beat area in Kheda Kalan and Jeevan Park. When he was passing through the spot at about 11-11.30 AM, he saw a crowd and learnt that some quarrel took place there. He saw SI Ramesh Narang, SHO Balbir Singh, SI Madanjit Singh and certain other police officials, including Ct. Pawan Kumar and Ct. Balkishan, as also some public persons. He saw that blood was oozing out from the chest of SI Ramesh Narang. Even this witness sustained injury on his hand due to stone throwing. Subsequently, he was sent to HRH for his medical. He had seen a large number of SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 21 of 103 22 stones and bricks lying at the spot. This witness deposed that he did not see Ct. Fayaz Ahmad at the spot instead he saw Ct. Mhd. Hashim at the spot.
The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. Prosecutor for CBI. The witness was confronted with his previous statement given to the CBI. In the cross examination by the accused SI Ramesh Narang this witness admitted that all the injured persons including SI Ramesh Narang were sent to Hindu Rao Hospital directly from the spot.
3.14 PW21 Ct. Fayaz Ahmad also turned hostile to the case of CBI.
This witness deposed that he worked as a DD Writer in the Police station Samai Pur Badli on 1.12.1992 from 4 PM till 12 in the midnight. After his duty hours, he went to his house and on the next day he came to know about the incident in question upon which he directly went to the spot from his house, out of curiosity.
When this witness was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor for CBI, the witness admitted that DD no. 11B dated 2.12.1992, wherein it is mentioned that this witness went to the spot along with other team members, was wrongly recorded as he never accompanied SI Ramesh Narang to the spot from the police station. Witness also admitted that at the relevant time, there were only two Muslim constables posted in the police station concerned, i.e. this witness and Ct. Mohd. Hashim, and never there used to be any kind of confusion as to their identity. The witness also admitted that in the Rojnamcha Register, it was SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 22 of 103 23 mentioned that even Ct. Hashim went to the spot whereas Ct. Mhd. Hashim told this witness that he also never went to the spot. Witness admitted that he made statement to the SDM Ex.PW21/A which is a signed statement. When the evidence given by this witness in the court was found to be materially different, the witness was questioned as to why he presented a different version before the SDM, upon which the witness replied that he does not remember as to why he made such a statement before the SDM, but he admitted that he did state the facts mentioned in Ex.PW21/A. On being questioned, the witness reiterated that his version given in the court that he did not go to the spot with the police team and subsequently out of curiosity went to the spot directly from his house was a correct version, whereas, the version presented by this witness before SDM was that he accompanied the police team from the police station to the spot. The witness admitted that the version given to the SDM was an incorrect version given by him. On being questioned as to why he gave a false statement to the SDM, the witness could not give any reason as to why he made a false statement. The witness was also confronted with his previous statement given to the CBI in which he had stated that he did not go to the spot at all. He stated that his claim to the CBI that he did not go to the spot at all was a false claim. However, the witness was categorical that the entry in DD no. 11 was an incorrect entry and he did not go to the spot with the team headed by SI Ramesh Narang.
SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 23 of 103 243.15 PW28 Suman Lata deposed that on 2.12.1992, she was working as a Home Guard Constable and on that day she reported for her duty at 10.00 AM. She claimed that at about 10.45 AM or so she was directed by the duty officer to accompany three injured ladies to Hindu Rao Hospital for their medical examination and accordingly she went to HRH with those injured ladies. The witness claimed that on that day she did not go to the spot at all, and she claimed that DD no. 13B was incorrectly recorded that she accompanied the police team from the police station to the spot. The witness claimed that she returned to the police station from the hospital in the evening on that day. Even during the cross examination by the accused, she maintained the stand that DD no. 13B was incorrectly recorded and she did not ever join the police team from the police station to the spot.
3.16 PW13 S. S. Sidhu was the concerned SDM who conducted the inquest proceedings upon information of custodial death of Jaswant. The witness proved his report Ex.PW13/H running into 20 pages and deposed that during the inquest proceedings, he recorded the statements of 37 witnesses from both the sides. The witness also proved that though the injured Jaswant Singh had expired on 3.12.1992, yet the information about death was given to him only on 4.12.1992 at 2.00 PM. This witness specifically deposed that since the relatives of deceased were leveling allegations of police torture, therefore, he deemed it appropriate to get the post mortem conducted through a board of doctors. He also sought explanation from the SHO as to the delay in informing SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 24 of 103 25 about death, but no reply was received from the SHO about it. The witness also deposed that Satnarayan, brother of deceased Jaswant Singh and brother of Balbir, had also given an application for getting the body medically examined by board of competent doctors. Witness deposed that in the inquest proceedings, he came to the conclusion that Jaswant Singh died due to beatings given by the police in which major role was of SI Ramesh Narang, and Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Kishan also participated in the incident.
3.17 PW8 Satnarayan deposed that on 2.12.1992 he was driving his red line bus at about 4 PM at Kingsway Camp Chowk and there he came to know from his driver that some incident has taken place with his family members. This witness is brother of Balbir Singh, the complainant of this case. The witness claims that thereafter he rushed to his house and then went to police station S.P.Badli where he did not find anyone. Then he went to HRH at about 6.00 PM where he found his brother Jaswant Singh admitted in the hospital. He spoke to Jaswant Singh as to what happened. Upon it Jaswant Singh replied "mujhe police walon ne bahot mara hai, ab mein bachunga nahin". Upon asking as to why this incident happened, Jaswant Singh stated that it was because of Uday Singh and his sons with whom the incident dated 22.11.1992 occurred. Thereafter, the duty constable, who was on duty with Jaswant Singh asked him to go away. Next day at about 6.00 PM he again went to the hospital where he found Jaswant Singh lying on the bed with a plaster on his leg and then he was SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 25 of 103 26 declared dead. Witness also claimed that at that time Ct. Suresh Chikara was the duty constable present in the hospital. Witness also claimed that he found that Rs. 50,000/- cash kept in his house were missing after the incident. Witness also claimed that he tried to lodge the report with respect to the loss of money, but nobody took his complaint. However, no details of the complaints or details of the authority to which the complaints were made, is forthcoming.
Witness admitted that Ex.PW7/A was the statement of this witness recorded by the SDM which is also duly signed by him. In this Ex.PW7/A, all that is mentioned is that this witness could speak to Jaswant for one minute only and during that conversation, Jaswant told this witness that his half portion was dead and his 'kullah' (hip joint) is fractured and that besides this conversation the witness was not allowed to talk to the injured. In Ex.PW7/A, it is also mentioned that the witness did not go to the hospital next day.
3.18 PW1 Balbir Singh Rana is the complainant of this case. He is brother of deceased Jaswant Singh. This witness deposed that on 2.12.1992, he had not gone to his office for some reason and was standing on his first floor house balcony. At that time, SI Ramesh Narang along with other police officials came there. SI Ramesh Narang was carrying a revolver and one lathi. Accused Mhd. Hashim Khan was carrying a rifle. Other policemen were carrying dandas. Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Krishan were also with the police team. SI Ramesh Narang signaled this witness to come SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 26 of 103 27 down. When he came down, Jai Prakash pointed out to SI Ramesh Narang that he was Balbir. Upon it, SI Ramesh Narang enquired from this witness as to where Om Prakash and Jagdish were (accused of earlier case FIR no. 467/92 of same Police Station)? This witness expressed ignorance, upon which SI Ramesh Narang asked the witness to come to the police station. The witness questioned as to why he should go to the police station, and in the meantime his brother Jaswant Singh also reached there. Uday Singh exhorted that it was Balbir Singh who was helping accused Om Prakash and Jagdish in getting bail in that earlier matter (FIR 467/92). Uday Singh also exhorted to give beatings to this witness and the deceased in a manner that they should die. SI Ramesh Narang then fired three bullet rounds from his revolver in air. Jaswant got scared and started running away. However, Jai Prakash and Krishan caught hold of Jaswant and Jaswant fell on the ground. SI Ramesh Narang started brutally assaulting Jaswant with lathi. Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Krishan also started kicking Jaswant while Jaswant was still lying on the ground. Ct. Balkishan, Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Mir Singh started beating this witness. The witness also fell down. In the meanwhile, lady members of the family viz., Kamla, Bimla and Phullo also came there and enquired from the police team as to why the witness and his brother were being beaten. SI Ramesh Narang exhorted to beat female members also by calling them prostitutes. Ct. Mhd. Hashim dragged Bimla Devi after catching hold of her hair and started beating her. Ct. Pawan Kumar gave SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 27 of 103 28 beatings to Kamla Devi and third policeman gave beatings to Smt. Phullo Devi. In the meanwhile, nephew of the witness namely Devender also came out of the house and then he also asked the police officials as to the reasons for beatings. Ct. Mir Singh gave beatings to Devender. Dharmender son of deceased Jaswant ran inside the house. Meanwhile, SI Ramesh Narang snatched gold chain of this witness and also snatched gold chain of all the three ladies. The witness and his family members were put in the police vehicle. Additional police force was also called and then the witness and his family members were put in the vehicle. They were taken out, again given beatings on the road, and then finally were taken to the police station. Sultan Singh father of this witness was also brought out of the house and was taken to the police station. SI Ramesh Narang and 2-3 police officials went in the house of this witness after breaking open the door in order to search whether there was anyone else in the house and then Dharmender was brought out of the house with injuries on his head. In the police station, Jaswant Singh was thrown outside the gate of the lockup and SI Ramesh Narang along with other police officials gave beatings to this witness as well as Jaswant Singh. They were given beatings in the police station also for about two hours and then finally they were taken to HRH with other injured. SI Ramesh Narang and other police officials also went to HRH. This witness deposed that in the hospital he enquired from his brother Jaswant Singh as to how he was, upon which Jaswant Singh replied that he would not survive due to the injuries he had SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 28 of 103 29 sustained in the incident and that his left leg was not moving. Thereafter, at about 8 PM, all other injured family members except Jaswant Singh were taken back to the police station. In the police station, after about 10-12 minutes of their reaching, Satbir, a relative of this witness came, brought tea for the witness and his family members. Thereafter, after about one hour Satbir also brought food for them but at that time, Satbir was also apprehended and falsely implicated in the cross case FIR no. 473/1992. The witness also deposed that SI Nand Kishore obtained signatures of the witness and others on blank papers and also took their photographs. After about one hour from 11 PM, i.e. at about midnight, again this witness was taken to a room on the backside of lockup and there accused Ramesh Narang with other policemen again gave beatings to this witness with lathies. Next day this witness was produced in the court and was sent to the judicial custody. He was again medically examined from Tihar Jail at DDU Hospital and then his fractured left leg and hand were plastered. On the next day, i.e. 4.12.1992 the witness was granted bail but he came to know about death of Jaswant only on 6.12.1992. Thereafter on 11.12.1992 after he recovered, he gave an application narrating the incident to the Lieutenant Governor, Commissioner of Police, Director CBI and others. Subsequently, during inquest proceedings, SDM recorded statement of this witness Ex.PW1/A and then the present FIR was registered under FIR no. 560/1994, on 16.12.1994. The witness also deposed that after he was released on bail, he was informed by his sister-in-law SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 29 of 103 30 (bhabhi) namely Smt. Murti Devi that police officials threw/scattered stones etc. on the road after they were taken to the police station on 2.12.1992.
3.19 PW3 Devender Rana deposed that on 2.12.1992 when he heard three bullet fire sounds, he came out of the house and noticed that two three police officials were beating his uncle Balbir Singh and that his another uncle Jaswant Singh was running towards the house. Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Krishan along with one policeman (SI Ramesh Narang) were chasing Jaswant Singh and that policeman was carrying a lathi and a revolver at that time. Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Krishan caught hold of Jaswant Singh and threw him on the ground and they also started beating Jaswant Singh with leg and fist blows. SI Ramesh Narang started hitting Jaswant Singh with the lathi. Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Krishan exhorted to SI Ramesh Narang "isko peet peet kar yahin maar dalo". The witness also saw that some police officials caught hold of Kamla, Bimla and Phullo from their hair and they were also called prostitutes. One of the policemen Mir Singh then caught hold of this witness and gave beatings to this witness. SI Ramesh Narang snatched gold chains of Kamla, Bimla and Phullo. Additional police force also came to the spot and his uncles and aunties were put in the police vehicle. Jaswant Singh was taken out from the police gypsy and was thrown on the road and again beaten up. All the family members of this witness were again beaten by almost all the police officials. Thereafter, they were taken to police station where again they were thrown in the lawn SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 30 of 103 31 of the police station. When Jaswant Singh was brought to the police station and was taken out from the police vehicle he was not in a position to move and because of it, Jaswant Singh remained lying on the sand in the lawn of the police station. Thereafter, SI Ramesh Narang arrived at the police station and again started beating Jaswant Singh with kicks. Thereafter, every policeman who came there abused the witnesses and others. At about 2-2.30 PM, they were taken to HRH. The witness deposed that he met his uncle Jaswant Singh in HRH after taking permission from Ct. Chander Phool. His uncle Jaswant Singh replied that he would not survive because of merciless beatings given to him and that his left „kullah‟ was fractured. Subsequently, they were taken back to the police station where Satbir (PW2) brought food for them, but Satbir was also implicated. Subsequently, the witness came to know that Jaswant Singh expired and the witness also was produced in Tis Hazari Court on the next day and was released on bail after 2-3 days. When he returned to his house, he found lock of his bed broken and money kept there missing. This witness identified his statement before the SDM as Ex.PW3/A. 3.20 PW5 Mahender Singh is also an eye witness to the incident dated 2.12.1992. This witness deposed that when at about 10.15 AM, he was returning from dispensary, he saw SI Ramesh Narang in uniform giving beatings to Jaswant Singh whose house was just twenty houses away from the house of this witness. Ramesh Narang was carrying a revolver in his left hand and danda in his SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 31 of 103 32 right hand and was beating Jaswant Singh with a danda. After Jaswant Singh fell down on the ground, SI Ramesh Narang handed over danda to another police official and thereafter he fired three shots from his revolver in the air. The lady members were being abused by other police officials as well as SI Ramesh Narang and that SI Ramesh Narang gave slaps and leg blows to the ladies. Ladies were also dragged through their hair by the police officials and the ladies were put inside the police vehicle. Dharamvir the grandson of Sultan Singh ran inside the house due to fear and closed the door but SI Ramesh Narang along with two police constables chased him, broke the door, and inside the room in order to find Dharamvir one bed was turned upside down. When the bed was turned upside down, total Rs. 50,000/- which were five packets of notes worth Rs. 10,000/- each, were taken by SI Ramesh. Dharamvir was also found sitting beside the bed. He was given beatings and was taken out of the house. Other police vehicles also arrived at the spot. The policemen then threw bricks and stones on the road. One photographer was also called to take the photographs, by the police. Jaswant Singh became unconscious and he was put in the police jeep and was taken to the police station. This witness claims that he went inside the house of Dharamvir when police chased him and he also followed all the injured to the police station S. P. Badli. At the police station, all the persons were again given beatings and subsequently, they were sent for medical examination. The witness claimed that on the next day, Jaswant Singh died. The witness also claims that SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 32 of 103 33 accused Ct. Mir Singh was standing near the jeep at the spot. But he was unable to identify other accused persons as to whether they were there at the spot or not. Witness also claimed that the lady injured family members of Sultan Singh were claiming that their jewellery articles had been taken by police officials, but he did not see any jewellery article in the hand of any police official. Witness deposed that all the injured/victims were unarmed during the incident and none of them gave beatings to any police official. He also claimed that none of the police official sustained any injury in the incident. Towards the end of his examination in chief, the witness volunteered that he was being pressurized by the police to claim that Uday Singh and his son Krishan were also involved in the incident but since it was not true and they were not present, therefore, he did not name them in the court.
3.21 PW6 Subedar Kartar Singh is also a resident of village Siraspur who resides about 1000-1200 yards away from the house of complainant Balbir Singh. This witness deposed that on 02.12.1992 he left his house at about 10.15 AM and barely he had gone 150 yards away from his house when he heard three continuous gunshot fire. He quickly reached on the main road and saw that SI Ramesh Narang along with 5-6 other constables were giving beatings to Balbir Singh, his father Sultan Singh, Jaswant Singh and two other persons with lathies. Lady members of the family were also dragged from their hair and were given beatings. Thereafter, Jaswant Singh, Balbir and his father were pushed SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 33 of 103 34 inside police vehicle and were taken to the police station. This witness then left for his work. However, he claims that after about 30-40 minutes, he straightaway went to the police station S. P. Badli and saw that Jaswant Singh was lying outside the police station. In the next breath, witness claimed that Jaswant Singh was lying inside the boundary wall of the police station near the gate and he heard loud shrieks, shouts and crying coming from inside the police station. After 15-20 minutes, injured including Jaswant were again put inside the police vehicle and the police told this witness that the injured were being taken to HRH. The witness followed the injured to HRH in a bus. Witness claims that only he was allowed to see injured Jaswant Singh in HRH and Jaswant cried while stating "mere ko police walon ne buri tarah mara aur tod diya, ab mein bachoonga nahin". Thereafter this witness claims that he returned to his house and on the next day he came to know that Jaswant Singh had expired. Witness also claims that at the time of incident, Balbir Singh and his family members had not attacked police officials and that his statement was recorded by CBI only. During cross examination by the Ld. Prosecutor for the CBI, this witness admitted his signatures on statement Ex.PW6/A recorded by the SDM, but claimed that he could not recollect as to whether SDM recorded his statement or not but indeed SDM had spoken to him at the place of incident itself. This witness also specifically denied that Uday Singh and his sons were present at the time of incident.
3.22 PW10 Inderjeet Rana is real brother of Mehtab and Surat Singh, SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 34 of 103 35 who were allegedly involved in the earlier incident dated 22.11.1992, which occurred between Uday Singh and his family on the one hand and Mehtab Singh etc. on the other hand. This witness deposed that on 2.12.1992 he was present in his house at 10 AM when SI Ramesh Narang along with other police officials came to his house and enquired about Mehtab and Surat Singh. When this witness replied that Mehtab and Surat Singh were not present in the house, accused Ramesh Narang abused this witness and left the house. The police team went to the house of Uday Singh located nearby and from there Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Krishan accompanied the police officials and allegedly Uday Singh was exhorting that he would get all the children of Vishal Singh beaten and get their houses locked. Thereafter, this witness left his house along with one of his relative to see him off at bus stand. But when this witness was returning at 10.15 AM after leaving his relative at the bus stand, he heard sound of gunshot fire thrice. He entered the house of his uncle(tauji) Sultan Singh as one police vehicle was parked near the house of Sultan Singh. He saw Jaswant Singh lying on the ground and being beaten by SI Ramesh with a lathi and being beaten by Jai Prakash, Uday Singh and Krishan by leg and fist blows. Remaining policemen were giving beatings to Balbir Singh. Allegedly, this witness made a call at number 100 from the telephone installed in the house of Sultan Singh by telling the PCR his own name as the informant and the place of incident as that of his uncle‟s house. When the witness came out of the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 35 of 103 36 house, he saw SI Ramesh Narang carrying a revolver on one side whereas the case of revolver was on the other side. Thereafter, all the police officials pushed the complainant and his family members in the police vehicles. Witness claims that he ran away from the spot due to fear but he saw the policemen throwing stones and brick pieces on the road and then they got the spot photographed. SHO Inspector Balbir Singh was also present at the spot but he did not do anything. No policemen sustained injuries at the spot and thereafter he went to his house. The witness claims that thereafter nothing happened with him either on that day or on the next day. However, on 4.12.1992, police came and took his house search in his absence, and at that time he came to know that even he was shown involved in the present incident. Thereafter, he secured anticipatory bail for himself. He claimed that the incident dated 2.12.1992 occurred because SI Ramesh Narang who was investigating the earlier case along with Uday Singh, Jai Prakash and Krishan were annoyed with Balbir Singh and others, who had merely helped his brothers in securing bail in the earlier matter. Witness also claimed that he did not see any person giving beatings to police officials on 2.12.1992. Instead police officials gave beatings to complainant and his other family members.
3.23 PW11 Jasbeer Singh was working as a conductor in a red line bus owned by Sant Ram, who is brother of complainant Balbir Singh at the relevant time. This witness deposed that on 2.12.1992 since the bus was unserviceable, therefore, he was SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 36 of 103 37 present in „gher‟ of Sultan Singh at about 10-10.15 AM. At that time, one SI with 6-7 police officials came there. Initially, the witness stated that there was no one else present with the police officials, but subsequently he stated that three public persons were also with the police officials. The police officials went to Balbir Singh and then three gunshots were fired by SI Ramesh. Other police officials were carrying danda and lathies. Thereafter, all of them started giving beatings to Balbir Singh, Jaswant Singh and also the ladies of the house. Upon noticing that the police officials were giving beatings to one and all, this witness out of fear ran towards the rear side of the gher and then he came towards the front side and then he saw that a large number of more police officers came there and took away all the family members of Sultan Singh in the police vehicle. This witness then returned to his house and thus did not know what happened thereafter. After about 3-4 months, when he came back from his house, he came to know that Jaswant Singh had expired. Then he agreed to become witness on the request of Sant Ram. On being asked, the witness replied that Jaswant Singh was beaten by SI Ramesh Narang.
3.24 PW12 Smt. Kamla deposed that she was present outside house of Balbir Singh, who is her devar, on 2.12.1992 at 10.15 AM, when she suddenly heard sound of three gunshot fire. She saw that Jaswant Singh (jeth of this witness) was running towards inside their plot and he was being chased by Uday Singh, SI Ramesh Narang, Jai Prakash and Krishan. Jaswant Singh was pulled SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 37 of 103 38 down to the ground and all the four accused persons started beating him. This witness went to save Jaswant Singh and in order to save him, she threw herself upon Jaswant Singh. Then, another policeman Ct. Balkishan abused her and pulled her back by catching hold of her hair. Her gold chain was also snatched. Thereafter, SI Ramesh exhorted other persons to give beatings to the ladies also and he abused the ladies. Balbir Singh and Sultan Singh were beaten by other policemen. Thereafter, police officials went inside house of Balbir Singh and went inside aata chakki and they brought all the ladies from inside the house to outside. Phoolwati @ Phullo wife of Jaswant Singh was dragged outside from inside the aata chakki. Dharmender and Devender were also brought outside from inside the house. Meanwhile, additional police force came there and all of them were taken to Police station S. P. Badli. In the police station, all except Jaswant Singh and Balbir were made to sit in a room, whereas Balbir and Jaswant Singh were dragged outside the room. Jaswant Singh was asking water which was not offered to him. After about two hours or two hour fifteen minutes, all of them were taken to HRH. When they were still in the police station, they saw Shanti and Dayanand were also brought to the police station in another vehicle. She deposed that, from HRH they were again brought back to the police station where their relative Satbir brought dinner for them but he was also made to sit in the police station after Krishan pointed out to SI Ramesh Narang telling SI Ramesh that Satbir was also relative of Balbir. This witness also deposed SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 38 of 103 39 that in the police station, she saw that the police officials had torn their uniform and that no one from her family gave beatings to the police at the spot.
3.25 PW23 Dalbir Singh was also working as a conductor in a bus belonging to Sultan Singh, in which bus Jasbir Singh (PW11) was also working as a helper. The witness deposed that on 2.12.1992 since the bus was unserviceable, he was present at village Siraspur in the plot of Sultan Singh along with Jasbir at 10.15 AM. At that time, SI Ramesh Narang along with 6-7 police officials came with one old public person and two young boys. SI Ramesh asked Balbir Singh, who was present in the plot, to come along with him to the police station, but Balbir Singh refused. In the meanwhile, the old man and his two sons namely Krishan and Jai Prakash went inside the house of Sultan Singh and pulled out Jaswant Singh from inside. Jaswant Singh was thrown to the ground and thereafter, SI Ramesh Narang and other police officials started beating other persons by giving leg blows, fist blows and danda blows. Meanwhile, SI Ramesh Narang also fired two gunshots in the air upon which this witness along with Jasbir ran away from there by jumping over the boundary wall of the said plot. Then they watched the incident from behind the boundary wall. After sometime, other police officials also came there. Meanwhile, ladies also came out of the house of Sultan Singh and the police officials started beating the ladies also and pulled their hair. Upon seeing the incident, this witness and Jasbir ran away from there. This witness went to the house of his sister at Samai SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 39 of 103 40 Pur Badli. From there, he went to Kingsway Camp Chowk to inform about the incident to Satyanarain (PW8) who was driving another bus at that time. Thereafter the witness went to his house. The witness claimed that no one besides the police officials gave beatings and he did not notice any injury caused to the police officials in the incident. He stayed at the spot for about 30 minutes.
3.26 PW34 Inspector Shyam Sunder Sharma was the investigating officer from CBI who deposed that on being assigned investigation of this case, he prepared siteplan Ex.PW34/C; recorded statement of witnesses; collected original daily diary register pertaining to DD no. 4482 to 4483 for the period November & December 1992 besides photocopy of Arms & Ammunitions Register for the said period; obtained Sanction Ex.PW25/A and, on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.
4 On completion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons in their statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
4.1 In their statements, accused Ramesh Narang, Bal Kishan, Rohtash Singh, Pawan Kumar and Meer Singh claimed that on 2.12.1992 they along with Ct. Jasbir, and Ct. Fayaz Ahmad went to the spot in connection with the investigation of FIR no. 467 of 1992 vide DD no. 11B and all of them were in uniform with arms & ammunitions. They denied that Uday Singh with his two sons SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 40 of 103 41 were with them. They claimed that the police team reached the house of Balbir Singh at 10.20 AM, which house was located on road side. Balbir Singh was present on the roof of his house. SI Ramesh Narang was carrying his revolver and a wireless set, whereas Ct. Bal Kishan was carrying one rifle, but none of the policemen were having any lathi with them. Balbir Singh was asked to come down. Balbir Singh came down shouting that police had taken bribe from the other party and Balbir Singh started abusing the police party. In the meanwhile, other family members of Balbir Singh reached there and attacked the police party regarding which a cross case under FIR no. 473/92 was registered on the complaint of SI Ramesh Narang. They claimed that Balbir Singh was a named accused in the earlier FIR no. 467/92, besides Dayanand, Mehtab, Surat, Jagdish and Om Prakash. The other family members of Balbir Singh who collected at the spot on 2.12.1992 included women and that the family members of Balbir Singh were carrying lathies, jailey, kasola, iron rods, desi kata etc. They also pelted stones etc. from the roof top on the police party. Satbir Singh fired from his country made pistol towards SI Ramesh Narang. Inderjeet attacked SI Ramesh Narang with some ustara like object, due to which SI Ramesh Narang sustained sharp injuries on his chest on which stitches were received. Other police officials also received injuries in the incident. Finding the situation out of control, SI Ramesh Narang fired two bullet rounds in the air from his service revolver in order to control the situation. These accused claimed that none of the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 41 of 103 42 policemen gave beatings to Balbir Singh or his family members and instead present false complaint was made by Balbir Singh in order to save his own skin and skin of his family members by making false allegations of beatings by policemen; snatching of gold chain; taking away money etc. It is claimed that Ct. Mhd. Hashim was not even a member of the police party and rather it was Ct. Fayaz Ahmad, which is so proved from DD no. 11B. Additional police force as well as the SHO reached the spot. Large number of villagers had also gathered at the spot. It is claimed that from the spot, SI Ramesh Narang and other injured policemen were directly sent to HRH, due to beatings given by Balbir Singh and his family members, and therefore, there is no question of reaching the police station or giving beatings to anybody in the police station. It is claimed that the first MLC of Dayanand from HRH reflects no injury; the first MLC of Devender reflects only abrasion on right finger and; the first MLC of Balbir Singh reflects only two bruises. PW5 Mahender Singh is claimed to be a planted witness, stating that his nephew Raju was involved in many cases of the same police station and Mahender Singh used to come and interfere and he was warned not to do it. These accused denied that they reached the house of Inderjeet on the date of incident. Similarly, PW11 Jasbir Singh is stated to be a planted witness and it is stated that he is a relative of PW12 Kamla and was therefore not an independent witness. It is claimed that as per opinion of PW17 Dr. S. K. Khanna, injuries could have been sustained by Jaswant Singh on 30.11.1992, SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 42 of 103 43 1.12.1992 or 2.12.1992 and that Jaswant was a patient of bronchitis/asthma also. It is also claimed that the SDM did not conduct the enquiry fairly and that attested copies of the entries of arms & ammunitions of police station S. P. Badli for the relevant date has not been filed. Sanction is claimed to have been obtained in a mechanical manner, that too highly belatedly. PW6 Subedar Kartar Singh is also claimed to be a planted and interested witness being relative of Dayanand. It is also claimed that post mortem of Jaswant was not conducted fairly as the MLC of deceased prepared in HRH gives different injuries of Jaswant, as reflected in the post mortem report and also there is difference in the cause of death as mentioned in the death summary and the opinion as to cause of death in the post mortem report. These accused also narrated the sequence of incident which occurred at the spot at the time of incident, claiming that fault was of Balbir and his family members and not of police team at all.
4.2 Accused Krishan and Jai Prakash, both sons of late Uday Singh, claimed that they were not present at the spot on 2.12.1992 and therefore, they have been falsely implicated qua that incident by the complainant and others. They also claimed that even their father Uday Singh was not present at the spot on the said date and time. They claimed that they have been falsely implicated since against Balbir Singh and others one FIR no. 467/92 was registered in police station S.P.Badli on the complaint of their family. They denied the allegations against them.
4.3 When the incriminating evidence was put to accused Ct.
SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 43 of 103 44Hashim Khan, he claimed that he was not a member of the first police team which reached at the spot. Rather, he was a member of reinforcement and reached spot along with the SHO Inspector Balbir Singh Dahiya at about 11.15 AM after the incident had occurred with the first police team. He claimed that instead Ct. Fayaz had gone with the police party at the spot and Ct. Fayaz also admitted that fact before the SDM. This accused claimed that SI Ramesh Narang was carrying his revolver and Ct. Bal Kishan was carrying his rifle at the spot but none of the policemen were found carrying any danda or lathi and that none of the policemen were giving beatings or pelting stones etc. towards Balbir Singh or his family. Instead all the police officials of the first party who were in uniform were at the receiving hand from Balbir Singh and his family members who had given beatings to the policemen and who were throwing stones etc. from the roof top. This accused claimed that Balbir, Devender, Jaswant, Dayanand, Sultan and others were attacking first police party comprising of SI Ramesh, Ct. Pawan, Ct. Rohtash, Ct. Meer Singh, Ct. Balbir and Ct. Fayaz Ahmad with deadly weapons like lathies, dandas, jailey, kasola etc. The women folk were pelting stones on the policemen. Many bricks and stones were already lying scattered on the road. PCR vehicles also were at the spot along with the reinforcement i.e. X- ray-1 and X-ray-2. SI Ramesh Narang and Ct. Bal Kishan were already injured. Blood was oozing out from the injury on chest of SI Ramesh Narang. Under the directions of SHO Inspector Balbir Singh, lathi charge was resorted to and then the family members SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 44 of 103 45 of Balbir and Balbir Singh were over powered with their weapons seized, while they attempted to flee. Some of the policemen from the second police party namely Ct. Arvind, Ct. Duli Chand, Ct. Satya Prakash also sustained injuries while controlling the rioters. Thereafter, SI Nand Kishore recorded the complaint of SI Ramesh Narang and thereafter the injured policemen were sent to HRH directly from the spot at about 12.15-12.30 PM. The accused claimed that he did not see that anybody from the family of Balbir Singh was put inside any vehicle of police in his presence when he was at the spot. Thereafter, this accused left the spot while the investigating officer SI Nand Kishore was still engaged in completing formalities at the spot. He returned to the police station in the night along with the SHO and immediately thereafter left for his house. The accused claimed ignorance about any beatings given by the accused in the police station to the deceased Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh or anyone else.
4.4 All the accused now facing trial, except accused Jai Prakash and Krishan opted to lead defence in their favour. Total seven defence witnesses were examined by the accused persons in their defence.
4.5 DW1 K. V. Singh the medical record clerk from Hindu Rao Hospital proved the MLC of Ct. Bal Kishan as Ex.DW1/A; Ct. Jasbir Singh as Ex.DW1/B and; Ct. Satyapal Singh as Ex.DW1/C. This witness also proved the death summary of deceased Jaswant Singh and related documents as Ex.DW1/D. SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 45 of 103 46 4.6 DW2 Dr. Rekha Jain proved MLC of SI Ramesh Narang as Ex.DW2/A, MLC of Ct. Arvind Kumar as Ex.DW2/B and MLC of Duli Chand as Ex.DW2/C. 4.7 DW4 Dinesh Kumar the medical record clerk from Hindu Rao Hospital exhibited the MLC of Sultan Singh as Ex.DW3/16; MLC of Balbir Singh Ex.DW3/17; MLC of Shanti Ex.DW3/18; MLC of Sultan Singh Ex.DW3/19; medical history of Balbir Singh Ex.DW3/20; medical history of Shanti Ex.DW3/21; medical history of Sultan Singh as Ex.DW3/13, X-ray requisition slip qua Balbir Singh as Ex.DW3/12A; MLC of Dharmender as Ex.DW3/22; X-ray requisition slip of Dharmender as Ex.DW3/14, MLC of Jaswant Singh as Ex.DW3/24.
4.8 DW5 HC Sanjay Singh exhibited the departmental enquiry proceedings against SI Nand Kishore as Ex.DW5/A. 4.9 DW6 SI Nand Kishore was the investigating officer of FIR no.
473/92 which was lodged on the complaint of SI Ramesh Narang. This witness exhibited the complaint of SI Ramesh Narang as Ex.DW3/25; seizure memos Ex.DW3/9 to 12, Ex.DW3/27, 28 & 29; personal search memos Ex.DW3/32 to 37 and 39; siteplan Ex.DW3/38 as well as other documents and statements recorded in the cross case FIR no. 473/92.
4.10 DW3 Sunil was the ahlmad of the concerned court who proved the documents of cross case FIR no. 473/92 including certified copies of statement of witnesses Ex.DW3/1 to 8; seizure memos of the weapon of offences allegedly recovered from Balbir Singh SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 46 of 103 47 and his family members Ex. PW2/A to D; medical documents of Balbir Singh and his family members and other documents viz., personal search memos, siteplan etc. from the said file.
4.11 DW7 Dr. Bhim Singh an expert witness was examined by the accused persons to counter the post mortem report of deceased Jaswant Singh. Dr. Bhim Singh deposed that he had an experience of 18 years in forensic medicines and he had given expert opinion in about 7000 cases. After going through the death summary of deceased Jaswant Singh and the post mortem report, this witness deposed that the death summary of Jaswant Singh finds mention that there was a fracture of femur, with bronchial asthma with congested cardiac failure and pulmonary embolism. Such fractures are common in old aged persons due to fall and in the present case there was no document to show presence of any hemorrhage. He opined that the complication in the case of Jaswant Singh was because of pulmonary embolism and at the time of admission of Jaswant Singh, there was no sign of hemorrhagic shock which is usually mentioned by the doctors at the time of examination, but hemorrhagic shock was mentioned in the post mortem report. He also deposed that contused injuries are extravasation of blood in the skin sub cutaneous tissues due to blunt force impact of blunt object. He deposed that in case of lathi or danda injuries, there would have been rail road pattern injuries. The abrasions were due to fall on the rough and hard surface or rubbing against any surface. Contused injuries were possible due to fall on bricks etc. He also deposed that in case of SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 47 of 103 48 fracture of shaft of femur, there could be loss of blood but in case of fracture of neck of femur, there was no chance of loss of blood and this occurs due to old age and is very common due to fall in bathrooms etc. He also deposed that a person suffering from bronchial asthma can have week bones in case such person uses corticos steroids.
5 I have heard Ld. Prosecutor for the CBI and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons facing trial, and I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused persons.
6 Needless to say that in a criminal trial, burden of proving the case is on the prosecution and it is quite heavy. The prosecution needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before it can seek conviction of an accused.
7 The first & foremost argument raised on behalf of accused policemen is that the Sanction accorded for prosecuting them is not only barred by limitation but also it is bad in law, since it was granted mechanically after four and a half years of the incident. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case of Mhd. Iqbal Ahmad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1929 SC 677, claiming that the sanction was granted without application of mind.
7.1 Section 140 of the D.P.Act 1978, postulates that in order to take the shelter of the period of three months referred to therein, the act done or the wrong alleged to have been done by the police officer should be done under the colour of duty or authority or in SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 48 of 103 49 excess of such duty or authority or was of the character aforesaid, and in no other case. It must, therefore, be seen as to whether the act of the accused could be said to be under the colour of duty and therefore, covered by Section 140.
7.2 In Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State, (2011) 6 SCC 1, it was held as follows;
"87. Both these judgments were followed in Atma Ram case [AIR 1966 SC 1786 : 1966 Cri LJ 1498] where the question was as to whether the action of a police officer in beating and confining a person suspected of having stolen goods in his possession could be said to be under colour of duty. It was held as under:
(AIR pp. 1787-88, para 3) "3. ... The provisions of Sections 161 and 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code emphasise the fact that a police officer is prohibited from beating or confining persons with a view to induce them to make statements. In view of the statutory prohibition it cannot, possibly, be said that the acts complained of, in this case, are acts done by the respondents under the colour of their duty or authority. In our opinion, there is no connection, in this case between the acts complained of and the office of the respondents and the duties and obligations imposed on them by law. On the other hand, the alleged acts fall completely outside the scope of the duties of the respondents and they are not entitled, therefore, to the mantle of protection conferred by Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act."
90. In the light of the facts that have been found by us above, SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 49 of 103 50 it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be claimed by anybody that a case of murder would fall within the expression "colour of duty". We find absolutely no connection between the act of the appellants and the allegations against them. Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act would, therefore, have absolutely no relevance in this case and Mr Sharan's argument based thereon must, therefore, be repelled."
7.3 In the case of C.B.I Versus Dharampal Singh & Anr (2005) 123 DLT 592 : ILR (2005) 2 Del 487, in a case of police torture, it was held as follows;
"7. Having carefully examined the case in hand, it appears to me that this is a case which does not call for nor qualify for the protection under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act or sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C From the narration of facts it is clearly made out that the beating/torture inflicted on the deceased-Hari Shankar nor detaining of Hari Shankar and other detainees was a part of official duty of the policemen. In other words, it was a flagrant violation of the procedure established by law which cannot be sanctified as a mere aberration in the call of duty."
"9. A reading of the section clearly makes out that what is necessary to invoke the protection thereunder is "if the act is done under colour of duty or in excess of such duty or authority". This section does not protect every act of omission or commission of a police officer in service. The extent of an act of omission or SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 50 of 103 51 commission of a policeman in the discharge of his duties has been explained by the Supreme Court in K. Kalimuthu v. State by D.S.P, JT 2005 (11) SC 48 while dealing with Section 197 Cr.P.C which sought to protect acts of public servants in the discharge of their duties. The Supreme Court has held--
"Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty, if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty (under colour of duty) and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 51 of 103 52 public servant. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case."
10. From the aforesaid it is clear that not only is every act of a policeman not covered for protection under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1958, but also must justify that the colour of duty satisfies the test i.e "if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of official duty; if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty (under colour of duty) and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant." In the facts of the present case, as has already been stated, there is no connection between the acts done and the duty cast on the policemen."
7.4 Section 197 of Cr.P.C provides protection only qua those acts which are committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. It was no part of discharge of duty or colour of duty of any of the policemen accused in wrongfully detaining, confining and torturing the deceased or beating others or robbing or snatching valuables. In the case of CBI Vs. Dharampal Singh (Supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court specifically held that beatings/torture inflicted on detainee cannot be called as part of official duty or an act done under the colour of duty. Applicability of Sec. 140 of D.P.Act, 1978 and applicability of SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 52 of 103 53 Section 197 of Cr.P.C were specifically ruled out in such circumstances in that case. That judgment is squarely applicable on the facts & circumstances of the present case. Thus, the accused policemen cannot claim protection of those two provisions, and this contention is rejected.
8 The next contention on behalf of all the accused is that there is an unexplained and undue long delay in lodging of FIR.
8.1 In a criminal trial, unexplained delay in lodging of FIR is indeed an important circumstance in favour of accused. The incident of this case occurred on 2.12.1992. The first information of the present case was registered after two years on 16.12.1994, under FIR no. 560/1994.
8.2 Ld. Prosecutor for CBI sought to explain this delay by claiming that it is not a case where the family members of the deceased and the injured sat quite for such a long period, and that instead Balbir Singh had given a complaint in writing to the Lieutenant Governor, The Commissioner of Police, The Home Minister and The Director of CBI, but since police officials were involved in the incident as accused, therefore, it was but obvious that local police would not register any case against their own officials.
8.3 But then even the first complaint made by Balbir Singh is dated 11.12.1992. Legally even that complaint has not been proved in the court, in accordance with law. A photocopy of the said complaint was marked as Mark M-1 in the testimony of Balbir Singh (PW1). Neither that original complaint sent to the above SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 53 of 103 54 mentioned four authorities was summoned from those authorities nor any other documentary proof in the nature of postal receipts etc. were shown or proved in this case. Thereby strictly speaking the complaint dated 11.12.1992 by Balbir Singh has not been proved in accordance with law. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that there was no complaint lodged either by Balbir Singh or any of his other family members qua the incident in question to any authority, prior to 11.12.1992. Even after this complaint dated 11.12.1992, no formal complaint was given by Balbir Singh or his family member to the police station or any other authority. What has been claimed is that statements of Balbir Singh and his family members were recorded by the concerned SDM S. S. Sidhoo(PW13). Thus, even prior to 11.12.1992, neither Balbir Singh nor any of his family members lodged any formal complaint with any authority, including the police station qua the incident in question. Even after 11.12.1992, no such formal complaint was made. Subsequently a Writ Petition was filed in Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi.
8.4 Balbir Singh and his family members, claimed to be injured in the present incident, were all produced before the concerned Ld. Magistrate on 3.12.1992 when they were remanded to judicial custody, after they were arrested on 2.12.1992 in the cross case FIR no. 473/1992. Injured Satbir was also arrested, and produced before the Ld. Magistrate on 4.12.1992 in the said cross case. Even at that time none of them made any complaint before the Ld. Magistrate qua the incident in question. Rather it is claimed by SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 54 of 103 55 these witnesses that they were not produced before the Ld. Magistrate and the Magistrate while sitting inside his chamber granted judicial custody without personally seeing them.
8.5 There is sanctity attached to the judicial proceedings and one cannot be allowed to question that sanctity without adequate proof thereof. If Balbir and his family members were not produced before the Ld. Magistrate, they could have insisted their physical production first, but they did not do so. Throughout the stage of investigation when Balbir Singh and his family members as accused secured bail in the cross case, they did not challenge that judicial custody without physical production before the Ld. Magistrate as a ground of bail. It is during evidence of the present case that for the first time some of the family members of Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh took a plea that they were not allowed to physically appear before the Magistrate. It is also not a case where all the family members of Balbir Singh unanimously claim that they were not so produced. Some of them have indeed deposed that they were produced before the Magistrate.
8.6 Even otherwise, admittedly, Balbir Singh was also released from jail on 5.12.1992 i.e. two days after arrest of this witness as accused in the cross case. From 5.12.92 till 11.12.92, he did not lodge any complaint to any authority about the incident. Therefore, even the so called first complaint by Balbir Singh Mark M-1, dated 11/12/1992, to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was after a delay of six days from the release of Balbir Singh. Even that delay has not been explained satisfactorily. Balbir Singh tried SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 55 of 103 56 to claim that since he was not well during those days, therefore, he could not give complaint and gave the complaint only after he recovered. But then other family members of Balbir Singh were not so seriously injured, depriving them of giving any complaint.
8.7 Also admittedly there were some members of the family of Balbir Singh and Jaswant Singh who were not even arrested in the cross case. They also did not give any complaint to any authority. Satbir Singh who as per his own claim is claimed to have been apprehended at the police station in the night of 2.12.1992 was a free man prior to it, but he also did not give any complaint. Satbir Singh in his evidence claimed that after he came to know about the incident in the noon time, he consulted his lawyer at Tis Hazari and then as per advise of his lawyer, he sent certain telegrams qua the incident to certain authorities. But interestingly, not even a single telegram sent by Satbir Singh has been proved. Satbir Singh did not give any written complaint to any authority. Other family members also did not give any complaint.
8.8 Certain witnesses have been examined by the CBI in its favour supporting the incident in question but even those witnesses did not come forward and gave complaint to anyone.
8.9 Therefore, it is indeed a case where there is a delay in lodging of the complaint qua the incident, which delay has remained unexplained and that delay ought to be held to be vital in the present case. After all, there is no reason as to why the family members of Jaswant Singh would keep quiet for such a long SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 56 of 103 57 period, had there been truth in the sequence of events narrated by them. Balbir Singh and his other family members are accused in the cross case FIR no. 473/92. The said FIR no. 473/92 was registered against them qua rioting, obstructing police officials in discharge of their duties etc. 8.10 The complaint dated 11.12.92 given by Balbir Singh Mark M-1, though not admissible, but even if assumed to be taken as true would show that the said complaint has been drafted after consulting some legal mind. Balbir Singh admitted that he got the said complaint typed at Tis Hazari courts, but denied that it was in consultation with any lawyer. Instead he claimed that he consulted his relative who was a policeman. The said complaint apparently would show that a trained legal mind was behind dictating that complaint.
8.11 Thus, after he was released on 5.12.92 Balbir Singh had ample opportunity to give complaint and it was not necessary for him to have personally gone to court or any authority to file a complaint. He could have given that complaint in his own hand writing, through other family members, or a complaint duly typed through lawyer also. But that was not done, which delay certainly is in the category of unexplained delay.
9 Besides the above mentioned unexplained delay in lodging of the first information report and lodging of the first complaint by Balbir Singh and his family members, there is also material contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 57 of 103 58 witnesses qua the occurrence, which creates a serious doubt as to the truthfulness of the sequence of events as claimed by Balbir Singh and his family members.
9.1 Besides Balbir Singh and his family members, the so called independent witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW5 Mahender Singh, PW6 Subedar Kartar Singh, PW11 Jasbir Singh and, PW23 Dalbir Singh. A perusal of the version of events deposed by these four so-called independent witnesses is materially different from the version presented by Balbir Singh and his family members.
9.2 Balbir Singh and his family members all claim that when SI Ramesh Narang along with other police officials reached the spot, Udai Singh and his two sons Jai Prakash and Krishan were also with them. Following facts would reveal that this does not appear to be a true fact. SI Ramesh Narang and other police officials have categorically claimed that Udai Singh and his two sons were not with them when they went to the house of Balbir Singh for investigating the case under FIR no. 467/92.
9.3 PW5 Mahender Singh claimed that pressure was being exerted upon him to depose that Udai Singh and his two sons were also involved in the incident, but since it was not a true fact, therefore, he did not so depose. He categorically claimed that Udai Singh and his two sons were not even present at the time of incident. This witness was not cross examined by the prosecution qua that aspect of the matter. This witness was not either confronted or SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 58 of 103 59 asked any question by prosecution about the presence of Udai Singh and his two sons at the crime scene, thereby leaving the testimony of this witness on that aspect of the matter is unrebutted against the prosecution. It is not the case of prosecution that PW5 Mahender Singh was in any manner inimical towards Balbir Singh and his family, or he was in league with Udai Singh and his two sons for some extraneous reasons. Rather in the cross examination, this witness deposed that Jaswant Singh, the deceased used to treat him as Chacha, as he belonged to the same village and he was on visiting terms with the family of Jaswant Singh.
9.4 Similarly, Subedar Kartar Singh (PW6), another independent witness who is not a family member of Balbir Singh did not depose in his examination in chief about Udai Singh and his two sons presence at the time of incident. When this witness was cross examined by the Ld. Prosecutor for CBI, a suggestion was given to him as to presence of Udai Singh and his two sons at the spot. The witness categorically deposed that he did not see either Udai Singh or his two sons at the time of incident. No reason could be extracted in the cross examination of this witness by the Prosecutor as to why this witness would depose falsely on that aspect of the matter qua the incident.
9.5 On that aspect of the matter, PW11 Jasbir Singh is also claimed by the prosecution to be an independent witness. But it has come in the evidence of witnesses that this witness cannot be termed as an independent witness. Even this witness in his examination in SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 59 of 103 60 chief initially claimed that there was no one else present along with the police officials. But subsequently he claimed that there were three public persons present with the police team. By stating „three public persons‟, this witness tried to refer to Udai Singh and his two sons. Court observation has been specifically recorded to that effect in the examination in chief of this witness. This witness was otherwise working as a conductor in the bus of Santram, a family member of Balbir Singh. For reasons to be mentioned herein below, it would be clear that this witness cannot be termed as an independent witness and even otherwise his testimony as to the incident appears to be concocted and this witness appears to be an introduced witness. From the testimony of PW12 Kamla, it is clear that this witness Jasbir Singh is brother-in-law of Kamla thereby meaning that Jasbir Singh was also related to Balbir Singh and his family members.
9.6 Following facts would reveal a great amount of suspicion upon the truthfulness of this witness PW11 Jasbir Singh. The witness claims that he saw the incident through his own eyes and in the incident what actually occurred was that Balbir Singh, the three ladies from the family of Balbir, and Jaswant Singh, were given beatings by the policemen. When he saw that police was giving beatings to everyone, he ran out of fear from the rear side of the premises and then came towards the front side and watched the incident in which he saw that within 15-20 minutes, many other police persons came there and took away all the family members of Sultan Singh. And then he returned to his house. This witness SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 60 of 103 61 did not utter anything about snatching of gold chain of either Balbir Singh, or the female members, or chasing of Dharmender till inside the house, breaking open the door of the house, bringing Dharmender outside from inside the house in injured condition or removing of Rs. 50,000/- from bed in the house when Dharmender was taken out. The witness is absolutely silent about all those aspects. The witness is also absolutely silent about the presence of Sultan Singh at the time of incident. This version of this witness is in absolute contradiction of the claim of Balbir Singh and his family members. Jasbir Singh did not depose that Jaswant, the deceased tried to run away or escape after three gun shots were fired by SI Ramesh Narang or that he was chased by Udai Singh, his two sons and SI Ramesh. All that the witness stated is that the accused persons started beating Balbir Singh, Jaswant Singh and other ladies of the house. Quiet interestingly, this witness claimed that when the family members of Sultan Singh were taken by the police, he returned to his house. The witness meant that he left to his native place, as he claimed that he returned after 3-4 months and then he came to know that Jaswant Singh had died. Thereafter, on request of Santram, he agreed to become witness and then went to CBI to give his statement. Ld. Prosecutor for the CBI specifically questioned this witness as to who gave beatings to Jaswant Singh. He claimed that Jaswant Singh was beaten by SI Ramesh. The witness did not say that Udai Singh and his two sons also gave beatings to Jaswant Singh or that they chased and pulled Jaswant Singh to SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 61 of 103 62 the ground. The witness was not asked any question by the Ld. Prosecutor about other details of the incident, particularly qua snatching of gold chains; taking away of the money; presence of others at the spot; which is absolutely contradictory to the version of Balbir Singh and his family members. The first statement of this witness given to any authority is the statement given to CBI that too many years after the incident. This witness did not approach any authority to complain about the incident. His conduct in abruptly leaving the place for his native house is strange.
9.7 Above mentioned facts does create doubt as to presence of PW11 Jasbir Singh at the crime scene extremely doubtful, particularly, in view of the fact that his version does not fit with the version of Balbir Singh and his family members on material aspect of the matter as well as the fact that he did not lodge complaint and did not make statement for a substantially long period. The conduct of this witness that he went to his native place for 3-4 months after family of Sultan Singh was taken away by the police is not inspiring. He had no reason to do it after all he was a conductor, not dependent on the family member of Sultan Singh either for his food or shelter. He claimed that he was a conductor in the bus of Santram. Santram is not an accused in the cross case FIR no. 473/92. It is nobody‟s case that Santram was arrested. Thus, when Santram, who is employer of this witness, was a free man, why this witness went to his house for 3-4 months, is something which does not go down well. In the cross examination of this witness, the witness even went to the extent of saying that during SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 62 of 103 63 the course of incident, public persons including Balbir Singh and his family members started running here & there and during that stampede like situation, family members of Sultan Singh sustained injuries. He qualified this statement by volunteering that they must also have sustained injuries by lathies. Admittedly, none of the accused persons were known to this witness and none of the accused was arrested on the identification or in the presence of this witness. Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade has been conducted in the present matter.
9.8 The another so called independent witness is Dalbir Singh, examined as PW23. Even his testimony would shed a great deal of doubt as to what actually occurred at the spot on the date of incident, and whether what is claimed by Balbir Singh and his family has any element of truth in it. Dalbir Singh is also claimed to be an independent witness. Dalbir Singh also claimed in his testimony that he was working as conductor in the same bus no. DL1P 2353 in which PW11 Jasbir Singh was working as conductor. He however claimed that Jasbir Singh was a helper and not conductor. Jasbir Singh nowhere states that Dalbir Singh was also with him on that day. Both of them claimed that bus was unserviceable on that day. Therefore they were present near the place of occurrence on that day. In the cross examination of Smt. Kamla dated 29.02.2012, it was revealed that this witness Dalbir Singh was also related to her, that too closely. Dalbir Singh is none other than son of brother of father of Smt. Kamla. Thereby meaning that Dalbir Singh is cousin of Kamla. Therefore, claim of SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 63 of 103 64 prosecution that this witness is an independent witness has to be viewed adversely.
9.9 Perusal of testimony of even Dalbir Singh would reveal that he also is an introduced witness. His statement was also not made before any authority for a fairly long time. Statement of Dalbir Singh was recorded by CBI on 29.09.1995 i.e. after about 34 months. Thus, the presence of this witness and Jasbir Singh at the time of incident is questionable. It is questionable not only because of delay, but also because of the version presented by Jasbir Singh above. Dalbir Singh claimed that Balbir Singh was present in the plot when Ramesh Narang and his team came and asked him to accompany the police to the police station. Whereas claim of Balbir Singh and others is that Balbir Singh was present on first floor of the house when he was asked to come down. Dalbir Singh also claimed that Udai Singh and his two sons went inside the house of Sultan Singh and they brought out Jaswant Singh from inside. On the other hand, claim of Balbir Singh and others is that Jaswant Singh himself arrived and questioned the police why Balbir Singh was being asked to go to the police station. Dalbir Singh thereafter claims that Jaswant Singh was pulled down to the ground by Udai and his two sons. Then, SI Ramesh Narang and other two police officials started beating other persons by legs and fist blows and dandas. It was thereafter SI Ramesh Narang fired two shots in the air. Upon the shots being fired, this witness along with Jasbir Singh ran away from there and then saw the incident by hiding themselves behind some SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 64 of 103 65 boundary wall. On the other hand, claim of Balbir Singh and his family members is that Ramesh Narang first fired three and not two bullets and then Jaswant Singh started running and, then he was chased and pulled down. There is contradiction as to how many shots were fired by SI Ramesh. This witness claims that SI Ramesh Narang fired two shots in the air and not three shots, as claimed by Balbir Singh and his family members. This part of testimony of this witness rather supports the version of SI Ramesh Narang that he had fired two shots only and not three shots. The witness goes on to claim that after sometime a large number of police officials also arrived, and in the meantime ladies also came out of the house of Sultan Singh and they were also given beatings by the police officials. This witness then went to the house of his sister and from there he went to Kingsway Camp Chowk to inform about the incident to Satya Narain, brother of Balbir Singh who was driving another bus at that time. After informing Satya Narain, this witness went to his house. The witness also claimed that besides the police officials, no public persons gave beatings to anyone and that he stayed at the spot for about 30 minutes. Thereby meaning that Udai Singh and his two sons did not give beatings to anyone. This fact is in absolute contradiction to the version of complainant and his family members. This witness also was absolutely silent as to the snatching of gold chains by anyone from the complainant Balbir Singh or from the three ladies and was absolutely silent about presence of Sultan Singh, Devender and Dharmender or entering SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 65 of 103 66 the house by police team, bringing Dharmender outside or looting Rs. 50,000/- cash. This witness was again not cross examined by the Prosecutor for CBI on those aspects of the matter leaving those things as unrebutted. Even this witness did not know police officials and other accused from prior to the incident. The accused were not arrested on his identification or in his presence. No test identification parade was conducted. It may be mentioned that during cross examination of this witness when the witness was suggested by the counsel for Jai Prakash and Krishan that these two accused with their father did not go inside house of Sultan Singh to bring out Jaswant, he denied that suggestion, thereby insisting that Udai Singh and his sons went inside the house and brought out Jaswant Singh, which fact is absolutely contradictory to the claim of complainant and his family members. Thus, not only the presence of this witness at the spot at the time of incident is doubtful, having been examined after a long delay, but also his version is in stark contradiction to the version of Balbir Singh and his family members.
9.10 The testimony of these two witnesses Dalbir Singh and Jasbir Singh also creates a grave shadow of doubt as to the truthfulness of the version of the incident presented by Balbir Singh and his other family members, not only qua presence of Udai Singh and his two sons and their participation in the crime, but also as to what actually occurred at the spot involving the police officials, including incident of cause of firing, the manner of giving beatings and snatching of gold chains etc. The testimony of these two SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 66 of 103 67 witnesses rather dents the case of prosecution. They can also not be termed as independent witnesses.
9.11 The claim of Balbir Singh and his family members that as soon as Balbir Singh questioned the police team as to why he should come to the police station, and as soon as Jaswant Singh came, SI Ramesh fired three bullet rounds from his service pistol, cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt. It is nobody‟s case that SI Ramesh was carrying any illegal weapon. His revolver was service revolver. It goes without saying that arms & ammunitions are issued to the police officials with appropriate relevant entries in the register. So SI Ramesh Narang would not have unnecessarily fired three bullet rounds, without any rhyme or reason. Even otherwise, police resorts to firing only as a last resort. Thus, the claim of Balbir Singh and his family members that before the police fired nobody had threatened or attacked the police team, does not inspire confidence. After all, SI Ramesh had no reason to fire, by that time. Qua this aspect of the matter, rather the claim of Ramesh Narang and the police team that when they were attacked by Balbir Singh and his family members, fire had to be resorted to, appears more plausible. After all, there must have been some reason to resort to firing, and firing would not have been done simply in order to arrest Balbir Singh, particularly, when Jaswant Singh was not even an accused in FIR no. 467/92.
9.12 As per Balbir Singh and his family and as per Jasbir Singh, by the time fire was resorted to by SI Ramesh, no criminal force was SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 67 of 103 68 used by either of the sides. Then what made police fire three bullet rounds is not explained.
9.13 Quiet interestingly, not even a single fired round was recovered in the present matter from the spot. Police team claims that two rounds were fired by the police and one was fired by Satbir. Whereas, Balbir Singh and his family members claimed that all three rounds were fired by Ramesh Narang. But no round or cartridge was recovered from the spot. There is no scientific evidence collected from the spot in this regard.
9.14 The other two independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW5 Mahender Singh and PW6 Subedar Kartar Singh, also creates a serious doubt as to the version of the complainant and his family.
9.15 As per PW5 Mahender Singh, he saw that Jaswant Singh was given beatings by Ramesh Narang. After Jaswant Singh fell down on the ground, Ramesh Narang handed over his danda to his accompanying police official and thereafter he fired three shots from the revolver in the air. At that time, some ladies were also standing there, who were also being beaten by other police officials, and Ramesh Narang abused and gave slaps and leg blows to the ladies. Then Jaswant Singh was lifted from the ground by two constables and put inside the jeep. Ladies were also dragged to the jeep. As against it, the version of complainant is that first bullets were fired, then Jaswant Singh started running and then he was chased by Udai Singh and his two sons. PW5 SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 68 of 103 69 Mahender also claimed that when Dharmender ran inside the house out of fear and closed the door, Ramesh Narang along with two constables broke down the door, and he also followed the police officials inside the house. After this witness went inside the house, he saw police official turning one bed upside down in order to find out Dharmender and then suddenly some currency notes fell down from the bed and police officials took away those five packets of ten thousand each, totaling Rs. 50,000/-. Dharmender was found, he was beaten and, then he was dragged outside. This witness also claimed that though ladies were claiming that their jewelries were taken away, but he did not see jewellery in the hands of any police official. Had this witness seen the incident right from the time of firing of police, there is no reason this witness would not have seen snatching of chains from the ladies or the complainant. The fact that this witness did not see snatching of chain indicates that the claim of complainant and his family members that chains were snatched, is nothing but false. The claim of this witness that he went inside the house when door was broken open to bring Dharmender out and inside the house he saw how money was taken by the police, is also uninspiring. Police would not have allowed him to go inside the house with the police and become a witness to such acts, had the police intended to do these acts or had they done those acts. Other witnesses claimed that police officials were beating one and all, if that was so, then why this witness was spared? Also the claim of this witness that Dharmender was sitting beside the bed does not SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 69 of 103 70 fit in the story put up by this witness himself. As had Dharmender been sitting by the side of bed, why the bed would have been turned upside down? After all, there was no reason for doing it. Had the bed not been turned upside down, money would not have come out. Claim of Dharmender is in absolute contradiction to the version of this witness qua this portion of testimony. PW5 Mahender deposed that thereafter additional force arrived at the spot and then bricks & stones were thrown by the police force, photography was done and, then Jaswant was again taken out from the jeep and again beaten by the police, then Jaswant Singh became unconscious and he was put again in the jeep. This witness then followed them to the police station and in the police station, all the injured were again beaten. Again this testimony is contradictory to the version of complainant and his family members. It is nobody‟s case that Jaswant became unconscious at the spot. This witness would not have been allowed by the police to watch all the incident closely or following the team to the police station allowing him to become a witness, had those acts been committed by the police. It is nobody‟s case that after additional force arrived, Jaswant was beaten so much that he became unconscious. As per this witness, Ct. Meer Singh accused was merely standing near the jeep and therefore did not commit any act. As mentioned above, this witness categorically claimed that Udai Singh and his two sons were not involved and were not present at the time of incident. There is contradiction in the version of this witness as to the number and kind of vehicles SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 70 of 103 71 the police used on the date of incident. The witness claims that all the police officials were not in uniform who came later on as additional force. The witness claims that besides himself, no other villager was present, whereas, other witnesses claim that several other public persons were there who saw the incident. Many of the details spoken by this witness in his examination in chief as PW5 are also lacking in the previous statement of this witness given before the SDM, Ex.PW5/A. Admittedly, Ex.PW5/A is a signed statement of this witness and the witness claimed that before he signed the statement, he saw and pointed out some discrepancies to the SDM. When he was questioned as to why details were lacking in his statement given to the SDM, the witness claimed that SDM asked this witness to confine his statement qua the relevant facts leading to death of Jaswant. Ex.PW5/A would reveal that this witness stated that SI Ramesh Narang only gave beatings to Jaswant Singh and then fired three rounds and Balbir was being beaten by other policemen, ladies were also being beaten. There is no mention in the statement about the chain being snatched or the incident of Dharmender being brought out or money being looted etc. There is no mention in the previous statement of this witness Ex.PW5/A that he followed up till the police station and saw that Jaswant and others were beaten at the police station also. After all, that fact was equally important as to the cause of death of Jaswant and therefore, it is uninspiring that SDM would not have recorded these facts. This witness did not lodge any complaint regarding SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 71 of 103 72 the atrocities committed by the police or regarding the fact that his statement was not properly recorded by the SDM. There is no reason as to why the SDM would not record statement of this witness properly. The witness read his statement before he signed it, admittedly. The witness was also confronted from material portions of his testimony given in the court, shaking the testimony of this witness to a great extent.
9.16 It would be pertinent to mention that in his previous statement given by PW5 before the SDM concerned, the witness did not mention presence of Udai Singh and his sons at the spot on 2.12.1992. Rather the said statement Ex.PW5/A would show that on the top portion of the statement in first few lines, there is cutting and the cut portion is slightly legible which records that Udai Singh and his sons had caught hold of Jaswant Singh. But then before this witness signed the statement, the said portion was cut and the witness got recorded that it was police officials who had caught Jaswant Singh and not Udai Singh and his sons. In his examination in chief, this witness has specifically mentioned that before he signed his statement Ex.PW5/A before the SDM, he noted that some of the facts were not correctly recorded, so he pointed out the discrepancies at point B to B where cuttings exists and then he signed the statement. This fact means that even while giving statement to the SDM, the stand of this witness was that Udai Singh and his two sons were not present at the spot. The witness is an educated person and he signed the statement after understanding and getting the errors corrected. In SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 72 of 103 73 Ex.PW5/A, it is nowhere mentioned by this witness that any additional police force came or that it was the members of additional police force who scattered stones at the spot. In his statement Ex.PW5/A, this witness also did not mention a word that he followed the police team to the police station or that he saw any incident of beating at the police station also. Therefore, the version of this witness in the court that he followed the police team and injured persons to the police station or that injured persons were given beatings in the police station is a clear case of improvement. The version of this witness in the court that he entered house of Sultan Singh; Ramesh Narang was abusing the ladies; ladies were dragged by SI Ramesh Narang; Ramesh Narang took Rs. 50,000/- from the house; Dharmender was given beatings inside the house and was then brought out; taking away of jewellery etc., were all confronted with his previous statements and therefore, those things are clear improvements by this witness creating a serious doubt as to the veracity of this witness.
9.17 The next independent witness examined by the prosecution is PW6 Subedar Kartar Singh. According to this witness, he heard sound of three continuous fire shots and then went towards house of Balbir Singh where he saw that around six police officials with one SI were giving beatings to Balbir Singh, his father (Sultan Singh), Jaswant Singh and two other persons with lathies. Police officials were also dragging the ladies from hair, and after they were brought on the main road the ladies were beaten with lathies. Thereafter, Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh, Sultan Singh and SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 73 of 103 74 the ladies were pushed inside the vehicle and the police vehicles left. The witness then went for his work and after about 30-45 minutes went to police station S.P.Badli. At police station, he saw that Jaswant Singh was lying outside the police station but inside the boundary wall and he heard loud noises of crying, shouts and shrieks coming from inside the police station. Thereafter, after about 15-20 minutes, Balbir Singh and his family members were taken to HRH in police vehicles and this witness also followed them to HRH in a bus. At the hospital, he alone was allowed to meet Jaswant Singh and Jaswant Singh told him "mere ko police walon ne buri tarah mara aur tod diya, ab mein bachunga nahin". Thereafter, this witness returned to his house and on the next day, came to know that Jaswant Singh has died. In his examination in chief, this witness has claimed that his only statement recorded during investigation was by CBI and that the SDM did not record his statement. But subsequently, during cross examination by the Ld. Prosecutor for CBI, the witness admitted his signatures on statement recorded by the SDM. The said statement is proved as Ex.PW6/A. The witness also admitted that he had not signed any blank document, thereby meaning that when he signed Ex.PW6/A, it was not blank. In his examination in chief, the witness did not utter a single word as to presence of Udai Singh and his two sons at the spot; snatching of gold chain by anybody from anyone; entering into the house of Sultan Singh by anyone or bringing or beating Dharmender from inside the house; or looting any amount of Rs. 50,000/-; arrival of additional police SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 74 of 103 75 force; scattering of stones and brick pieces(adhha) by the police etc.; photography of the stones lying at the spot; about the injured being again taken out from the police vehicle after they were kept in the police vehicle at the spot and; about giving them beatings again, etc. In his cross examination by Ld. Prosecutor, the witness categorically stated that he did not see Udai Singh and his two sons at the crime spot. No question was asked by the Ld. Prosecutor for CBI to this witness as to snatching of gold chains; entering the house of Sultan Singh; looting of Rs. 50,000/- etc. Thereby leaving that portion of version of this witness as unrebutted. This again casts a serious doubt as to the veracity of the sequence of incidents which occurred at the spot as narrated by Balbir Singh and his family members. The time narrated by this witness as to when the police reached police station from the spot with injured; when police left for HRH does not match the time narrated by other witnesses. According to this witness, after police left the spot with injured, the witness reached the police station within 30-45 minutes, thereafter about 20 minutes he spent at the police station, then the injured were taken to HRH. Whereas Balbir Singh and his family members claimed that they were beaten in the police station for several hours and then taken to HRH in the afternoon. During cross examination by the accused, the witness claimed that from the spot, he straightaway went to the police station within 30-45 minutes where he stayed for about 10-15 minutes and thereafter went for his work and thereafter again returned to the police station after about one hour and then SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 75 of 103 76 came to know that the injured had been taken to HRH. The witness was then put a court question as to his different version in this regard, upon which the witness replied that his version that the injured were taken to HRH from police station S. P. Badli in his absence was correct. Very interestingly, this witness throughout his deposition claimed that Jaswant Singh was lying outside the police station but the crying noise was coming from inside the police station. He admittedly did not try to talk to Jaswant Singh when Jaswant Singh was lying outside the police station. He did not make any complaint either to the SHO or to anyone else about the injured being beaten either at the spot or in the police station. Perusal of the statement given by this witness before SDM Ex.PW6/A, which is duly signed by this witness, would reveal that there is not even a word mentioned therein that the witness heard fire shots. In Ex.PW6/A, what is contained is that 6-7 policemen were beating Jaswant, Balbir and their father (Sultan) and ladies. There is not even a word mentioned about Dharmender and Devender; snatching of chains; entering of the house or; looting money etc. There is also not even a word mentioned about throwing of stones by the police, photography etc. Qua the incident at the police station also, what is mentioned in the statement Ex.PW6/A is that Jaswant was lying outside police station and shrieks of other injured were coming out from inside the police station and that the witness was not allowed to meet other injured and was asked to leave by the police. Thereby meaning that in presence of this witness, Jaswant was not beaten SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 76 of 103 77 at police station. In his statement Ex.PW6/A, the witness claimed that when he tried to meet Jaswant at HRH, he was not allowed, yet Jaswant still told this witness that policemen had given beatings to Jaswant Singh and caused fracture of his kullah. This fact would show that there are a lot of material improvements made as to the sequence of incident by the witnesses, making the testimony highly unreliable. Admittedly, this witness also did not make any complaint about the atrocities of police to any authority. The conduct of this witness that he left the spot for his work, then went to the police station, then again went to his work, then went to HRH does not inspire confidence. What exact words were uttered by Jaswant Singh, if at all, to this witness at HRH are highly doubtful. In the examination in chief, different words have been claimed from what is mentioned in Ex.PW6/A. This witness admittedly is an LIC Agent for Balbir Singh and his family members and he was also accompanied by Balbir Singh to the court. This fact creates suspicion about independence of this witness. During cross examination of this witness, a statement given by this witness in the departmental enquiry against SI Nand Kishore Ex.DW5/A (collectively), was also put to the witness. The witness denied that the said statement contained his signature. That statement is dated 27.1.1999 in which name of the witness and his father‟s name is correctly recorded. In that statement, all that the witness mentioned was that he merely saw at the spot that Jaswant Singh was being dragged and put in the police vehicle, taken to the police station and at the police station when SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 77 of 103 78 this witness reached, Jaswant Singh was lying outside and was groaning in pain. Thereafter, Satbir Singh brought food and he was also arrested by the police. Except this fact, nothing at all is mentioned in the statement of this witness given during departmental enquiry and instead he claimed that Satbir accompanied this witness to the police station. Since this witness in his examination in court did not admit signature on that statement given in the departmental enquiry and the said fact was not proved by the accused that the statement was indeed of this witness Kartar Singh, therefore, no reliance is placed on that earlier statement. Still, from the admitted statement before the SDM and the version of this witness in the court, a reasonable doubt creeps in as to the veracity of not only this witness but also Balbir Singh and his family members.
9.18 Turning to the family members of Balbir Singh, PW2 Satbir Singh claimed that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident and he came to know about the incident later on. He claimed that he was present at Khera Khurd Village on that day from 6.30 Am till 12.30 PM and when he returned to his shop/tent house located at Libaspur, he was told about the incident by someone. Thereafter, he went to his lawyer at Tis Hazari Courts and on the advise of his lawyer, he sent telegrams to SHO, DCP, Commissioner of police and other higher authorities. After sending telegrams, he again returned to his tent house and then with two persons namely Prem Singh and Surender Pal went to police station S. P. Badli. In the police station, he noticed that his family SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 78 of 103 79 members including females were in injured condition. With permission of police, he served them tea. When he served dinner to his family members in the police station, he was also falsely arrested. He claims that he was produced in the court only on 4.12.1992 and not on 3.12.1992 with others. But he did not make any complaint to the concerned Magistrate about his illegal detention. He was medically examined on 4.12.1992. Admittedly, the witness did not produce any booking receipt or bill or any other documentary proof qua providing tent services to someone‟s marriage. He claimed that he must have kept those records but also stated that those records were not available. Similarly, the so called telegrams sent by this witness to senior police officers and other authorities on 2.12.1992 before he went to the police station have not been proved. Adverse inference needs to be drawn for concealing those important and material pieces of documents. Admittedly, this witness was released on bail from custody in the cross case FIR no. 473/92 on 7.12.1992, yet he did not make any complaint to any authority about his illegal detention, about giving beatings to Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh and other family members or about this witness himself being beaten in the police station either on 2.12.1992 or thereafter. The witness admitted that he also testified in the departmental proceedings against SI Nand Kishore and statement dated 11.1.1999 bears his signature. Perusal of that statement would reveal that it is absolutely silent as to noticing of any injury by this witness upon Balbir Singh and his family members when he reached police station S. P. Badli SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 79 of 103 80 after sending the telegrams. The witness tried to come out of the fact of absence of injuries on Balbir Singh and his family members in his statement, by claiming that when he was deposing in the departmental enquiry, he was asked to confine his statement only to the facts relevant to the enquiry against SI Nand Kishore. But then, these facts were equally important even in the enquiry against SI Nand Kishore, since he was investigating officer of FIR no. 473/92 in which Balbir Singh and his family members were implicated, as per this witness. The enquiry was also about false implication etc. against SI Nand Kishore. Therefore, the fact that his statement in the departmental enquiry against SI Nand Kishore do not contain the details is important and makes his statement uninspiring and seems to be an afterthought. In the medical examination of this witness on 4.12.92 in HRH, no history was disclosed to the doctor that this witness was beaten by the police. Only one old lacerated wound of 3 X 2 cm over left knee and one healed abrasion over right knee of this witness was observed during his medical examination, which fact is inconsistent with the claim of this witness that he was given beatings severely for more than one day while in the police custody. Also the witness did not complain to the Magistrate about any beatings given to him while he was in the police custody, when he was produced before Magistrate.
9.19 Similarly, PW3 Devender Rana, also appeared as a witness in the departmental enquiry. He admitted his signatures on the said statement dated 11.1.1999. In the said statement, this witness SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 80 of 103 81 deposed that policemen and Udai Singh and his two sons were beating Balbir, and Jaswant and thereafter they also gave beatings to this witness. Later on they were taken to the police station where also they were beaten. There is no mention in the said previous statement of the witness about other details of the incident as claimed in the court. Again same explanation was sought to be put that since the enquiry was against Nand Kishore, therefore, other details were not mentioned, which explanation is not acceptable for the above mentioned reasons. This witness was produced before a Magistrate, but he did not complain about any such incident of beatings, false implication or non-production of Satbir. Rather it was claimed that the witness was not even produced before the Magistrate, which explanation also cannot be accepted for the foregoing reasons. The witness is a graduate who was released on bail from the custody in cross case FIR no. 472/92 on 5.12.1992, yet this witness did not lodge any complaint whatsoever against anybody qua the incident after he was released on bail. This witness was not seriously injured and is not a layman, therefore, there was no reason as to why this witness would not have lodged complaint against atrocities of the police after he was released on bail. Even if he was not produced before the Magistrate, he could have made complaints after his release. The claim of this witness that when he returned home, he saw the lock of bed broken and family money missing is also in stark contradiction to the claim of other witnesses. He did not make any complaint in that regard also. Claim of this witness that at the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 81 of 103 82 time of incident, he saw only his family members and no one from neighborhood was present, is in stark contradiction to claim of other witnesses. It is recorded by court that even on that aspect of the matter, the witness gave evasive replies, which reveals conduct of the witness. This witness was also confronted on material aspects of the matter, including on the point that chains was snatched, from his previous statements given, which also shakes the testimony of this witness. In the MLC of this witness Ex.PW19/D, only abrasion, scratch mark and some swelling was noticed. The nature of injuries sustained by this witness does not fit within his ocular testimony. The witness admitted that he was thoroughly examined by the doctor. The version of this witness that Udai Singh and his sons were present at the crime spot does not find support from the testimony of any independent witness.
9.20 Similarly, the testimony of Inderjeet Rana PW10, who is also related to Balbir Singh and others is difficult to believe. According to this witness SI Ramesh Narang with other police officials first came to his house at about 10.00 AM and enquired about Mehtab and Surat Singh, his brothers. Thereafter, the police officials left the house, but only after SI Ramesh abused this witness. The police officials went towards house of Udai Singh. From there Udai Singh and his two sons accompanied the police officials while Udai Singh exhorted that he will get all the children of Vishal Singh beaten up and get their houses locked up. This witness was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW10/A given before the SDM on this aspect of the matter where these things SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 82 of 103 83 are not contained at all. The version of this witness is that thereafter he left his house to see one of his relative and when he was returning from the bus stand at about 10.15 AM, he heard three gun shots fire; then went to house of his uncle Sultan Singh where he saw Jaswant Singh being beaten by SI Ramesh, Udai Singh and his two sons. Other policemen were beating Balbir Singh. He called the PCR. Thereafter, all the family members of complainant were thrown into the police vehicle and this witness ran away from there out of fear. But before fleeing away from the spot, he watched from a distance that police had thrown certain stones and brick pieces on the road which were got photographed. Thereafter, the witness claims that he went to his house and nothing happened with him either on that day or on the next day. But on 4.12.1992 police came to search his house in his absence and then he came to know that he was also named in the FIR of the cross case and then he secured anticipatory bail for him in that case. The witness admitted that he signed his statement before the SDM after he had gone through it and after he found it correct. The conduct of this witness in claiming that after Udai Singh and his two sons accompanied the police officials from there house and Udai Singh exhorted to get the injured beaten up and get their houses locked up, this witness went to see of his relative appears quiet unnatural. After all, this witness is closely related to the complainant side. Had the incident of exhortation by Udai Singh taken place, this witness would have certainly stopped there to see as to what was to follow. But he did SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 83 of 103 84 not do so. Anyhow, even in the testimony of this witness, there is no mention of snatching of chain by any policemen from anyone. There is no mention of the females being abused by the police. There is no mention of Dharmender being chased in the house or breaking open the door of the house or dragging of Dharmender out of house or looting any money from inside the house. The claim of this witness as to presence of Udai Singh and his two sons is seriously disputed by the other independent witnesses who have categorically claimed that Udai Singh and his sons were not present. Though this witness claim that he called up PCR at 100 number, but admittedly he did not stay there for the PCR to arrive and he did not make any complaint against any policemen during the period he remained out after the incident till he secured his anticipatory bail. If the police officials pushed and took away all the family members of Balbir Singh, there is no reason as to why this witness would have been spared, particularly, when he was closely related and he was also recognized easily by Udai Singh and his sons, who as per this witness were present at the spot. The conduct of this witness in claiming that when his other family members were being beaten, he ran away from there, and after the police left he went to his house, is quiet unnatural. After going to his house or even thereafter, this witness never made any complaint to any authority regarding the atrocities of police. He also did not make any complaint about his so called false implication. This witness does not talk about presence of Dharmender and Devender Rana at the spot at the time of SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 84 of 103 85 incident. Admittedly, this witness never accompanied any of the injured to the hospital. He also did not visit any of his ailing injured relatives, particularly, when they were claimed to be seriously injured and admitted in the hospital, particularly, Jaswant Singh. It appears that this witness did not go to hospital during the period since he knew his involvement and the fact that he was named in the cross FIR. This witness never went to the police station after his relatives were beaten and taken away to the police station. The witness in his cross examination even claimed that despite the fact that Balbir Singh and others were his relatives but he did not meet them from 2.12.1992 till 23.04.1993 and did not talk about the incident with them. That appears to be quiet improbable and reflects upon the veracity of this witness. The witness was confronted with material part of his examination in chief from his previous statement, which again shakes his testimony to a great extent. Admittedly, SHO arrived at the spot, but this witness did not make any complaint to him also about the excesses committed by the police. His answer in the cross examination that the injured persons were put inside the police vehicle only after arrival of additional police force is in stark contradiction to the claim of Balbir Singh and his other family members. The witness in the cross examination claimed that he left the spot at about 11.15 or 11.20 AM and by that time additional police force had arrived there and thus he was not aware as to how long they further remained there since he had left. The above mentioned facts impeach the creditworthiness of this witness to a great SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 85 of 103 86 extent.
9.21 Turning to the testimony of PW12 Kamla, this witness also allegedly suffered injuries at the spot. The witness deposed that she heard gunshot fires and saw that Jaswant Singh was being chased by Udai Singh, his two sons and SI Ramesh Narang. Jaswant Singh was then pulled down to the ground and all these persons started beating Jaswant Singh. This witness threw herself upon Jaswant Singh in order to save Jaswant Singh, upon which Ct. Bal Kishan caught hold of her hair and pulled her back. He (Ct. Bal Kishan) also snatched the gold chain which this witness was wearing. Thereafter, the witness was put inside a police vehicle and after her, Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh, Sultan Singh, other ladies, Dharmender, Devender were brought and put in the vehicle. The witness claimed that other ladies were pulled from inside the house, as also Devender and Dharmender were pulled outside from inside the houses. Thereafter, additional police force came and then the witnesses and others were taken to police station from where they were taken to hospital subsequently. The version of this witness qua presence of Udai Singh and his sons is again not finding support from the version of independent witness Mahender Singh and Subedar Kartar Singh. This witness did not depose anything about gold chains of other ladies or Balbir Singh, snatched by anyone. No other witness including Balbir Singh supports the claim of this witness that this witness threw herself upon Jaswant Singh when he was being beaten. Balbir Singh claimed that it was SI Ramesh Narang who snatched the chains, SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 86 of 103 87 whereas, this witness claims that chain was snatched by Ct. Bal Kishan. The version of this witness that other ladies were pulled out from inside the house by the police officials and that Dharmender and Devender were also pulled outside from inside the house is in stark contradiction to the claim of other witnesses. Had the version of this witness, Balbir and his family been true, there was no reason for additional police force to have been summoned at the spot. This witness claimed that no lady constable was there till they were brought back from HRH to the police station. But then the MLCs of ladies prepared in HRH bears name of lady constable Suman Lata, which reflects that Ct. Suman Lata was indeed present at the time when this witness and other lady injured were taken to HRH. Hospital authorities had no reason to falsely prepare documents. Hospital authorities would not have mentioned name of Ct. Suman Lata on the MLCs had she been not present with this witness at the time of her admission in HRH. This witness also claims that police officials had torn their uniforms at the spot, which version is not supported by any other witness. The witness is silent about tea brought by Satbir to the police station. In her cross examination, this witness admitted that she was conscious at the time when she was examined in HRH but she did not state anything about her injuries to the doctor nor the doctor asked her how she sustained injuries. Admittedly, 100-200 public persons were present at the spot and as per this witness, those public persons were running here & there. The witness admitted that she did not state anything before SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 87 of 103 88 the court where she was produced for judicial/police custody. It is not even claimed by this witness that she was not produced before the Ld. Magistrate or the Magistrate was sitting inside his chamber. No complaint whatsoever was lodged by this witness to the court or to any other authority. Admittedly, her husband was not even arrested or detained. Even her husband did not make any complaint to any authority qua the atrocities committed by the police or qua false implication of this lady or anybody else. Even after this witness was bailed out, she did not lodge any complaint with any authority. Her only statement made during investigation and proved is her statement given to the Inspector of CBI after two and a half years of the incident, which was made on 22.09.1995. This witness also admitted that PW23 Dalbir Singh was related to her in the manner that Dalbir was son of his uncle Risal Singh and that PW11 Jasbir is brother in law of her brother Vijender.
10 Thus, a perusal of the evidence of the spot witnesses would show that there are material improvements and serious contradictions. The complainant and his family members have tried to rope in Udai Singh and his two sons also, whereas, the two independent witnesses from the village categorically stated that Udai Singh and his two sons were not present at the spot. The said fact reflects falsehood by these witnesses on a very material part, thereby making their testimonies highly suspicious. Indeed from the MLCs of Balbir Singh, Jaswant Singh and other family members it is reflected that they suffered injuries, but then merely SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 88 of 103 89 because they suffered injuries cannot be a reason for this court to convict the accused. After all, before an accused can be convicted, the court has to be satisfied that the injuries were caused by the accused, and if there are more than one accused, the court has to determine that it was caused by which of accused or whether it was caused in furtherance of common intention or not. The version of the complainant and his family members suffers from a large number of serious infirmities on a large number of accounts, as mentioned above. They have not only tried to rope in Udai Singh and his two sons but they also seems to have concocted the incident of snatching gold chains, committing robbery from inside the house etc. Falsehood is so intricately mixed up in the testimonies of these witnesses that it is not possible to segregate truth from falsehood. The witnesses certainly have introduced a large number of facts which are not correct, thereby impeaching their creditworthiness. In a criminal trial it is always unsafe to base conviction on such unreliable testimonies. How and in what manner the injuries were caused and who exactly caused those injuries, whether they were caused in common intention is not clearly coming out in the present matter. It has come in the testimonies of witnesses that a large number of public persons were present at the spot and there was a stampede like situation also. It is highly unbelievable that without any rhyme or reason, additional police force was called. Assuming the claim of Balbir Singh and his family members is taken as true, the police personnel had an upper hand in the SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 89 of 103 90 incident and Balbir Singh and family members were all being beaten and put in the police vehicle. Had it been true, there was no reason for SI Ramesh to have summoned additional police force. The very fact that additional police force had to be called indicates that there is something else to the story. In the stampede like situation, where large number of public persons were running here & there, the injured could have sustained some of the injuries, if not all. The evidence lead in the present matter does not pin point which injury was caused by the accused and which injury was suffered otherwise. Unless the evidence is clinching on that issue, those injuries cannot be imputed to the accused persons. The defence of the accused that the police party was on the receiving hand and therefore additional police force had to be called, rather appears to be plausible. It was only in that eventuality that lathi charge had to be resorted to. If in that lathi charge, some of the injuries were sustained by Balbir Singh and his family members, the accused persons cannot be held guilty for it. Before accused persons can be held guilty, clear evidence ought to be there, which in the present matter is not forthcoming beyond shadow of doubt. It is settled law that if there are two views possible, the one in favour of accused has to be accepted.
11 Delay in filing of the complaint is another reason as to why story of prosecution appears to be concocted. After all, had the incident been true, complaint ought to have been filed at the earliest. No complaint was made to the Ld. Magistrate before whom Balbir Singh and his family members were produced in the cross FIR as SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 90 of 103 91 accused. Some of the family members of Balbir Singh were never detained, which included educated people. Still no complaint was filed. So called telegrams sent by Satbir Singh at the advice of his lawyer to higher police authorities have not even been attempted to be proved. Therefore, practically speaking there is no complaint given by Balbir Singh or his family members prior to the complaint dated 11.12.1992. That is a complaint made after ten days of the occurrence. The delay has not been explained satisfactorily.
12 Turning to the so called dying declaration made by Jaswant Singh when he was admitted in the hospital, the said dying declaration can also not be relied. There is a large amount of contradictions in the testimonies of the family members of Balbir Singh as to who spoke to Jaswant Singh and who not. What exact words were stated by Jaswant Singh is also not forthcoming in those many words. Different witnesses have claimed that Jaswant Singh stated different things. Jaswant Singh was conscious at the time when he was taken to the hospital. He remained conscious even thereafter. No such dying declaration was given by him to the doctor or to the hospital authorities. No Executive Magistrate was called to record statement of Jaswant Singh. There is no medical evidence that Jaswant Singh was in a fit state of mind at the time when he allegedly spoke to his family members as to the injuries caused to him. Therefore, even the dying declaration of the deceased Jaswant Singh cannot be acted upon. Even otherwise, Jaswant Singh did not name any specific accused who caused injuries to him. Not only the words uttered by Jaswant Singh in SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 91 of 103 92 this regard do not point to any specific accused but those words are general in nature that he was given beatings by police officials. Therefore, even for that reason that dying declaration cannot be acted upon. PW1 Balbir Singh on this aspect of the matter simply deposed that when he asked Jaswant Singh in HRH as to how he was, Jaswant Singh replied that he will not survive due to the injuries which he had sustained in the incident and that Jaswant Singh stated that his left leg was not working/moving. Thus, Jaswant Singh did not name any accused before Balbir Singh and did not specify any act of the accused as cause of his death. Similarly, PW3 Devender Rana also deposed, on this aspect of the matter, that Jaswant Singh replied that he will not survive because he has been beaten mercilessly and his left portion and left kullah had been broken. This witness also did not depose as to the name of accused or any act of the accused causing death of Jaswant Singh. Similarly, PW6 Subedar Kartar Singh deposed that Jaswant Singh told him "mere ko police walon ne buri tarah mara aur tod diya, ab mein bachunga nahin." In the testimony of PW8 Satnarain, it is mentioned that Jaswant Singh told this witness "mujhe police walon ne bahot mara hai, ab mein bachunga nahin". In these statements of PW6 & PW8 also, there is no name of any accused taken by the deceased.
13 It is highly unlikely that SI Ramesh Narang had fired from his service pistol without any reason and without any need for it. A police officer is indeed responsible and has to account for the bullets and the weapons issued to him, therefore, there must have SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 92 of 103 93 been some compelling reasons for SI Ramesh Narang to have fired from his service pistol. What was that compelling circumstance is not explained by any of the prosecution witnesses. Rather the prosecution witnesses want this court to believe that SI Ramesh fired three shots from his pistol without any reason. The said narration of events by Balbir Singh and his family members is therefore highly uninspiring.
14 The accused persons argued that there was no common intention in beating Balbir Singh or his family members even from the narration of facts by Balbir Singh and his family members. It is claimed that even as per the story of Balbir Singh and his family members, the police officials all of a sudden did not start beating them, and had there been any common intention or a pre-planned act, the police officials would have attacked and beaten Balbir Singh and others without even asking a word.
14.1 The said argument proceeds on an assumption that common intention always has to develop before an act of crime is started. In fact common intention simply requires that there has to be meeting of minds. It is not necessary that the common intention must develop before the crime begins or before the criminal reaches the spot. Common intention can develop at the spur of moment also and in some cases even during the commission of crime. That common intention has to be gathered from attending circumstances. In the present matter, the sequence of incidents as narrated by Balbir Singh and his family members are not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon, therefore, there is no SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 93 of 103 94 question of invoking section 34 of IPC against the police officials facing trial for the acts committed by all, or any of them. It is also not clear as to which accused committed which act at the crime spot. The sequence of acts committed at the crime spot as well as in the police station before the injured were taken to the hospital is not categorically established, therefore, there is no question of invocation of section 34 of IPC. Reliance placed by the accused persons in this regard upon the cases of Lallan Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar Criminal Appeal no. 93-95 of 2001 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.11.2002; Kamal Kishore & Ors. Vs. State 2015 (1) CC Cases (High Court) 76; is therefore futile.
15 Balbir Singh and his family members tried to explain the injuries caused to Ramesh Narang and other policemen at the time of incident by simply claiming that those policemen self-inflicted those injuries. But then the court cannot lose sight of the fact that SI Ramesh Narang had sustained a sharp injury on his chest. During prosecution evidence, the prosecution did not thought it appropriate to examine doctors who examined Ramesh Narang in order to establish the fact whether those injuries could be self- inflicted or not. When this court does not find the version of Balbir Singh and his family members believable, it can also not be believed that Ramesh Narang and other policemen self-inflicted those injuries to create false evidence against Balbir Singh and his family members. Of course, there is something else to the story which is not forthcoming, and that hasn‟t come forth from either of the sides.
SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 94 of 103 9516 Neither Balbir Singh and his family members tried to depose honestly and true facts, nor the accused side tried to present the correct sequence of events which occurred on that day. But then in a criminal trial, burden of proof is on the prosecution and that burden has to be discharged beyond reasonable doubt, which in the present matter has not been done satisfactorily.
17 There has been no investigation as to why in the MLCs of Balbir Singh and his family members, prepared at HRH, differ from the injuries which came to be noted in the MLCs prepared by DDU Hospital. What was the reason behind absence of those injuries in the initial MLCs has not even been tried to be explained by the prosecution. The investigating agency ought to have examined those doctors who initially examined Balbir Singh and his family members in HRH in order to take their view as to whether the injuries subsequently noted in the MLCs of DDU Hospital were existing on the day when these injured were examined in HRH or that they were missed for some reason by the doctors at HRH or whether those injuries were sustained later on. There has been absolutely no investigation on this aspect of the matter. In the initial MLC of Balbir Singh, there is only one injury mentioned. Similarly, in the MLC of Jaswant Singh, there is only tenderness on left upper thigh and there was fracture of femur. There is no other external injury noted on the MLC of Jaswant Singh prepared at HRH. When the investigating agency did not try to investigate even on that point, its benefit goes to the accused. All other injuries in the nature of contusion/abrasion found on the body of SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 95 of 103 96 Jaswant Singh at the time of post mortem are absent from the initial MLCs prepared.
17.1 It may be mentioned that the accused persons examined DW7 Dr. Bhim Singh in their defence, according to whom the cause of death of Jaswant Singh was not shock or hemorrhage as the pulse of Jaswant Singh mentioned at the time of MLC is 82 per minute. He was also fit for statement thereby indicating no sign of hemorrhage or shock.
18 Though accused persons argued that Sultan Singh and Dharmender Singh also have not been examined, but mere non- examination of those witnesses does not affect the decision of this case. According to prosecution, several other witnesses have been examined from the spot and examination of Sultan Singh and Dharmender would have been nothing but repetitive in nature.
19 The argument of prosecution that there are over writings, additions and cuttings in the DD entries regarding departure of the police team to the crime spot for investigation of the earlier case FIR no. 467/1992 and therefore, guilt must be presumed against the accused is not appealing. Even if there are additions and deletions or cuttings in those DD entries, that by itself does not raise any presumption that these policemen gave beatings to Balbir Singh, Jaswant Singh and other family members. Those cuttings and over writings at the most are as to the fact as to whether lady constable went to the spot or not; which policemen SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 96 of 103 97 was part of which police team and; whether weapons were taken to the spot or not. Assuming that those cuttings and over writings were made at the behest of SI Ramesh Narang or other accused, it does not raise any presumption qua the offences charged against the accused. There is no recovery of the lathi or danda with which the injuries were caused by the policemen at the time of incident.
20 Qua the presence of accused Krishan in the police station when Satbir came to the police station and was allegedly identified by Krishan and then he was detained by SI Ramesh Narang, PW15 Ramesh Gosain, who allegedly accompanied Satbir to the police station stated that he had not seen accused Krishan in the police station.
21 Admittedly, there were property disputes also between the family of complainant Balbir Singh and Udai Singh, as admitted by PW1 in his cross examination.
22 It is also argued on behalf of accused that Bimla Devi was cited as a witness but deliberately was not examined since in her statement recorded before the investigating officer, Bimla who is wife of Balbir Singh had claimed that SI Ramesh Narang had dragged her by her hair and started giving beatings to her, which was contrary to the story of prosecution. The case of prosecution was that it was accused Mhd. Hashim Khan who did the said act with Bimla Devi.
23 Presence of Mhd. Hashim Khan at the spot with SI Ramesh SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 97 of 103 98 Narang is doubtful from Ex.PW29/DA according to which Mhd. Hashim went subsequently with the SHO and others and not with SI Ramesh Narang. It may be recalled that Fyaz Ahmad in his statement before SDM stated that he was a member in the team of SI Ramesh Narang and this witness, as PW21, admitted his signatures on the statement before SDM. Though, in the court he claimed that his statement to SDM was not correct but then no plausible reason has been given as to why he had so stated before the SDM. Admittedly, no judicial TIP was conducted in the present matter qua any of the accused, more particularly Mhd. Hashim and Fyaz Khan to clarify identity. SI Nand Kishore as PW33 specifically stated that Mhd. Hashim was not present at the spot when he reached the spot but SI Nand Kishore was not questioned on that aspect of the matter by the Ld. Prosecutor.
24 Accused have relied upon case of Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1976 Criminal Law Journal 1471 and the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2000 1 JCC SC 140.
24.1 In the case of Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1976 Criminal Law Journal 1471, it was held that the guilt of an accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, even if there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole the prosecution may be true, but between may be true and must be true, there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 98 of 103 99 and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.
24.2 The case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) the difference and similarity between Sec. 34 and Sec. 149 of IPC was emphasized and clarified, which is not applicable in the present case.
25 The MLC of Balbir Singh does not support his ocular version regarding the incident of beatings given to him. As per him, he was beaten mercilessly and repeatedly, at the spot as well as at the police station. In the MLC of Balbir Singh prepared by HRH, only two injuries were noticed. In his MLC prepared at DDU Hospital, total seven injuries were noticed. The doctor who prepared MLC of Balbir at HRH has not been examined in order to explain as to how those injuries noted in the MLC prepared at DDU hospital on 4.12.1992 at 2.10 PM were missing from the body of Balbir Singh or were missing from the MLC prepared at HRH on 2.12.1992 at 2.40 PM. Similarly, there are difference of injuries noted on the body of Dharmender son of Jaswant Singh as prepared by doctor of HRH on 2.12.1992 at 3.00 PM and as prepared by DDU Hospital on 4.12.1992 at 12.55 PM. The doctor has not been examined to explain this fact also. On the MLC of Jaswant Singh, prepared at HRH, there is only one injury mentioned i.e. tenderness present on left upper thigh, fracture of femur. His MLC was prepared at 2.00 PM on 2.12.1992. Before his post mortem was conducted, a death report in Form no. 25.35, Ex.PW13/A, was filled up by the SDM concerned. In the said form SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 99 of 103 100 also, there are only two injuries mentioned i.e. knees swollen and ankles swollen. At the column against Serial no. 12 in which the manner and the type of weapon with which injuries caused was to be mentioned, it is mentioned as „Not Known‟ at that stage. Against the column under Serial no. 15 where the cause of death by having being caused by violence or poison, is to be mentioned, it is mentioned as „Not Apparent‟.
26 Though Jaswant was declared fit for statement on 2.12.1992 itself, but no independent agency recorded his statement. The investigating officer did not record statement of Jaswant Singh. In the death summary of Jaswant Singh, the cause of death of Jaswant Singh is mentioned as fracture of neck of femur and bronchial asthma, CCF, pulmonary embolism. PW17 Dr. S. K. Khanna deposed that initially no definite opinion qua cause of death of Jaswant Singh could be given, however, there were many injuries on his body. Subsequently, when the viscera examination turned negative for common poisons, the cause of death was given as hemorrhage and shock consequent upon many injuries, mainly fracture of femur. All the injuries were ante mortem about 1-3 days old between the cause of injuries and death. He also deposed that it was likely that the injuries were caused on the body of deceased while the deceased was trying to defend himself and may have fallen on the ground and that injuries were caused by blunt weapon. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that there was no contusion at the external site of injury no. 8 i.e. fracture of femur and that though, it was SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 100 of 103 101 possible that a particular pattern may be visible in case injury caused by lathi, but it may not be observed in all cases. He also admitted that on account of fall on hard surface, femur bone can get fractured and injury on the temporal and occipital region can also be caused by fall on hard surface. He admitted that the injuries to Jaswant Singh could have possible at any time between 30.11.1992 to 2.12.1992. However, he clarified in his examination that considering the pattern of contusion and abrasion observed on the body of Jaswant Singh, it is unlikely to have been caused in stampede and they were unlikely in case of lathi charge undertaken usually by the police force.
27 In the MLC of Shanti Devi prepared at HRH at 3.00 PM on 2.12.1992 in which tenderness under right lower back was noticed, Smt. Shanti was declared fit for statement and she was conscious and oriented also. The history which is noted in her MLC is „being involved in fight‟. It is not mentioned in the MLC that she was beaten by police. In the MLC of Sultan Singh prepared at HRH at 3.15 PM on 2.12.1992, only two injuries were noticed. In his MLC, it is mentioned that he was involved in a fight. The patient was conscious as well as oriented at the relevant time. It is not recorded in his MLC that police gave beatings to Sultan Singh. This fact indicates that at the spot, something else occurred and it is not a case where police gave beatings to Balbir Singh and his family members.
28 No rail road pattern of injuries were noted on the body of Jaswant Singh which can signify that he was given beatings by lathi or SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 101 of 103 102 danda as claimed. Dr. Bhim Singh DW7 as an expert opined that in case of injuries caused by lathi or danda, linear and rail road pattern of injuries would have been there which were missing in the case of Jaswant Singh. Dr. Bhim Singh also deposed that a person suffering from asthma and taking cortosis steroid, the bones can get weakened. In the death summary of Jaswant Singh, bronchial asthma with congested cardiac failure and pulmonary embolism is mentioned.
29 Admittedly, Jaswant Singh was not even wanted in FIR 467/1992 and he was not an accused in that case. Therefore also, it is highly suspicious as to why Jaswant Singh would be beaten and taken to the police station by the police officials. Neither Balbir Singh nor anybody else gave any complaint against Ramesh Narang or anybody else that the FIR no. 467/92 was in any manner manipulated or that anyone was being falsely framed in that case.
30 Admittedly, Ct. Satyapal, Ct. Arvind, Ct. Duli Chand were not members of the police team headed by SI Ramesh Narang. They arrived at the spot subsequently with additional police force. Yet these police officials also sustained injuries. Ct. Arvind went to HRH at 1.10 PM on 2.12.1992 with pain and swelling over right hand and complaint of back pain. Ct. Satpal Singh also went at 1.25 PM to the same hospital on that day with complaint of pain, at knee, thumb and chest. Duli Chand also went to the hospital at 1.20 PM on that very day with pain and swelling on left hand. No medical opinion has been taken or proved in this case that these SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 102 of 103 103 injuries were in any manner self-inflicted by these police personnel. After all, these three police officials were not even part of the initial police team and therefore they had no reason to self- inflict injuries on them. There is therefore something else also to the facts which occurred at the spot then from the version claimed by Balbir Singh and family members.
31 In the given facts & circumstances, the standard of proof requisite in a criminal trial to prove a case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt, is not met, benefit of which goes to all the accused persons and all the accused persons are acquitted of the charges.
Announced in the open court on 19th day of December, 2015. Dig Vinay Singh ASJ/Spl.Judge : NDPS (N-W) Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 41/14 Pg... Page 103 of 103