Delhi District Court
State vs . Kartar Singh Narang & Ors. on 5 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE2, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
SC No. 1165/2016
FIR No. 238/85
U/s. 307/332/353/186/120B IPC
& 3/5/6 Explosive Substance Act
& U/s. 27/54/59 Arms Act
PS: Patel Nagar
State Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
SC No. 1176/2016
FIR No. 505/1985
U/s. 4/5 Explosive Act & U/s. 120B IPC
PS Panipat
St. Vs. Kulbir Singh & Ors.
SC No. 1175/2016
FIR No. 58/1985
U/s. 302/307IPC & 4/5 Explosive Act
PS Khekra, U.P.
St. Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors.
SC No. 1173/2016
FIR No. 178/1985
U/s. 302/334/120B IPC
& 3/4 Explosive Act
PS Shahibad, U.P.
St. Vs. Amrik Singh @ Sikka.
SC No. 1168/2016
FIR No. 243/1985
U/s. 302/334/120B IPC
FIR No.238/85 1/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
& 3/4 Explosive Act
PS Aligarh, U.P.
St. Vs. Ravinderpal Singh & Ors.
SC No. 1172/2016
FIR No. 68/1985
U/s. 302/307/34/120B IPC
& 3/4 Explosive Act
PS Link Road
Ghaziabad, U.P.
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
SC No. 1182/2016
FIR No. 180/1985
U/s. 302/334/120B IPC
& 3/4 Explosive Act
PS Sihani Gate
Ghaziabad, U.P.
St.Mahinder Singh & Ors.
SC No. 1177/2016
FIR No. 64/1985
U/s. 302/334/120B IPC
& 3/4 Explosive Act
PS G.R.P. Meerut City, U.P.
St.Vs.Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Vs.
1. Kartar Singh Narang, S/o. Sh.Duni Chand R/o. 26/83, West Patel
Nagar, Delhi. ..... Expired.
2. Mohinder Singh Oberio @ Gian Singh @ Santji @ Mama, S/o.
FIR No.238/85 2/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Sh. Sohan Singh, R/o. 2697, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi. ..... Expired.
3. Surjit Kaur, W/o. Late Sh. Kartar Singh Narang, R/o. 26/83, West
Patel Nagar, Delhi.
4. Inderpal Singh Bhatia, S/o. Amar Singh, R/o. CII/2728, Malkaj
Ganj, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. ....... Expired.
5 Manmohan Singh, S/o. Sh. Thakur Singh, R/o. D478, Tagore
Garden Extn. West, Delhi.
Currently at : H285, Vikaspuri, New Delhi18.
6. Gurdev Singh, S/o. Sh. Dalbir Singh, R/o. A348, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
Currently at : 368, Phase I, Urban Estate, Focal Point, Ludhiana,
Punjab.
7. Jagir Singh, S/o. Sh. Pal Singh, R/o. 1035/5, Gali No. 12,Khureji
Khas, PS Jamunapuri, Delhi ....... Discharged.
8 Buta Singh, S/o. Sh. Gurwant Singh, R/o. 1035/5, Gali No. 12,
Khajuri Khas, PS Yamunapuri, Delhi
Currently at : H.No. 4851, Street No. 5, Near Central Jail, Tajpur
Road, Preet Nagar, Jamalpur Avana, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab.
9. Kulbir Singh @ Bholla, S/o. Sh. Jeet Singh, R/o. 19/253, Basti
Sarai rohilla, Delhi.
Currently at : A181, 3rd Floor, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
10. Inderjeet Singh @ Happy, S/o. Late Sh. Baldev Singh, R/o. A652,
Shatri Nagar Delhi.
FIR No.238/85 3/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
11. Hardeep Singh, S/o. Sh. Joginder Singh, R/o. H.No. 34, Milap Na
gar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
12. Tirath Singh, S/o. Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o. WZA1/191192, Hastsal
Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Currently at : A102, Chandar Vihar, Nilothi Extn. Nangloi, Delhi.
13. Mukhtiyar Singh, S/o. Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o. WZA1/191192,
Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Currently at: A102, Chandar Vihar, Nilothi Extn. Nangloi, Delhi.
14. Bhupinder Singh @ Binda, S/o. Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o.WZ
A1/191192, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Currenty at: 132A, Chandar Vihar, Nilothi Extn. Nangloi, Delhi.
15. Arvinder Singh @ Neetu, S/o. Sh. Trilochan Singh, R/o.C134/135,
JJ Colony, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Currently At : F109, Jeeven Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
16. Anoop Singh, S/o. Sh. Mehar Singh, R/o. C1068/1069, J.J Colony,
Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
17. Chander Mohan Singh, S/o. Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o. A180/181, JJ
Colony, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. ..... Expired.
18. Manjeet Singh, S/o. Sh. Gurcharan Singh, R/o.WZA1/251, Hastsal
Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Currently at: WZ35F, Plot No. 96/2, Navyug Block,Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi18.
19. Avtar Singh, S/o. Sh. Balbir Singh, R/o. WZ130, Gali No. 53, Ut
tam Nagar & K78, Subroto Park, Delhi Cantt. ....... Expired.
20. Manjeet Singh S/o. Bahadur Singh, R/o. 617/6,Govind Puri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi. ........ Expired.
FIR No.238/85 4/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
21. Joginderpal Singh Bhatia, S/o. Sh. Gopal Singh, R/o. A78, Tagore
Garden Extn. West Delhi.
22. Surjit Singh Bhatia, S/o. Sh. Jagat Singh Bhatia, R/o. 283/274,
Vishnu Garden Extn. No. 1, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. ....... Expired.
23. Tarjit Singh, S/o. Sh. J.S. Nagi, R/o.7/92, Gita Colony, Delhi.
Currently at : A17, Upper Ground, Shyam Nagar, Street No. 2, Dis
trict Krishan Nagar, Delhi - 51.
24. Sarvajit Singh, S/o. Sh. J.S. Nagi, R/o.7/92, Gita Colony, Delhi
Currently At: A13, Rani Garden, Shastri Nagar, Delhi31.
25. Surinderpal Singh, S/o. Sh. Tirath Singh, R/o. 924, Dr. Mukherjee
Nagar, Delhi
Currently at : 142E, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.
26. Amrik Singh, @ Mikka, S/o. Sh. Gurbaksh Singh, R/o. 406, Gali
No. 13, Tuglakabad Extn, Badarpur, Delhi
...... (Turned Approver/Expired)
27. Daljit Singh, S/o. Sh. Hari Singh, R/o.Z3730, Shanti Mohalla, Gali
No. 7, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
Currently at : 66D, Pocket F, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi91.
28. Amarjeet Singh, S/o. Kartar Singh, R/o. 343/3, Than Singh Nagar,
Anand Parvat, Delhi .......... Expired.
29. Joginderpal Singh/Ravinderpal Singh @ Tikka, S/o. Sh. Sampu
ran Singh, R/o. 375, Sant Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi Expired.
........... Expired.
30. Arjun Singh, S/o. Sh. Shyam Singh, R/o. 54, Rameshwar Singh,
Azadpur, Delhi. ............ Expired.
FIR No.238/85 5/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
31. Rajinder Singh, S/o. Sh. Arjun Singh, R/o. 54, Rameshwar Nagar,
Azadpur, Delhi.
32. Sewa Singh, S/o. Sh. Charan Singh, R/o.3738, Rameshwar Nagar,
Azadpur, Delhi
Currently at : 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi.
33. Surinderpal Singh @ Surinder Singh @ Dolly, S/o. Sardar Gopal
Singh, R/o.L110, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi15.
34. Shahbaz Singh, S/o. Sh. Budh Singh, R/o.WZ161/37A, Khazan
Basti, Mayapuri, Delhi.
35. Tinderpal Singh @ Palli, S/o. Sh. Ujjagar Singh, R/o. B1041,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
Currently at : H.No. 64, Street no. 2, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar,
Chandigarh Road, Luthiana, Punjab. ....... Expired.
36. Sukhdev Singh, S/o. Sh. Sarup Singh, R/o. B1086, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
Currently At : C3/82, Second Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi58.
37. Jaspal Singh/Yashpal Singh, S/o. Sd. Ujjagar Singh, R/o. H.No.
1365/8, Govind Puri, New Delhi.
38. Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa, S/o. Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o. 1653/15,
Govindpuri, Kalkaji, Delhi.
Currently at : 1653B/15, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
39. Narinder Singh, S/o. Sh. Gurjit Singh, R/o. 85, Press Road, New
Delhi.
Currently at: H.No. 311, Prakash Mohalla, East of Kailash, New
Delhi.
40. Gurmit Singh, S/o. Sh. Sewa Singh Narang, R/o. 53, Sector 7, R.K.
FIR No.238/85 6/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Puram, New Delhi
Currently at : 72/2, Flat No. 9, Krishna Nagar Near Safdarjun En
clave, New Delhi29.
41. Harvinder Singh, S/o. Sh. Surjit Singh, R/o. 243, Mohalla Garhi,La
jpat Nagar, New Delhi ...... Expired.
42. Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan, S/o. Sh. Menga Singh, R/o. 1435
A/13, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, Delhi.
Currently At : 1435A/13, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
43. Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha @ Bhagat, S/o. Sh. Dalbir Singh, R/o.
4344, Ahata Uggarsain, Pucca Bagh, Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P
.......... Discharged.
44. Gurdeep Singh Sehgal, S/o. Late Sardar Bhagat Singh, R/o. 1/171,
Auto Market, Punja Sarif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Currently at : 2/37, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi26.
45. Gurmeet Singh @ Happy @ Karatewala, S/o. Sh. Gurcharan
Singh, R/o.52/73, Parvat Road, PS Desh Bandhu Gupta Road.
Currently at: BG5/29 D Paschim Vihar, NewDelhi.
46. Sewa Singh @ Lamba @ Pappu, S/o. Sh. Kundan Singh, R/o. Vill.
Taswal, PS Lambi, Distt. Faridkot, Punjab. ...... Expired.
47. Karamjit Singh Kohli @ Karam Singh Kohli @ J.S. Kohli @
Anokh Singh @ Manager @ Inspector, S/o. Sh. Makhan Singh,
R/o. Waring Sube Singh, PS Verowal, Distt. Amritsar.
......... Expired.
48. Surjit Singh @ Tyrewala. S/o. Sardar Singh, R/o. 16/32, East Pun
jabi Bagh, Delhi. ..... Proclaimed Offender.
FIR No.238/85 7/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
49. Jagdish Singh @ Narelawala, S/o. Gurbachan Singh, R/o. H.No.
1713, Paana Mumurpur, Mohalla Punjabi, Gali Dhobian Narela,
Delhi. ..... Proclaimed Offender.
50. Iqbal Singh @ Bhale @ Pappa, S/o. Jagtar Singh, R/o. Vill. Raipur
Kala, Mehta Road, Jandyala Guru, Distt. Amritsar, Punjab.
..... Proclaimed Offender.
51. Narinder Pal Singh S/o. Kartar Singh Narang, R/o. 26/83, West Pa
tel Nagar, Delhi ...... Proclaimed Offender.
52. Sukhdev Singh Babar @ Sukha, Sh. Jaswant Singh, R/o. Village
Dessuwal, PS Boltaha Distt. Amritsar. ...... Expired.
53. Saravjit Singh, S/o. Sh. Dalbir Singh, R/o. Garib/Green Market,
Sultan Wind Cement Store Amritsar, Punjab..
....Proclaimed offender.
54. Sukhvinder Singh @ Kukoo, S/o. Sh. Bakshish Singh, R/o.
Dabawala PS Batala Distt. Gurdaspur.. ......... Expired.
55. Ravinder Pal Singh S/o. Sh. Kartar Singh Narang, R/o. 26/83, West
Patel Nagar, Delhi. ......... Expired.
56. Surjit Kaur, W/o. Sh. Gopal Singh, R/o. L110. Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi ....... Discharged.
57. Harjit Singh, S/o. Janak Singh, R/o. Tent No. 7, Hari Nagar Camp
and Kiran Garden, Uttam Na'gar, Delhi. ........ Expired.
58. Shahid Singh, S/o. Sh.Joginder Singh, R/o. Tent No. 13, Hari Nagar
Camp and C11/C, Tilak Vihar, Janakpuri, Delhi ....... Discharged.
59. Paramjit Singh @ Joly @ Bably, S/o. Sh.Puran Singh, R/o. J3/20
A, Rajouri Garden, Delhi ........ Discharged.
FIR No.238/85 8/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Date of Institution : 29.01.1986.
Date of Argument : 16.10.2019 to 11.02.2020.
Date of Judgment : 05.03.2020.
Judgment : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Delhi and adjoining areas of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana were rocked when bombs fitted in transistors, which were described as transistor bombs in the charge, kept in buses and other places, exploded in the evening of 10.05.1985 resulting in the death of 49 persons and injury to 127 persons in Union Territory of Delhi alone. Unexploded transistor bombs were recovered from various places in Delhi.
2. One live transistor bomb was found in DTC Depot, Naraina on 11.05.1985 which was placed by unknown person in bus no. DET 6322. The bomb was removed from the bus by DTC employee and was kept in open. Kuldeep Singh, Depot Manager, DTC informed the police and bomb was destroyed by Bomb Disposal Squad of Army and same. Parts of bomb shell with explosive charge on its wall and a piece of transistor cabinet and metal bracket were recovered from the spot and seized by SI Gurcharan Dass. FIR No. 235 dated 11.05.1985, u/s. 3/4 Explosive Substance Act was registered at PS Patel Nagar and investigation was assigned to SI Gurcha ran Singh. Another transistor bomb of similar description was found near milk booth in East Patel Nagar in the morning of 12.05.1985. This transis FIR No.238/85 9/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
tor bomb was also got defused at the spot by Army Bomb Disposal Squad and the sample of explosive charge was seized by SI Gurcharan Dass while remaining components of the transistor bomb were taken by Bomb Dis posal Squad for examination.
3. When investigation of FIR No. 235 dated 11.05.1985, was in progress, secret information about manufacturing of transistor bombs in House No. 26/83, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi by Kartar Singh Narang was received by police. After receipt of this information, a raiding party consisting of SI Gurcharan Dass, SI Dharampal Singh, SI Vijay Kumar Manchanda, SI Sushil Kumar, SI Jagarm and Ct. Sukhpal Singh from PS Patel Nagar and other police officials from PS Rajinder Nagar was consti tuted. Two independent witnesses namely Suraj Prakash and Deva Ram were also joined in the raiding party. The raiding team was divided in four groups. SI Vijay Kumar Manchanda, SI Sushil Kumar, SI Dharambir Gupta and SI Dharampal and Ct. Sukhpal alongwith two public witnesses were deputed to remain in front of House No. 26/83, West Patel Nagar. At about 2 PM, two Sikhs who were later identified as Mohinder Singh Oberoi and Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa were challenged by police party when they were about to enter the said house. Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa took out a pistol from his right dub and attempted to fire at police party. He was overpowered by SI Vijay Kumar Manchanda and Ct. Sukhpal.
4. Kartar Singh Narang, owner of House No. 26/83, West Patel FIR No.238/85 10/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Nagar, New Delhi, came out of his house and attacked police party with an iron rod. Mohinder Singh Oberoi also attacked police party with kirpan. Both Kartar Singh Narang and Mohinder Singh Oberoi were also over powered by police. In the encounter, Mohinder Singh Oberoi and Manmo han Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa sustained injuries and they were medically examined. Police officials namely SI Dharampal Singh, SI Vijay Kumar Manchanda, SI Dharambir Gupta, SI Sushil Kumar and Ct. Sukhpal also sustained injuries. This incident was investigated. During the course of investigation, pursuant to registration of FIR No. 238/85, SI Gurcharan Dass reached the spot and seized one .455 bore pistol no. 2097447 'United States' property Remington Rand Inc. with a magazine loaded with six live bullets of .455, from the possession of Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa, an iron rod from Kartar Singh Narang and kirpan with its cover from Mohinder Singh Oberoi.
5. After aforesaid three persons were overpowered, police party searched the ground floor of House No. 26/83, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in the occupation of Kartar Singh Narang and his wife Surjit Kaur. During search of small room in the said house, following items were recov ered :
(i) One hand drilling machine.
(ii) One small vice used for holding anything, such as shell of the
bomb, to cut and drill.
(iii) One iron cutting saw with six blades.
(iv) One gunia for measurement.
FIR No.238/85 11/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
(v) One punching machine.
(vi) Copper wire.
(vii) Plastic thread one bundle.
(viii) One small saw.
(ix) One insulating varnish box.
(x) One piece of wax.
(xi) One iron electric solder.
(xii) A small drill.
(xiii) Sealing wax.
(xiv) Glass laboratory equipment.
(xv) One aluminum laboratory equipment.
(xvi) One small screw driver.
In addition, small quantity of gun powder was also found room a glass sheet on the floor of the room and on the books.
6. From the search of table drawer kept in the room, a packet containing gun powder was also found. These items were taken into pos session vide seizure memo prepared in accordance with law. The powder found on the glass sheet, floor and books and fourteen .22 live cartridge were also recovered from the search of drawer of the table and same were also seized.
7. Personal search of accused Kartar Singh Narang and Mohinder Singh Oberoi and Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa was carried out. From the personal search of accused Kartar Singh Narang, one wrist FIR No.238/85 12/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
watch (Ricoh) with chain and Rs.183/ were recovered.
8. From the personal search of accused Mohinder Singh Oberio, one piece of paper on which formula gun powder is written. Below it the words 'gun cotton and the chemical formula HNO3, H2 SO4/3' and words 'add glysrine U slowly or drops of mixture of pure cotton, dry it and ex plode detonator', the word 'nitro cellose, below it hypochemical dictio nary, below it Sardar Karamjit Singh Ji 1025 Krishna Nagar, Ferozpur Road Ludhiana (in Punjab) below it Ammonia Fertilizer 20 KG. KCLO3 Potash, Sulphur KNO3, Shora (in Punjabi) tolus Carbon' are written in English and words feeta, shora are written in Punjabi. One piece of ruled paper was also recovered on which some names and telephone numbers are written in the following manner: Happy 5696....., Happy 774598, 4640, 2990, Bholla 773264, Gurdev SinghX, NI Mal Singh, Babbly (Jolly) 5372514 number gali (Kir pal Singh) Dalay Rajinder Nagar (Toney) are written in English and below it Sardar Sukha Singh Bhagat, pucca Bagh Hata Agar Sen Makan No. 44, Hapur are written in Punjabi, on the back of this paper the words Punjab Stainless Steel Industries are written in English and Vishnu Garden Sardar Surjit Singh (Kharadia) Phone Off 742451 are written in Punjabi, one chit of paper on which 4C pociet GGI MIG Flat Vikas Puri, New Delhi, tele phone no. 592972 was written, a piece of paper on which Sardar Amarjit Singh Te. No. Res. 2514776, Shop 226314, Sardar Khem Singh 200595 were written in English. Below this Sardar Jagat Singh, Gurmeet Singh Ki rana and General Merchants C58384, JJ Colony, Inderpuri - 110012 are FIR No.238/85 13/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
written in Punjabi, below this Dr. R.N. Gidio, 42, Balapur Road Dehradun 248001 Phone 25415, 9 a.m. to 2 PM near Choarkhala was written and Sar dar Jaswant Singh, c/o. Sardar Jagtar Singh Venue Tent House, Postal Clerk, Baldev Nagar Chowk, De Kol, S/o. Harbans Singh Telephone no. 57685 are written in Gurmukhi, a chit of paper on which Sardar Madan Singh Chopra Nedo Hotel, Nagpur was written in English, a chit of paper on which Mr. Mohinder Pal Singh Tel No. 527873 Res.594840, Tagore Garden was written in English, one chit of paper on which Windsor Hotel 38, Fadora House near Ghanta Ghat Choura Bazar was written in English, one chit of paper on which Bright Electoplaters Phone 538583, 537537, C 85 Mayapuri near Ambitious Nibs was written in English, a chit of paper on which Sandhu 7115583, 4166 and 7117192 was written in Punjabi, on the back of it Tirath Singh was written in Punjabi and 7112748 was also written, a small chit of paper on which Lycopodium6 was written in Eng lish and Pathri Rokan Lai was written in Punjabi, one chit of paper on which Punjab & Sind Bank was written, one chit of paper on which Tel. No. 527599, 777599 and 568831 were written, a chit of paper on which Hari Nagar Camp, Harjit Singh S/o. Janak Singh T7, Kiran Garden, Makan Sara Gia six members (electrician in English), Carpenter (in Eng lish), Shaheed Singh S/o.Joginder Singh T13, Uttam Nagar, Pita Ate Bhra Mare Gia, Makan Saar Dia, Kirhan Vihar, C114, Surinder Pal Singh (Billa) 10/1035 Phone 2510374 P.P. Gurbachan Singh Babar G5, 718645, Sardar Man Mohan Singh Ji D478, 501173, Sardar Manjit Singh Ji Govind Puri P.P. 632811 is written in Punjabi and Scott Land Air conditioners Messers 636452 was written in English, one visiting card of Good Luck FIR No.238/85 14/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Tyre Service, one visiting card of Gulbati Stores at the back of which the name Happy and Telephone no. 569646, 564964, 773264 and Bhola were written, six other visiting cards of (i) Shama Engineering Works, (ii) Kuldeep Singh and Brothers, (iii) Scott Land Airconditioners Shop No. 1415, Gali No. 13, Govindpuri, Manjit Singh. Amrik Singh, (iv) Channa Repairing Centre (v) Chawla Tourist Corporation (vi) Bhai Mohinder Singh Khalsa, two keys in a ring and Rs.2300/ in cash were recovered and taken into possession by SI Gurcharan Dass vide personal search memo.
9. From the personal search of accused Manmohan Singh @ Mo hinder Singh Khalsa following items were recovered : (1) A visiting card of J.S. Engg. Works, G76 Arjun Nagar Delhi, J.S. Negi, upon this card the words Ambala, Gawalior, Karnal, Dehradun, Indore, Calcutta, By. S.H.P, Bareilly (in short form) Mzfn, 567995, Dr., 585050, Tarjit Singh were written in English and at the back of it some names were written in Gurumukhi and 1035/5, Gali No. 12 Bha jan Pura Delhi Khajuri Telephone no. 2917222 DLT 1348 were also writ ten.
(2) One visiting card of J.P.Singh Vohra, Tax Advisor, on the back of which measurement of land were written.
(3) One visiting card of Chemical and Scientific Corpora tion 2133, Tilak Bazar Delhi on which Rakab Ganj is written in Gurmukhi and 7 PM 08.5.85, 9.5.85 8 PM is written in English. On the back of it certain quantities and amounts are written.
(4) A visiting card of M/s. J.M. Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Naraina FIR No.238/85 15/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Area Phase II.
(5) One visiting card of Sucha Sauda Property Dealers Cen tral Market Tilak Nagar, on the back of which telephone no. 5716891, 57166944 and Vijay Packer are written in English.
(6) One visiting card of Taranjit Singh Chartered Accounts.
(7) One visiting card of Rana and Associates.
(8) One visiting card of Suchha Sauda.
(9) One visiting card of K.L. Gera.
(10) One visiting card of Sarwaati Property Dealers. (11) One visiting card of Ved Chaudhary, Advocate.
(12) One visiting card of Kartar Singh Narang, Advocate. (13) One receipt no. 499288 of Transport Department Delhi for learning licence.
(14) One learning driving licence no. 353574 in the name of Karam Singh, S/o. Sohan Singh ,R/o. B135, Meera Bagh, New Delhi, aged 32 years dt. of issue 22.4.85 on which Karam Singh is written in Guru mukhi.
(15) One piece of ruled paper on the back side of which 8 pieces Lamb a 4 pieces K.P. Singh Safari Suit 23000, Amarjit 5000, Araldite 6200, A1 Pipe 300, 15 Socket 3500, 200 Socket Plug 1500, Petrol Mamaji 4000, Petrol 10000, Pent Shirt 22000, 29110 and figures 27963 and 182700 and figure 4325 X 13 = 56225 are written. On the other side of this paper, the entires are in 3 co umns. In the first column fig ures of 3000, 1500, 500,1200,2000 are written one below the others; below it a line is drawn ad figures 8200; 10,000; 10,000 are written one below the FIR No.238/85 16/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
other; again a line is drawn and below it the figures 28200 and 1600K.S. are written and a line is drawn, below it the figure 29800 is written. In the second column 3200 Cabinet Radio; 1080 Dhalai, 585 Dhalai; 1040 Cell; 1000 Khalsa; 270 Petrol Motor Cycle; 200 Jarnail Singh; 100Jagdish; 1000Moti; 2930A.N. AL Pow are written. In the third column the figures 420x30 = 12600, 33x75x40=1350.00, 87/50x978750, 149.60, 882.00 are written; below it a line is drawn and the figures 1576910, 11355.0 are written below it a line is drawn and the figure 27124.70 is written below it khaki T/C 13/10 Mts. 43/25566.00, and 36x7/60=273.00 are written; be low it a line is drawn and the figure 27963.70 is written. Between Col. 2&3 a sketch is also drawn which seems to be the sketch of a road.
(16) One chit of paper on which the words LUCKY, Babbu, Chawla, Goga, Juhar and certain figures are written. On its back Mistri Anar Singh is written.
(17) One piece of paper on which Jagir Singh, NITCO, Beant Singh, Zakhira, Indore, Dhodhi, Dhanar, Jalwania, Jagan Da Hote, Doodhi, and Telephone No.s 537962, 533145 are written in English.
(18) 4 pieces of white papers on which press release material is written in blank ink.
(19) Rs.929/ in cash.
(20) A chit of paper on which P.T.I., I.E. and telephone nos. are written in English.
10. Pursuant to these recoveries, ruqqa was sent by SI Gurcharan Dass to PS Patel Nagar for registration of FIR and FIR No. 238/85 u/s.
FIR No.238/85 17/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
307/332/353/186/120B IPC & 3/5/6 Explosive Substance Act and u/s. 27/54/59 Arms Act was registered. Investigation of this case was assigned to Inspector Mahadev who was then posted as SHO PS Patel Nagar. In spector Mahadev conducted search of room of house no. 26/83, West Patel Nagar in the occupation of Kartar Singh Narang and his wife Surjit Kaur and following articles were recovered :
(i) One passport no. T.311439 of Kartar Singh Narang valid up to 23.3.88.
(ii) One passport No. U007689 of Narinder Pal Singh Narang valid from 21.3.83 to 20.3.88.
(iii) One passport no. T810573 of Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakdhi valid from 22.3.83 to 21.3.88.
(iv) One passbook A/c. No. SB112 Syndicate Bank of Kartar Singh.
(v) One passbook A/c. No. 1607 Punjab & Sind Bank of Master Ravinderpal Singh, r/o. K86, West Patel Nagar.
(vi) One passbook A/c. No. 1608, Punjab & Sind Bank of Master Narinder Pal Singh, r/o.K.85, West Patel Nagar.
(vii) One passbook A/c. No. 1262, Punjab & Sind Bank of S. Narinder Singh, r/o. 26/83, West Patel Nagar.
(viii) One ration card no. 835592 of G.P. Singh Bakshi.
(ix) One ration card no. 847806 of Bakshi Inderjit Singh, r/o. 2650/3, Bank Street.
(x) One passport of Mrs. Surjit Kaur wife of Kartar Singh Narang, r/o. 26/83, West Patel Nagar.
FIR No.238/85 18/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
(xi) Two diaries of black plastic covers.
11. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio made disclosure statement before Inspector Mahadev Mehta and got recovered one .455 pistol with six live cartridges in its magazine, National Match Calt. Automatic Calkbe .45 Celt Model C 201158 and 39 live .455 bore cartridges tied in a handker chief and 2 books in Gurumukhi and Rs.78/ in cash from the dicky of Scooter No. DIF 8172 at the pointing out of Mohinder Singh Oberio. The keys of this scooter had been earlier recovered from the personal search of Mohinder Singh Oberio (accused no.2).
12. Pursuant to these recoveries, FIR No. 239/85, u/s. 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was registered at PS Patel Nagar. The spot was inspected by CFSL. Incriminating articles from the personal search of accused no. 1 to 3 and from H.No. 26/83, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi were sent for expert opinion to FSL and government examiner for questioned documents, Shimla.
13. Keeping in view the magnitude of case, a Special Investigating Team under the supervision of Mr. A.K. Kanth, the then DCP (Central Dis trict) was constituted. Documents seized as mentioned above were ana lyzed to find out connections of names, telephone numbers, addresses, vis iting cards, etc. to unearth entire conspiracy. Pieces of papers which were marked as Q1, Q2 and Q3 recovered from the personal search of accused Mohinder Singh Oberio contained names and telephone numbers of Happy, FIR No.238/85 19/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Bholla and other persons. The person with the name of Happy was identi fied as Gurmeet Singh @ Happy @ Karatewala. Another Happy was traced through telephone number 774598 and he was identified as Inderjeet Singh @ Happy. Name of Bhola was traced through telephone number 773264 and was identified as Kulbir Singh @ Bhola. Name of Gurdev Singh was identified by inquiries from Happy and Bhola. Bubbly (Jolly) was identi fied through telephone number 537251 as a friend of accused Happy and Bhola. Surjeet Singh written at the back of this paper was traced through telephone number 742451 and was identified as accused no. 22 Surjit Singh Bhatia. Investigation revealed that accused persons mentioned in these doc uments/papers recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio had partici pated in the conspiracy of making and exploding transistor bombs.
14. Another document which was marked as Q5 seized from ac cused Mahinder Singh Oberio had telephone number 291275 (Office) and telephone 71......48 (Res.) written on it. These were found to be phone numbers of Surenderpal Singh. The document which was marked as Q6 and Q7 recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio contained tele phone number 7112748 of Sardar Tirath Singh Ji, who is father of Suren derpal Singh. Another document marked as Q10 recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio contained the address of Windsor Hotel which was owned by Gurdeep Singh Sehgal. The document marked as Q14 recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio contained formula for making differ ent explosive mixer such as gun powder, gun cotton, Nitre Cellolese, etc. These documents also contained name of Karamjit Singh. Another docu FIR No.238/85 20/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
ment marked as Q19 recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio con tained name of Harjit Singh and Shahid Singh who have been traced as vic tims of November 1984 riots living in Hari Nagar Camps.
15. Visiting card of JS. Engineering Works was also recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio and Tarjit Singh written on this doc ument has been traced as accused no. Tarjit Singh son of J.S. Nagi, propri etor of J.S. Engineering Works. On the back of this document, address of 1035/10, Gali No. 12, Bhajanpura Khajouri has been written which is the address of accused Jagir Singh and Buta Singh.
16. Document marked as Q28, Q29, Q30, Q31, Q32 and Q33 are pieces of papers from small note pad and notes are written on it in Gur mukhi which are in the nature of draft press release which shows Sukhdev Singh Babbar has owned the responsibility of bomb explosions at different places in India and has stated that Babbar Khalsa Jhatadhari was forced to carry out this programme in protest against massacre of innocent Sikhs fol lowing the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and police entry in Gurud waras.
17. Document mark Q27 recovered from accused Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa carried the name of one Jagir Singh and telephone numbers given are telephone numbers of NITCO Transport Company in which Jagir Singh worked as a partner. Document mark Q 45 is a page of diary of Inderjeet Singh @ Happy. From disclosure statements FIR No.238/85 21/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
of Kartar Singh Narang, Mahinder Singh Oberio and Manmohan Singh @ Mahinder Singh Khalsa and consequent upon investigation, it transpired that conspiracy was hatched to take revenge against alleged atrocities com mitted on Sikhs and in pursuance of this conspiracy, a plan was prepared to manufacture bombs in the house of accused Kartar Singh Narang for which Inderpal and Surjit Singh financed Manmohan Singh @ Mahinder Singh Khalsa and J.S. Kohli procured material for bombs. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio and Jagjit Singh organized a survey and took charge for ac tion. Accused Kartar Singh Narang further disclosed that on 21.04.1985, manufacturing of bombs started at his house and the action was to be taken on 01.05.1985. Subsequently, in another meeting it was decided to give bombs the cover of electronic device and cabinets were brought and carried in a taxi. Accused Kartar Singh Narang further disclosed that some cabinets had to be removed to the house of Manmohan Singh at Raghuvir Nagar due to lack of place in his house. Some of the prepared transistor bombs were carried to the house of Jagjit Singh on 08.05.1985.
18. During investigation, accused Mahinder Singh Oberio dis closed to SI Brahm Pal Singh of Patel Nagar that he had rented out first floor and second floor of his house but on the staircase leading to terrace, there was a small store in his occupation where he had kept two boxes con taining some of the components of transistor bombs, equipments to manu facture them, plastic explosives, time pencils, detonators, 9 valt Everyday batteries, monograms of Delhi Police uniform which were also kept in a box near the water tank on the terrace. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio FIR No.238/85 22/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
further disclosed that keys of boxes was lying in the drawer of the table and led the police party to the terrace and got the items recovered which were seized by SI Dharampal vide two seizure memos. After recovery of keys, accused Mahinder Singh Oberio led the police party to store located on the stair case and got the lock opened leading to recovery of two boxes, con taining transistor switches, slide switches and volume control (make moon light industries) (all 41 pieces), small switches (26), switch off and on with spoke (96) thin wire clips to connect batteries with bombs (17) band switches (32) band switch nobs (25), cardboards (9), iron pieces and other transistor parts (82), nutbolts (1000) power testing meter (4) screw driver's kit (7), also containing equipment for punching, pliers to cut the wires, a packet containing coblet nails, one meter soldering wire, one prearoll slip, two used tubes of aarldite, one used tube of quick fix and a knife, one tran sistor cabinet, the articles used for manufacture bombs. These articles were seized vide seizure memo's. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio also led the police to the terrace near tank and got the trunk opened with the key al ready recovered. From the trunk the police recovered seven packets of plas tic explosives each weighing about one KG, 7 time pencils, 5 detonators, 17 nine volts Everyday batteries, two leather belts with monogram of Delhi Police, 8 shoulder badges, 4 stars, two whistle cords and one meter ribbon. These items alongwith trunk were seized vide seizure memo's.
19. On the basis of further information provided by accused Kartar Singh Narang, three card boards lying beneath the cot in the house of Amarjit Singh were also recovered. Accused no. 2 Mahinder Singh Oberio FIR No.238/85 23/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
who had prime role in the conspiracy disclosed that he was elected as Mukh Panch Delhi Pradesh Khalsa, blue star operation and riots of Novem ber 1984 hurt his sentiments and he decided to take revenge for this along with Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa and J.S. Kohli. Accused Kartar Singh Narang further disclosed that from 68.04.1985, accused Kar tar Singh Narang organized a 'Bhog' at his residence at 26/83, West Patel Nagar for is son who was missing since November riots, on 08.5.85, a large number of Sikhs including Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa, Surjit Singh Tyrewala, Inderpal Singh Bhatia, Jagdish Singh of Narela, Manmohan Singh, Gurdev Singh, Jagir Singh, Gurdev Gurdip Singh Seh gal, Jagjit Singh, Surjit Kaur, Narinder Singh and Jagdish Singh Nagi came to attend the Bhog. In the said Bhog, it was decided to chalk out a plan to take revenge for November 1984 riots and to overawe government by use of force.
20. Subsequent meetings were also held at the house of accused Kartar Singh Narang which was attended by Manmohan Singh @ Mahin der Singh Khalsa, J.S. Kohli and other persons and it was decided to give shape of electric device to bombs. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio dis closed that riots affected area were surveyed by him and his associates and list of persons involved in riots was prepared. Initially the plan was to take action on 01.05.1985. Subsequently, it was decided to postponed the plan to 10.05.1985. Accused Buta Singh was engaged to transport cabinets in his taxi no. DLT 1348. Cabinets were brought to the house of accused Kar tar Singh Narang and from there same were taken to the house of Manmo FIR No.238/85 24/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
han Singh.
21. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio further disclosed that simul taneous bombs explosive were planned in Delhi and other parts and for this purpose Manmohan Singh @ Mahinder Singh Khalsa and J.S.Kohli took the responsibility of preparing agents to plant bombs for explosion. Ac cused no. 2 Mahinder Singh Oberio further disclosed that at the house of Jagjit Singh, Mandeep Singh @ Happy, Gurmit Singh @ Happy @ Karate wala, Kulbir Singh @ Bhola, Manmohan Singh @ Khalsa, J.S. Kohli, Sur jit Singh Tyrewala, Manmohan Singh, Jagjit Singh, J.S. Nagi, Jagdish Singh of Narela and Gurdev Singh were present and it was decided to carry bombs to the house of Jagjit Singh on 09.08.1985 and distribute them for simultaneous action.
22. Inderjeet Singh @ Happy and Kulbir Singh were assigned the job of planting the bombs at Panipat and Sonipat while accused Gurmeet Singh was given the task of planting bombs at Ghaziabad. Accused Mahin der Singh Oberio further disclosed that he carried six transistor bombs and handed over the same to young Sikhs who were identified as Harjit Singh, Tirath Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda, Arvinder Singh, Chandan Mohan Singh, Manjit Singh, Avtar Singh @ Titoo, Gurvinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Jasbir Singh, Devinderpal Singh and Man mohan Singh, who were tasked with the responsibility of planting bombs in West Delhi. Mahinder Singh Oberio further disclosed about handing over bombs to various accused for action in Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar FIR No.238/85 25/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Pradesh.
23. On 01.06.1985, accused no. 2 Mahinder Singh Oberio led the police party to M/s. Singh Engineering Works, Jaipuria Mill, Subzi Mandi in the presence of accused Arjun Singh and Rajinder Singh and two iron bomb shells were recovered which had been given by accused no. 2 to Manmohan Singh @ Khalsa for cutting threads, one lathe machine used for cutting threads was seized and on the basis of these evidence and their par ticipation in the conspiracy, accused Arjun Singh and Rajinder Singh were arrested.
24. Accused no. 2 Mahinder Singh Oberio pointed out the house of accused Sewa Singh on 04.05.1985. House of accused no. 32 located at 37, Rameshwar Nagar was searched and 10 cloth bags, one coil of black electric wire, 11 bomb shells with 10 caps and one without cap, one diary containing address and telephone numbers of M/s. Sandhu Auto Sales, Modal Town and 7 magazine (journals) i.e. 4 Sikh Phulwari, 2 Komy Raj nati, and one concept of Khalsa, some pamphlets, 4 polythene bags and one plastic bag containing while chemical were recovered and seized.
25. Accused Hardeep Singh was arrested in FIR No. 287/85, PS Kingsway Camp and his disclosure statement was recorded. Police custody remand of accused no. 2 in FIR No. 137/85 was obtained and he led SI Jaipal of PS Gandhi Nagar to shop no. 6053, Imperial Electric Parts, Sadar Bazar and in the presence of one Prakash, Salesman of the shop, one cash FIR No.238/85 26/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
memo book containing cash memo's about purchase of 9 volt battery, daily sales register about purchase of 120 everyday batteries for Rs.854.40 paisa were seized.
26. Accused no. 2 Mahinder Singh Oberio also disclosed that he was on visiting terms with a widow lady Smt. Surjit Kaur and he had kept one bag containing 6 transistor bombs at the house of Surjit Kaur and told her and her son Surender Pal Singh @ Dolly about it. Accused Surender Pal Singh @ Dolly was arrested in FIR No. 245/85 PS Patel Nagar and dis closed that he had kept bombs given by accused no. 2 near Railway Lines behind Shyam Park. Surender Pal Singh @ Dolly got recovered one bag containing plastic Aluminum fine powder, one bottle of aluminum nitrate, one bottle of picric acid, 11 detonators, etc. from shop no. 6049, Gali Matkewali, Sadar Bazar. Accused Shahwaz Singh was also arrested pur suant to disclosure statement of accused no. 2 Mahinder Singh Oberio recorded on 08.06.1985 by SI Ram Singh of PS Patel Nagar. Accused Shahwaz Singh disclosed that accused no. 2 had given him 21 bomb shells in a canvas bag which he had got recovered beneath a culvert and same were seized.
27. From the personal search of accused Shahwaz Singh one re ceipt no. 21 of Shiv Foundary Works which belongs to Sukhan Lal and Chitar Mal was recovered. One witness namely Sukhanlal was joined in in vestigation and he confirmed that the above mentioned receipt was issued to him on which the quantity mentioned was in the writing of his servant FIR No.238/85 27/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Shankar and the signature was his own.
28. On the basis of disclosure statement of Mahinder Singh Obe rio, raid was conducted at the house of Jagjit Singh Bhatia and incrimina tory material was recovered from his house. However, Jagjit Singh Bhatia absconded and proceedings u/s. 82/83 Cr.PC were issued against him on 13.05.1985. Mahinder Singh Khalsa succumbed to injuries sustained in the encounter.
29. On the basis of information furnished by accused Mahinder Singh Oberio on 20.05.1985, accused Gurdev Singh, Inderjeet Singh, Kul bir Singh @ Bhola were arrested and incriminating articles/pamphlets were recovered from their possession.
30. Accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh were arrested in pur suance of disclosure statement of accused no. 2 i.e. Mahinder Singh Obe rio. These two accused persons in their disclosure statements told the police as to how they came in contact with Manmohan Singh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa and one Narender Singh and were given transistor bomb for being planted at different places. House search of accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh was conducted and from the room occupied by them, a press release of Dal Khalsa dated 13.08.1978 was recovered.
31. During investigation, it was found that one Jagmal resident of Bhovapur, PS Link Road, District Ghaziabad came to Delhi at Shakurpur FIR No.238/85 28/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Bus Stand, Gangaram resident of Shahid Nagar, Ghaziabad and Shakir Khan, resident of Shahid Nagar, Ghahiabad had met him and they three had boarded a bus going towards Trilokpuri and had seen two Sikh persons leaving a bag in the bus and getting down on the next stop. They found one transistor in the bag which was taken by Jagmal to his house where it was switched on by someone from his house which resulted in explosion killing three persons and causing injuries to three others and consequently, Crime/FIR No. 68/85 u/s. 302/307/324 IPC and u/s. 2/3/4 of Explosive Substance Act was recorded at PS Link Road, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad po lice applied for TIP parade of accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh, Daljit Singh but they refused to participate in the TIP.
32. Accused Ravinderpal Singh Tikka @ Joginderpal Singh Tikka was arrested from his house at Sant Nagar, Garhi Lajpat Nagar at the in stance of accused Kulbir Singh and two provocative posters were recovered from his possession.
33. During interrogation accused Ravinder Pal Singh Tikka admit ted that he met Iqbal Singh @ Bhale @ Pappa who instigated him to take part in the conspiracy to explode transistor bombs and kill prominent Con gress (I) leaders of the capital. He admitted having gone to Gurudwara Bangla Sahib at 1 PM and having met Amrik Singh @ Nikka (accused no.
26) and further admitted that Pappa (PO no. 7) gave them two transistor bombs and explained its handling to them. From there, they went to Chandni Chowk and purchased a bag and then in the evening wen to Delhi FIR No.238/85 29/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Main Railway Station and after purchasing tickets for Ghaziabad, boarded a train going in that direction. They left one transistor bomb on the luggage rack of their compartment, got down at Shahdara, planted the second tran sistor bomb with bag in another compartment of the same train and got down. When the train left they took a bus and went to Gurudwara Bangla Sahib and from there to their respective homes. He further admitted that he met accused Pappa at the house of Smt. Charanjit Kaur at C45, Widow Quarters, Sant Nagar where he had gone to repair an electric fan. Accused no. 26 Amrik Singh had run away from Delhi to avoid arrest and nonbail able warrant was obtained for his arrest. On 08.06.1985. T.P. message was received through I.B. Control Room that accused no. 26 Amrik Singh has been arrested by the Calcutta Police and a police party was sent to Calcutta and he was brought to Delhi on 16.06.1985. During investigation, he admit ted that he was mobed in November riots and was beaten up at Greater Kailash and he got his hair cut (which he had started growing again). He corroborated the version of accused no. 29 Joginder Singh @ Tikka/Ravin derpal Singh @ Tikka. During investigation it was found that on 10.05.1985, one Jamil Khan, r/o. Akabarpur, PS Khuldabad, U.P. was go ing from Delhi to his soninlaw Ahmed Khan's house at Sham Park, Sahibabad and one Vinod Kumar a neighbour of Ahmed Khan, one Lal Man, r/o. Mohan Nagar and Sukhbir Singh, r/o. Village Karhda, District Ghaziabad were also travelling alongwith him. They saw two Sikh boys boarding the train carrying one transistor and something in a bag. At Sha hadra, two Sikhs left the transistor in the train and got down on the pretext of drinking water and did not come back. At Sahibabad, Zamil Khan FIR No.238/85 30/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
picked up the transistor and took it to his soninlaw's house. There this transistor bomb exploded killing Zamil Khan and injuring a girl named Menu and crime/FIR no. 178/85, u/s. 302/324 IPC and u/s. 3/4 Explosive Substance Act was registered at PS Sahibabad. The Sahibabad police moved an application for test identification parade of accused Ravinder Pal Singh @ Tikka and Amrit Singh (accused no. 26) but they refused to par ticipate in the identification parade. During investigation, it was further found that one transistor bomb was found in the same train by a sweeper Bachu Singh at Aligarh Railway Station which he took to his house where it exploded resulting in the death of Bachu Singh and crime/FIR No. 243/85, u/s. 302/440/286 IPC & 4/5 Explosive Substance Act dated 11.05.1985 was registered at Banna Devi. In this case, Prem Chand and Saqid Hussain had seen two Sikhs putting a bag containing transistor bomb in the train and an application was moved for test identification parade of accused no. 25 and 26 by the Aligarh Police.
34. Name of accused Manmohan figured in the case on the basis of paper seized from accused no. 2 Mohinder Singh Oberio. From the pos session of Manmohan Singh, one pamphlet was recovered while from the search of his house, two pamphlets were recovered and seized. During in vestigation, house of accused Jagjit Singh Bhatia was searched and a diary was recovered which contained names and addresses of various persons in cluding those of Inderpal Singh Bhatia, Joginder Pal, Manmohan Singh, Surjit Singh and Gurvinder Singh (approver). It was also revealed from dis closure statement of accused no. 2 Mohinder Singh Oberio that accused FIR No.238/85 31/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Surjit Singh @ Khariya, a close associate of accused no. 3 Manmohan Si ingh @ Mohinder Singh Khalsa was also involved in the conspiracy. Ac cused Surjit Singh Kharadiya got recovered handouts of Dal Khalsa from his house no. 7283/284, Vishnu Garden, Extn.I.
35. On 21.05.1985, Inderpal Singh Bhatia, one of the main con spirators in the conspiracy was arrested and from his possession one pam phlet and one booklet and one hand bill was recovered. He disclosed to have contributed Rs 10,000/ towards achieving the objective of conspiracy and this amount also found mentioned in the disclosure statement of other coaccused and seized documents.
36. During interrogation, accused Jagjit Singh who subsequently turned Approver figured as one of the key conspirators. On 22.05.1985 house of Jagjit Singh was searched by SI Dharampal Singh of PS Patel Na gar and several documents written in Hindi, English and Gurumukhi were seized. Investigating Agency on the basis of and analysis of documents re covered from Jagjit Singh inferred strong element of conspiracy to commit the offence which were committed in pursuance of conspiracy hatched in relation with transistor bomb cases. Accused Jagjit Singh was arrested and during investigation, he admitted to have known accused no., 2 and that his house no. 52/54, Ramjas Road was used for holding meeting with cocon spirators. While accused Jagjit Singh was in judicial custody, on 04.06.1985, he moved an application for making confessional statement and expressed his desire to turn Approver and pardon was granted to him.
FIR No.238/85 32/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Consequently, he was examined and his detailed statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 05.06.1985. Statements of Gurmit Kaur and Manmohan Kaur daughters of Jagjit Singh were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.
37. Accused Manjeet Singh is stated to have been instrumental in planting bombs in South Delhi area and for this purpose, he roped in ac cused no. 38 Devinderpal Singh @ Pappa, accused Gurmeet Singh, Harvin der Singh, Jaspal Singh, Dalvinder Singh, Harvinder Singh. All these per sons were arrested on 17.05.1985. Role of these persons in conspiracy be came clear from the statement of Amrik Singh recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC and also from contents of letter written by accused no. 42 Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan to PO 3 Jagdish Singh @ Narelawala and a dairy of ac cused Manjeet Singh. Investigation further revealed that accused Mukhtiar Singh, Anup Singh Arvinder Singh Bhupender Singh, Tirath Singh and Manjit Singh had participated in the conspiracy and planted bombs in the areas of West Delhi.
38. Accused no. 2 Mohinder Singh Oberio in his disclosure state ment also referred to accused Sukhdev Singh, Inderpal Singh and Joginder Singh and during investigation, it was revealed that accused Inderpal Singh and Sukhdev Singh had accompanied Gurdev Singh to the house of Jagjit Singh at 52/54, Ramjas Road and had collected transistor bomb from the accused no. 2 and placed it in a DTC bus which was going towards Hakikat Nagar in the evening of 10.05.1985.
FIR No.238/85 33/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
39. During investigation, it was transpired that Surjit Kaur, wife of Kartar Singh Narang, had also participated in the criminal conspiracy. She absconded and NBW for her arrest was obtained. She was ultimately ar rested by Punjab Police in Jalandhar on 31.05.1985 and police party brought her to Delhi.
40. Name of accused Sukha Singh Bhagat was found mentioned on a piece of paper recovered from accused no. 2. Accused Sukha Singh Bhagat was arrested by Ghaziabad Police on 11.06.1985 and incriminating material was recovered from him which pointed towards his involvement in the crime.
41. Approximately 35 FIR's were registered in connection with bomb explosion and recovery of transistor bombs in various parts of Delhi. As discussed above, a Special Investigating Team under the supervision of the then DCP (Central) was constituted to conduct the investigation. As per written report furnished by DCP (Central), one charge sheet was filed by Delhi Police. Investigating Agency concluded that all accused persons (mentioned in column no. 2 and 3) of the charge sheet entered into a con spiracy to overawe the government established by law, to create the feeling of disharmony among different communities and in pursuance of this con spiracy, they manufactured bombs and planted them in different parts of Delhi resulting in loss of lives of 49 persons and injury to 127 persons in Union Territory of Delhi alone.
FIR No.238/85 34/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
42. From the material collected and facts disclosed during investi gation, Investigating Agency concluded that accused Kartar Singh Narang, Mahinder Singh Oberio, Surjit, Manmohan @ Khalsa, J.S. Kohli, Jagjit Singh Narelawala and all other accused persons which are mentioned in column no. 2 and 3 of the charge sheet hatched a conspiracy to overawe by means of criminal force or show of criminal force the government estab lished by law and to promote the feeling of disharmony between two groups (communities) on the ground of religion. It was further concluded that conspirators manufactured and simultaneously exploded transistor bombs in different parts of Delhi and other States and as a consequence of explosions, atleast 49 persons died and 127 injured in the Union Territory of Delhi and accordingly Section 120/121A/122/123/153/153B/302 IPC were added in the case.
43. Accused persons were charge sheeted u/s.
120A/153/153A/153B/302/307/427 IPC and Section 3/4/5/6 of Explosive Substance Act read with Section 120B IPC. Investigation conducted by Haryana Police culminated in filing of charge sheet in FIR No. 505/1985 u/s. 4/5 Explosive Act & u/s. 120B IPC, PS Panipat against accused Kulbir Singh, Inderjeet Singh and Mahinder Singh.
44. Investigation was conducted by Uttar Pradesh Police in respect of incident of bomb explosion in Ghaziabad and other parts of Uttar Pradesh. It transpired from the record that six charge sheets were filed by FIR No.238/85 35/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Uttar Pradesh Police bearing FIR No. 58/1985, u/s. 302/307IPC & 4/5 Ex plosive Act, PS Khekra, U.P., FIR No. 178/1985, u/s. 302/334/120B IPC & 3/4 Explosive Act, PS Shahibad, U.P., FIR No. 243/1985, u/s. 302/334/120B IPC & 3/4 Explosive Act, PS Aligarh, U.P., FIR No. 68/1985, u/s. 302/307/34/120B IPC & 3/4 Explosive Act, PS Link Road, Ghaziabad, U.P., FIR No. 180/1985, U/s. 302/334/120B IPC & 3/4 Explo sive Act, PS Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, U.P. and FIR No. 64/1985, U/s. 302/334/120B IPC & 3/4 Explosive Act, PS G.R.P. Meerut City, U.P.
45. Cases arising out of FIR's registered at Uttar Pradesh were transferred to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide order dated 27.02.1986 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court for being tried alongwith the case arising out of FIR No. 238/85 PS Patel Nagar. Subse quently, case arising out of FIR No. 58/85 registered at PS Khekhra, Uttar Pradesh was also transferred to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 06.08.1986 in exercise of power under Section 186 (b) Cr.PC. The case arising out of FIR No. 180/85 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttar Pradesh which was transferred to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi to be tried with case arising out of FIR No. 238/85, PS Patel Nagar by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.01.2089. Similarly, case arising out of FIR No. 505/85 PS Panipat pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panipat was transferred to the concerned Court at Patiala House Court, New Delhi, to be tried with case FIR No. 238/85 PS Patel Nagar by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.01.1991.
FIR No.238/85 36/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
46. After transfer of aforesaid cases and committal proceedings, charges under Section 120/302/120B/307/120B/121/121A/153A/120B IPC and 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act was framed against accused vide or der dated 25.07.2006.
47. It is pertinent to mention here that total charge sheeted accused were 59 out of which 12 were declared proclaimed offenders at the time of filing of charge sheet. However, before the Court could frame the charge, 10 accused persons died and proceedings against them were abated. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty which necessitated trial. Prosecution ex amined 354 witnesses to prove the charge against accused persons. It will be relevant to mention here that total 1399 prosecution witnesses were cited in all charge sheets. However, since charges were framed 20 years after the institution of cases and trial continued for almost 13 years, many witnesses died or were not traceable. Many witnesses were dropped by the prosecu tion as documents which were to be proved through their testimonies were lost or misplaced and even photocopies of those documents were not avail able and it was considered that there should be no point in examination of those witnesses in the absence or availability of relevant documents.
48. Accused Mahender Singh Oberio, Surjeet Kaur, Inderpal Singh Bhatia, Manmohan Singh, Gurdev Singh, Buta Singh, Kulbir Singh @ Happy, Inderjeet Singh @ Happy, Hardeep Singh, Tirath Singh, Mukhti yar Singh, Bhupender Singh, Harvinder Singh @ Nitu, Anoop Singh, FIR No.238/85 37/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Chander Mohan Singh, Manjeet Singh, Avtar Singh, Manjeet Singh, Jogen der Pal Bhatia, Tarjeet Singh, Saravjeet Singh, Surender Pal Singh, Daljeet Singh, Ravinderpal Singh @ Tikka/Joginderpal Singh @ Tikka, Arjun Singh, Rajender Singh, Sewa Singh, Surender Pal Singh, Shahbaz Singh, Tinderpal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jaspal Singh, Dalvinder Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Narender Singh, Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan, Gurdeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh @ Happy and Sewa Singh @ Lamba, were charged under Section 120/302/120B/307/120B/121/121A/153A/120B IPC and 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act vide order dated 31.07.2006. It is clarified that or der on charge was passed on 25.07.2006 while formal charge was framed on 31.07.2006. Accused Jagir Singh, Sukhjinder Singh, Surjit Kaur wife of Sh. Gopal Singh, Paramjit Singh and Shahid Singh were discharged.
49. During trial, eight accused persons namely Mohinder Singh Oberio, Inderpal Singh Bhatia, Chander Mohan Singh, Avtar Singh, Manjit Singh, Arjun Singh and Sewa Singh, S/o. Kundan Singh, died. Remaining 32 accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminatory evidence and circumstances were put to them. Accused per sons denied all the incriminatory evidence against them and claimed that they have been falsely implicated. Accused persons examined 19 witnesses in their defence.
50. After recording statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC, two more accused persons namely Ravinderpal Singh @ Tikka/Joginderpal Singh @ Tikka and Tinderpal Singh also died. There FIR No.238/85 38/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
fore, presently 30 accused persons are before the Court.
51. Arguments addressed at Bar by Mr. L.D. Singh, learned Addi tional Public Prosecutor for State, Mr. Ashish Verma, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for Uttar Pradesh Government, Ms. Sima Gulati, learned coun sel for accused persons namely Manmohan Singh, Gurdev Singh, Buta Singh, Joginder Pal Singh Bhatia, Tarjeet Singh, Sarbjeet Singh, Surinder Pal Singh, Rajinder Singh, Sewa Singh, Surinder Singh @ Dolly, Shahbaz Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Gurdeep Singh Sehgal, Mr. R.M. Tewari, learned counsel for accused persons namely Hardeep Singh, Tirath Singh, Mukhtyar Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Arvinder Singh, Anoop Singh, Manjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh and Daljit Singh, Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, learned counsel for accused persons namely Sardar Kulbir Singh, Sardar Inderjit Singh, Sardar Dalvinder Singh @ Happy, Sardar Harcharan Singh Gulshan, Sardar Gurmeet Singh @ Happy and Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma, learned coun sel for accused persons namely Gurmeet Singh, Narinder Singh, Jaspal Singh and Surjit Kaur, were heard at length. Infact, day to day hearing in these cases commenced in July 2019 as these cases were pending for al most 33 years, being oldest cases in the Court.
52. Record has been carefully perused.
53. Mr. L.D. Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor State submit ted that it is a case of heinous nature wherein accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy with each other and committed murder of innocent per FIR No.238/85 39/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
sons and several persons were injured which amounted to attempt to mur der. It was further submitted that accused persons were involved in collect ing illegal arms and ammunition and conspired to manufacture transistor bombs which were used to cause explosion at various places in Delhi and neighbouring States. Mr. L.D. Singh further submitted that accused persons hatched a conspiracy to create disharmony amongst various communities to take revenge of Blue Star Operation and riots that happened in November 1984 after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. It was further submitted that the acts of accused persons amounts to waging war against the State. Mr. L.D. Singh, learned Addl. Public Pros ecutor for State further submitted that considering the barbaric acts of ac cused persons, they are liable to be held guilty.
54. Mr. R.M. Tewari, Ms. Sima Gulati, Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, and Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma, learned defence counsels submitted that accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that accused persons belong to Sikh community and after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the year 1984, riots took place in various parts of country, especially in Delhi and NCR region due to which accused persons have been falsely implicated in these cases. Learned defence counsels further submitted that accused persons have been facing long trial in these cases for the last more than 35 years without being actually involved in any bomb blast or conspiracy. Detail written submis sions filed on behalf of all accused have also been perused.
FIR No.238/85 40/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
55. It is reflected from the record that after charge was framed in this case, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State brought it to the notice of the Court that certain slips, registers, diaries, etc. etc. stated to have been seized by the Investigating Agencies from possession of accused persons as well as specimen handwritings of all accused persons which have been sent to CFSL, Shimla alongwith reports thereon were missing from judicial file. Upon receiving this information, learned Predecessor wrote a letter dated 05.08.2006 to the then learned District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi, re questing for a fact finding inquiry in this regard and to fix the responsibility for loss of original document from judicial file. In pursuance of letter dated 11.08.2006 received from the office of learned District & Sessions Judge, learned Predecessor opened two files, one for fact finding inquiry and an other for reconstruction of documents on 25.08.2006 wherein certain wit nesses were examined and photocopies of documents prepared by those witnesses during investigation in FIR No. 583/85 PS Kalkaji and FIR No.239/85, PS Patel Nagar were taken on record. Proceedings for recon struction of file continued and were finally closed on 09.11.2008. During proceedings for reconstruction of file, a letter was written by learned Prede cessor to the Director, CFSL requesting that attested copy of CFSL report no. 85/D2492 dated 12.07.1985 and attested copy of documents/photo copies of questioned documents as well as specimen handwriting be sent to the Court. The Director, CFSL was also requested to sent attested copies of documents vide which FSL had received all these documents. In response to this letter, Mr. V.K. Khanna, Principle Scientific Officer, CFSL wrote letter dated 31.01.2007 addressed to the Court submitting that as desired, FIR No.238/85 41/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
we are submitting photographs of original documents, attested copy of re port no. CFSL85/D2492/5401 dt. 12/7/85 alongwith forwarding letter (containing 4 +1 pages) as well as copy of the forwarding letter dated 31.5.85 signed by ACP/South, Anti Auto Theft Squad, South Delhi through which our office had received all these documents. We are only providing photographs of the portions of the original documents.
56. It is pertinent to mention here that evidence was being recorded in the main case even when proceedings were being conducted in reconstruction file. Applications were moved by the prosecution from time to time seeking permission to produce secondary evidence regarding cer tain documents. Documents which were produced by the prosecution alongwith application/request for permission to lead secondary evidence were taken on record subject to objections raised by learned defence coun sels with regard to admissibility of these documents. Learned Predecessor vide order dated 09.04.2007 held that objection with regard to admissibility of secondary evidence will be decided by the Court at the time of final ar guments. Even after proceedings in reconstruction file were closed by learned Predecessor vide order dated 09.11.2008, efforts were made by prosecution to bring on record copies of certain documents which were stated to have been missing. As was rightly submitted by Mr. Rakesh Ma hajan, learned defence counsel, no request was made by prosecution at the time of closing of reconstruction file that some more documents may be traced and more time may be given to prosecution to bring on record of copies of missing documents or missing documents themselves for recon FIR No.238/85 42/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
struction of file. Therefore, documents or copies of documents which were produced by prosecution during trial cannot be taken on record as it could not have been an indefinite process.
57. It may also be mentioned here that FIR No. 309/06, u/s. 381/409/120B IPC was got registered by learned Predecessor at PS Tilak Marg regarding missing of documents. Matter was investigated by police officials of PS Tilak Nagar. Charge sheet was filed and case is pending in the concerned Court. Departmental inquiry was also initiated against court officials responsible for missing of court documents.
58. While going through the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly, police officials, it was observed that photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies of various documents viz. disclosure statements of accused, arrest memo, seizure memo, personal search memo, statements u/s. 164 Cr.PC, etc. were produced before the Court with request from prosecution that same may be read as secondary evidence as original of these documents are missing. As and when these photocopies were sought to be produced before the Court, learned defence counsels raised objection regarding their admissibility and it was held that these objections will be decided at the time of final arguments. Therefore, it is a relevant stage to decide the question as to whether above mentioned photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies produced by prosecution with request/application for leading secondary evidence can be allowed or not and as to whether ob jection raised by learned defence counsels regarding admissibility of these FIR No.238/85 43/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
documents has any legal basis.
59. According to Section 64 of Indian Evidence Act, document must be proved by primary evidence except in cases mentioned in Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act, defines pri mary evidence as document itself produced for inspection of the Court. Secondary evidence is defined under Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act is as under :
(i) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(ii) copies made from the original by mechanical pro cesses which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(iii) copies made from or compared with the original;
(iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who had himself seen it.
60. Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act inter alia provides that sec ondary evidence may be given of existence, condition or content of a docu ment in following cases:
(a) ......
(b) ......
FIR No.238/85 44/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost or when the
party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time.
61. First condition to be fulfilled by a party seeking to lead sec ondary evidence of existence, condition or content of a document is that the party which seeks to give secondary evidence must establish before the Court that original documents whose photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies etc. were produced did infact exist.
62. Second factor to be established or proved by a party seeking to lead secondary evidence of existence, condition or content of a document is that document has been lost or destroyed.
63. One way of ascertaining existence of original document could have been list to have a look at documents mentioned in the charge sheet. Unfortunately, original charge sheet filed by Delhi Police itself was mis placed and reconstructed charge sheet was filed by police. Therefore, pros ecution cannot establish existence of original documents on the basis of list of documents mentioned in the charge sheet.
64. It is clear from mere reading of FIR No. 309/06, u/s. 381/409/120B IPC, PS Tilak Marg and charge sheet filed in that case that certain documents were missing. However, description of missing docu ments are not given in FIR No. 309/06, PS. Tilak Marg.
FIR No.238/85 45/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
65. Therefore, even second condition of Section of 65 of Indian Evidence Act that original documents in respect of which secondary evi dence was sought to be led by prosecution has been destroyed or lost was not fulfilled in the presence case. Before secondary evidence could be al lowed to be brought on record, it is important that prosecution produces be fore the Court factors establishing reasons for producing secondary evi dence. Witnesses, particularly police officials, who produced documents or photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies of documents did not explain as to when and where and by what mode these photocopies were made. It was even not clarified as to whether these photocopies were made before filing of charge sheet or after filing of charge sheet. Hence, it will be diffi cult to describe those photocopies as secondary evidence within the mean ing of Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act. Certain judgments relied upon by Ms. Sima Gulati, learned defence counsel threw ample light on this is sue.
66. In 2015 XII AD Rakesh Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri & Ors., it was held that as under :
" 17. The precondition for leading secondary evidence are that such original documents could not be produced by the party relying upon such documents inspite of best efforts, unable to produce the same which is beyond their control. The party sought to produce secondary ev idence must establish for the nonproduction of primary evidence. Un FIR No.238/85 46/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
less, it is established that the original documents is lost or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party in respect of that document sought to be used, secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot accepted.
22. It is well settled that if a party wishes to lead secondary evidence, the Court is obliged to examine the probative value of the docu ment produced in the Court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence. At the same time, the party has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. It is equally well settled that neither mere admission of a document in evi dence amounts to its proof nor mere making of an exhibit of a document dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accor dance with law."
67. Following observations made in Ashok Duli Chand Vs. Madahavlal Dube (1976) 1 SCR 246 are quite relevant to the factual posi tion of case in hand which are as under :
" The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken. Respondent no. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the FIR No.238/85 47/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
circumstances, the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that no foun dation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court."
68. In the present case also, prosecution has not explained as to when photocopies produced during trial alongwith request for secondary evidence were prepared and who was in possession of original document at the time of preparation of photocopies.
69. In AIR 2011 SC 1492 - H. Siddiqui by LRs Vs.A. Rama lingam it was held as under :
" Provisions of Section 65 of the Act 1872 provide for permit ting the parties to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original docu ments are not produced at any time, nor, any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non pro duction of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. Mere admission of a document in evi FIR No.238/85 48/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
dence does not amount to its proof."
70. Therefore, the Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclu sion that prosecution while moving applications or making request for lead ing secondary evidence in respect of photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies, etc. which were produced during examination of various prosecu tion witnesses failed to fulfill the requirement of Section 63 & 65 of Indian Evidence Act.
71. Accordingly, it is held that these photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies, etc. which were brought on record by prosecution by way of secondary evidence will not be read in evidence against accused persons except photocopies/attested copies of documents which were sent by CFSL vide letter dated 31.01.2007.
72. In the order dated 05.08.2006 passed by learned Predecessor whereby directions were issued for registration of FIR regarding theft or misappropriate of documents, particulars or other description of documents are not mentioned. Even in the charge sheet documents which were missing and in respect of which FIR was registered and investigation was con ducted are not mentioned.
73. A careful analysis and appreciation of evidence would show that prosecution case, more or less, rests on circumstantial evidence. One hardly finds any witness who might have been accused persons preparing, FIR No.238/85 49/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
assembling, placing or exploding transistor bombs.
74. It has been consistently laid down in catinae of judgments that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.
75. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstance. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P. And Ors. 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706 it was laid down that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence adduced by the prosecution must satisfy the following conditions:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other FIR No.238/85 50/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
hypothesis than those of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
76. In C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, it is held in para 21 as under:
21. "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence".
77. In a recent case reported as 2015 IV AD(SC) Tomaso Bruno & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : "In every case based upon circumstantial evidence, in this case as well, the question that needs to be determined is whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by reliable and cogent evidence and whether all the links in the chain of circum stance are complete so as to rule out the possibility of innocence of the accused".
Analysis of evidence/material against each accused.
FIR No.238/85 51/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
78. Since there are large number of accused persons (presently 30 accused persons are surviving) and role of each accused persons has been delineated in the charge sheet, it will be appropriate to discuss the role and charge against individual accused and to analyze the evidence adduced by prosecution so as to come to a conclusion whether charge against that par ticular accused has been proved or not.
79. It is the case of prosecution that a slip of paper was recovered from personal search of accused Mahender Singh Oberio (since deceased) wherein words "windser hotel" were written. Accused Mahender Singh Oberio is stated to have made disclosure statement on 04.06.1985 that he was in need of money for preparation of bombs and hence, he took a sum of Rs. 10,000/ from accused Gurdeep Singh Sehgal in the third week of April after telling him about conspiracy.
80. It is revealed from the record of the case that only witness who deposed against accused Gurdeep Singh Sehgal is PW 112 SI (Rtd.) Ramesh Chand. It has come in the deposition of PW 112 that he was present on 04.06.1985 when disclosure statement of accused Mahender Singh Oberio having taken Rs.10,000/ from Gurdeep Singh Sehgal was recorded. However, in cross examination, PW 112 deposed that he is not aware whether disclosure statement was made by accused Mahender Singh Oberio in his presence. Therefore, PW 112 took a somersault in cross ex amination regarding disclosure statement of Mahender Singh Oberio. Fur FIR No.238/85 52/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
ther, PW 112 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW112/DX recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC where factum of disclosure of accused Mahender Singh Oberio regarding money given by accused Gurdeep Singh Sehgal is not mentioned.
81. According to Explanation 2 to Section 162 Cr.PC, omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub section 1 may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occur and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the par ticular context shall be question of fact. In the present case, omission on the part of PW 4 to state a vital fact amounts to contradiction.
82. Omission on the part of PW 112 to mention about disclosure of accused Mahender Singh Oberio regarding money given by accused Gurdeep Singh Sehgal amounts to contradiction, having regard to the con text in which omission was made and other relevant facts and circum stances of the case.
83. It is, therefore, obvious that no investigation was conducted to connect accused Gurdeep Singh Sehgal with windser hotel. No witness was examined from Sehgal Auto Industry to show that any money was given to accused Mahender Singh Oberio as disclosed by accused Mahender Singh Oberio in his disclosure statement and hence, part of disclosure statement FIR No.238/85 53/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
of accused Mahender Singh Oberio could not be proved during trial. The obvious conclusion is that there is no evidence on record to establish in volvement of accused Gurdeep Singh Sehgal in the conspiracy and hence, charge against accused could not be proved.
84. As regards accused Sukhdev Singh, it is alleged that he agreed to place bombs at different places at the request of coaccused Gurdeep Singh. Accused Mahender Singh Oberio, one of the mastermind of the con spiracy, made no mention of any bomb being handed over to accused Sukhdev Singh. Prosecution in this regard relied upon the disclosure state ment of Gurdeep Singh. No specific document or witness was produced in the Court to establish that bombs were infact handed over to accused Sukhdev Singh and whether he had planted those bombs at any place.
85. PW 68 M.D. Mehta deposed that he took finger prints of ac cused Sukhdev Singh. However, PW 68 has not deposed about any other involvement of accused Sukhdev Singh.
86. PW 84 Datta Ram and PW 349 SI Vikram have deposed about taking specimen hand writing of accused Sukhdev Singh. One fails to un derstand about relevance of deposition of PW 68, PW 84 and PW 349 re garding accused Sukhdev Singh as it has never been the case of prosecution that accused Sukhdev Singh have forged or authored any document or that their finger prints were lifted from any spot or scene of crime.
FIR No.238/85 54/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
87. No incriminating article was recovered from accused Sukhdev Singh. The inescapable conclusion is that no reliable or convincing evi dence was adduced by prosecution to prove the charge against accused Sukhdev Singh. Hence, prosecution fails to prove the charge against ac cused Sukhdev Singh beyond reasonable doubt.
88. The role attributed to accused Surenderpal Singh in the charge sheet is that he paid Rs. 5,000/ to accused Mahender Singh Oberio on two separate occasions as part of conspiracy. This fact is stated to have been disclosed by accused Mahender Singh Oberio in his disclosure statement dated 27.05.1985. Prosecution contended that this part of disclosure state ment of accused Mahender Singh Oberio is corroborated by slip of paper recovered from accused Mahender Singh Oberio and telephone number 7112748 was written on it. One public witness namely Satender Singh was also cited as an independent witness to corroborate the disclosure statement of accused Mahender Singh Oberio.
89. When one looks at the evidence accused by prosecution to prove the role of accused Surenderpal Singh and charge against him, it is revealed that only two witnesses namely PW 68 MD Mehta and PW 84 Datta Ram have referred to accused Surenderpal Singh. PW 68 MD Mehta is stated to have taken fingerprints of accused Surenderpal Singh while PW 84 Datta Ram took specimen handwriting of accused Surenderpal Singh. None of these witnesses have deposed about the role attributed to accused Surenderpal Singh in the charge sheet.
FIR No.238/85 55/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
90. As discussed above, various documents went missing from ju dicial record. Disclosure statement of accused Mahender Singh Oberio dated 27.05.1985 is also missing and is not referred to by any of the wit nesses examined by prosecution. Even public witness Satender Singh who was supposed to corroborate the disclosure statement of accused Mahender Singh Oberio was not examined by prosecution.
91. The slip of paper stated to have been recovered from accused Mahender Singh Oberio did not bear name of accused Surenderpal Singh. The name written on the slip was 'Tirath Singh' and telephone number is mentioned as 7112748. It is the case of prosecution that aforesaid name and telephone number are those of father of accused Surenderpal Singh. How ever, no investigation was conducted to connect the telephone number and the person with the name Tirath Singh with accused Surenderpal Singh. No inquiry in this regard was conducted from Telephone Department. It was also not found during investigation that the said telephone number was in stalled at the residence of accused Surenderpal Singh. I find substance in the contention of Ms. Sima Gulati, learned defence counsel, that in any case, accused Surenderpal Singh cannot be held liable vicariously for any acts of his father. No recovery of any incriminating article is shown to have been effected pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Surenderpal Singh.
92. It is, therefore, obvious that prosecution has not adduced any FIR No.238/85 56/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
legally admissible evidence to prove the charge against accused Surender pal Singh beyond reasonable time.
93. Case of prosecution against accused Buta Singh is that visiting card of a taxi stand from where accused Buta Singh used to operate taxi and another visiting card of J.S. Engineering bearing the name and taxi number of accused Buta Singh were recovered at the time of apprehension of accused Mahender Singh Oberio and Manmohan Singh @ Mahender Singh Khalsa. As per the version given by Mahender Singh Oberio in his disclosure statement dated 13.05.1985, accused Buta Singh was assigned the task of finding some person. Service of accused Buta Singh were util ized to transport empty cabinets from Kashmiri Gate to the house of ac cused Kartar Singh Narang and then to the house of Manmohan Singh @ Mahender Singh Khalsa. Taxi number DLT 4318 was seized and accused Buta Singh was arrested on 18.05.1985 who made disclosure statement during police custody.
94. PW 46 Pawan Kumar, who is stated to be neighbourer of co accused Kartar Singh Narang, deposed that he has seen taxi number DLT 1348 visiting the house of accused Kartar Singh Narang on various occa sions and that he saw dicky of said taxi filled with packages. This witness was examined to prove the involvement of accused Buta Singh in the con spiracy and to substantiate the facts which were discovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of coaccused Mahender Singh Oberio. However, no evidence was led by prosecution to prove that accused Buta Singh was FIR No.238/85 57/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
seen by PW 6 Pawan Kumar with taxi number DLT 1348. Recovery of visiting car4d of J.S. Engineering bearing the name of and taxi number of accused Buta Singh from accused Mahender Singh Oberio will not prove that accused Buta Singh was part of conspiracy unless evidence was ad duced to demonstrate that accused Buta Singh did infact carry the cabin ets in taxi number DLT 1348 from Kashmiri Gate to the house of accused Kartar Singh Narang and then to the house of accused Manmohan Singh @ Mahender Singh Khalsa.
95. Owner of taxi number DLT 1348 i.e. PW 38 Raghbir Singh was partly examined. However, the said witness could not be examined completely and he was not tendered for cross examination and hence, his testimony cannot be read in evidence.
96. PW 68 M.D. Mehta (Rtd. ACP) deposed about seizure of taxi number DLT 1348 and arrest of accused Buta Singh on 18.05.1985, inter rogation of accused Buta Singh and recording of his disclosure statement. Deposition of PW 68 M.D. Mehta (Rtd. ACP) in no way connects accused Buta Singh with the alleged crime. Similarly, PW 217 ACP Banwari Lal deposed about arrest of accused Buta Singh in another FIR on 25.06.1985 and disclosure statement made by him in that case. However, the said dis closure statement is not available on judicial record.
97. PW 320 Gyanender Pratrap Garg, who was stated to be the neighbour of Jagir Singh (since deceased), has not supported the case of FIR No.238/85 58/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
prosecution. Similarly, PW 330 Alok Nagar, who was tenant in the house of coaccused Kartar Singh Narang, deposed that he has no knowledge about the case. He only referred to same incident having taken place at the house of coaccused Kartar Singh Narang in the year 1985. One of the prosecution witnesses deposed that accused Buta Singh was paid com pensation by government for the losses suffered by him during riots of 1984. The mere fact that accused Buta Singh received compensation for the losses suffered by him during 1984 riots will not lead to the presump tion that accused Buta Singh had any motive to commit the crime.
98. It is pertinent to mention here that no recovery of any incrim inatory article was made at the instance of accused Buta Singh. Accused Buta Singh was implicated in this case on the strength of disclosure state ment of coaccused Mahender Singh Oberio and Kartar Singh Narang. However, no investigation was conducted to verify the facts stated to have been disclosed by accused Mahender Singh Oberio and Kartar Singh Narang in their disclosure statements implicating accused Buta Singh.
99. Thus, prosecution failed to prove on record any cogent evid ence to prove the charge against accused Buta Singh beyond reasonable doubts.
100. Accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh have been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Mahender Singh Oberio and recovery of two pamphlets from their house. Prosecution version is FIR No.238/85 59/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
that one visiting card of J.S. Engineering was recovered from the personal search of accused Mahender Singh Oberio and on the back of said card words "Tarjit Singh" are alleged to have been written. Coaccused Ma hender Singh Oberio is stated to have disclosed that J.S.Nagi, father of ac cused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh, was extremely active in the entire conspiracy and he used to attend the meetings where conspiracy was hatched. He has further disclosed that on 13.05.1985, he had handed over one bomb to accused Tarjit Singh at Geeta Colony. In another disclosure statement dated 25.05.1985, accused Mahender Singh Oberio stated that he called Sarabjit Singh on phone and asked him to come to Filmisthan where Sarabjit Singh came on a scooter alongwith another Sikh boy and two bombs were handed over to Sarabjit Singh. Two pamphlets are stated to have been recovered from the house search of accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh.
101. PW 68 M.D. Mehta (Rtd. ACP) deposed about recording of disclosure statement of accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh. PW 68 M.D. Mehta (Rtd. ACP) further deposed that in pursuance to disclosure statements of accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh, one resolution Ex. PW 71/G in English was recovered from the house of accused persons at Geeta Colony. Finger prints of both accused persons were also taken by PW 68.
102. PW 71 Ram Singh Chauhan (Rtd. ACP), who is the witness to arrest of accused Tarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh, deposed in cross ex FIR No.238/85 60/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
amination that he did not issue any notice to any of the inmates of the house from where recovery of objectionable material was effected.
103. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) deposed that accused Mahender Singh Oberio led the police party to the house of accused Tarjit Singh where accused Tarjit Singh and his younger brother Sarabjit Singh met them and both of them were apprehended and their disclosure state ments were recorded. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) further de posed that he can identify pamphlets which were recovered from the pos session of various accused persons including accused Tarjit Singh and his brother. However, MHC (M) HC Madanlal (West) informed that these pamphlets are not available. It has come in cross examination of PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) that there was no evidence as to who had supplied these pamphlets to accused persons. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) admitted that he has no knowledge if any person of the local ity from where these pamphlets were recovered was examined to prove that accused persons instigated or asked anyone to resort to any activity to pursuance to material printed on the pamphlets.
104. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) was also examined as PW 174 wherein he deposed that he does not know whether any investiga tion was conducted to find out place from where pamphlets were got printed. It has come in the deposition of PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) that two pamphlets were recovered from the house of accused Sarab jit Singh and Tarjit Singh. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) has fur FIR No.238/85 61/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
ther deposed that house of accused Sarabjit Singha and Tarjit Singh is situ ated in thickly populated area and many persons from the locality were re quested to join investigation but they refused. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) admitted that pamphlets stated to have been recovered from the house of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh and house search memo were not shown to him during his examination before the Court.
105. Prosecution also examined PW 84 ACP Datta Ram and PW 218 Rtd. ASI Jaivir Singh to prove the charge against accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh. However, nothing substantial has come in the depo sition of PW 84 ACP Datta Ram, PW 218 Rtd. ASI Jaivir Singh and PW 234 Jaipal Singh (Rtd. ACP).
106. During investigation, statement of PW 294 Harminder Singh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. However, this witness denied con tents of statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.PC. PW 294 Harminder Singh de posed that he was under fear and duress at the time of giving statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC as his father was in custody of police. PW 294 Harminder Singh further deposed that one person had committed suicide in his presence at the Police Station due to police harassment and police warned him that if he does no not make statement, he will meet the same fate. Therefore, PW 294 Harminder Singh does not advance the case of prosecution.
107. As discussed above, only material/incriminatory evidence against accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh is the disclosure statement FIR No.238/85 62/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
of coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio and the alleged recovery of two pamphlets from their house. Disclosure statement of coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio is inadmissible in evidence as nothing was recovered pur suant to said disclosure statement sofar as accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh are concerned and hence, same is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evi dence Act.
108. Two pamphlets allegedly recovered from the house of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh were not produced in the Court as MHC (M) HC Madan Lal informed the Court that these pamphlets are not avail able. Even otherwise, police officials have not complied with provision of Section 100 Cr.PC while effecting recovery of these two pamphlets from the house of Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh as no independent person was made witness to the search of house of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh. There are inconsistencies and contradictions in the depositions of relevant prosecution witnesses regarding recovery of two pamphlets from the house of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh. Some of prosecution witnesses have deposed that the said pamphlets were recovered at the pointing out of accused Tarjit Singh while other prosecution witnesses de posed that the said pamphlets were recovered during house search of ac cused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh. Even contents of said pamphlets were not clear to the witness as one prosecution witnesses described the same as pamphlets while according to other prosecution witnesses, it was a resolution. Hence, entire proceedings of house search of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh are vitiated.
FIR No.238/85 63/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
109. Examination of evidence adduced by police also revealed tech nical defects in the investigation regarding arrest of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh. Name of accused Sarabjit Singh cropped up for the first time in the disclosure statement of coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio recorded on 25.05.1985 while he was arrested on 20.05.1985. In other words, police had no evidence against accused Sarabjit Singh when he was arrested on 20.05.1985.
110. Interestingly, accused Mahinder Singh Oberio has disclosed about the role played by J.S. Nagi, father of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh, but said J.S.Nagi was not made an accused by the police. None of the prosecution witnesses have identified accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh as persons involved in the conspiracy.
111. Prosecution has also not led any evidence to prove that any ha tred or dissatisfaction has been spread by accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh on the basis of those pamphlets. Hence, it was not proved that ac cused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh were part of any conspiracy to ignite hatred among community or to overthrow the government.
112. The role attributed to accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh is that bombs were handed over to them and they placed the bombs at some places. However, no pointing out memo of places where bombs were placed by accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh were prepared at their in FIR No.238/85 64/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
stance which further falsifies the case of prosecution. It is clear from the above discussion that involvement of accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh could not be proved in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio and alleged recovery of two pam phlets from the house of Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh and hence, prose cution has miserably failed to prove the charge against accused Sarabjit Singh and Tarjit Singh.
113. Another accused who is facing trial is Joginder Pal Bhatia and the role attributed to him is that two bombs were handed over to him on 10.05.1985 at Filmisthan. Accused Joginder Pal Bhatia is stated to have made disclosure statement admitting that he planted bombs at puliya near Gopalpur. Name of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia was disclosed by coac cused Mahinder Singh Oberio in his disclosure statement recorded on 30.05.1985 wherein complete address of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia was given as A78, Vishnu Garden.
114. PW 227 ASI Satpal Babbar deposed that on 05.06.1985, he alongwith PW 239 Rajender Kumar Budhi Raja and PW 241 Brij Mohan Chopra (Rtd. ACP) went to PS Kingsway Camp where PW 241 Brij Mohan Chopra (Rtd. ACP), SHO met some police officials at PS Kingsway Camp. PW 227 ASI Satpal Babbar further deposed that they went to Vishnu Gar den where they came to know that house of accused was in Tagore Garden Extension. When aforesaid police officials went to Tagore Garden Exten sion, they found accused Joginder Pal Bhatia who was interrogated and was FIR No.238/85 65/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
subsequently arrested. As per deposition of PW 227 Satpal Babbar, search of house of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia was conducted and one magazine, some literature in Gurumukhi language and a map of Delhi, Ex. PW227/C, with Nirankari Colony being blackened was recovered. Accused Joginder Pal Bhatia is stated to have made disclosure statement Ex. PW227/B and pointed out places where he planted bombs.
115. Deposition of PW 239 ACP Rajinder Singh is similar to the deposition of PW 227.
116. PW 241 Brij Mohan (Rtd. ACP), who was then posted as SHO PS Civil Lines, deposed about going to the house of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia at Tagore Garden Extension, his arrest, disclosure statement, seizure of incriminating articles and pointing out memo's.
117. Prosecution has not clarified as to how police party reached the house of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia at Tagore Garden Extension when coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio has specifically mentioned his address as A78, Vishnu Garden in his disclosure statement. Even otherwise, two disclosure statements made by coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio, one dated 10.05.1985 and another dated 26.05.1985 are inadmissible in evi dence as no recovery was effected pursuant thereto, besides being contrary to each other. Apart from that prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that house from where accused Joginder Pal Bhatia was arrested and incriminating articles were recovered actually belonged or was owned by FIR No.238/85 66/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
accused Joginder Pal Bhatia. No evidence viz. testimony of any govern ment official, MCD official, etc. was adduced to prove that no such address exists in Vishnu Garden.
118. Even otherwise, no public witness was joined in investigation at the time of arrest of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia and search of his house at Tagore Garden Extension from where incriminatory articles were recov ered. Association of public witness at the time of arrest of accused and other proceedings would have lent credence to the investigation.
119. The mere recovery of some magazine and map from the house of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia is not sufficient to prove the charge against accused Joginder Pal Bhatia as neither the said magazine has been pro duced before the Court nor contents of same have been deposed to before the Court. Recovery of magazine and map of Delhi will not constitute suffi cient proof to establish that accused Joginder Pal Bhatia was part of con spiracy to spread hatred amongst community or to overthrow the govern ment. No witness was examined who identified accused Joginder Pal Bha tia as the person who planted bombs. Infact, PW 241 Brij Mohan Chopra (Rtd.ACP) admitted in cross examination that no incriminatory evidence or direct evidence has come on record regarding involvement of accused Joginder Pal Bhatia. Therefore, the Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove charge against ac cused Joginder Pal Bhatia.
FIR No.238/85 67/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
120. Accused Manmohan Singh, S/o. Sh. Thakur Singh has been implicated on the basis of two disclosure statements of coaccused Mahin der Singh Oberio and recovery of one pamphlet from his pocket and recov ery of two pamphlets from his house. The role attributed to accused Man mohan Singh is that he helped accused Kartar Singh Narang and absconder J.S. Kohli in loading transistor cabinets in the taxi of coaccused Buta Singh at Kashmiri Gate and took the same to the house of coaccused Kar tar Singh Narang. Since there was not sufficient space to keep the cabinets in the house of accused Kartar Singh Narang to accommodate all the cabi net, some of the cabinets were kept in the house of accused Manmohan Singh.
121. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio has disclosed that he handed over 10 bombs to a person who claimed to be Granthi at Hasthsal Gurud wara on the asking of Manmohan Singh. Accused Manmohan Singh was arrested on 20.07.1985 from his house at the pointing out of coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio.
122. Relevant witnesses who conducting investigation qua accused Manmohan Singh and deposed about his involvement are PW 68 M.D. Mehta, PW 71 ACP Ram Singh, PW77 ACP Vijay Manchanada, PW 84 ACP Datta Singh, PW 107 Inspector Surjit Singh, PW 113 HC Puran Chand, PW 176 Inspector Azad Singh Bhardwaj, PW 178 ACP Harbans Singh, PW 198 HC Raghuvir Singh and PW 219 Inspector Somendra Pal Tyagi.
FIR No.238/85 68/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
123. PW 68 M.D. Mehta (Rtd. ACP) deposed about arrest of ac cused Manmohan Singh, his personal search, recording of his disclosure statement, recovery of pamphlets from his house and taking of his finger prints.
124. Testimony of PW 71 ACP Ram Singh is on similar lines.
125. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda deposed that accused Manmo han Singh was arrested at the behest and pointing out of coaccused Ravin derpal Singh Tikka from Tagore Garden and two pamphlets were recovered from the house search of accused. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda further deposed that he can identify the pamphlets but it was found that these pam phlet are not available on judicial file nor with concerned MHC (M).
126. It is surprising that the Investigating Agency came to know about name, phone number and address of accused Manmohan Singh on 12.05.1985 itself through the disclosure statement of coaccused Mahin der Singh Oberio but accused Manmohan Singh was arrested on 20.05.1985 and that too on the pointing out of coaccused Ravinderpal Singh Tikka. Prosecution has not explained this delay in the arrest of ac cused Manmohan Singh when his name and involvement was clearly dis closed by coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio on 12.05.1985. No investiga tion was conducted to connect accused Manmohan Singh with telephone number found on the paper slip recovered from personal search of coac FIR No.238/85 69/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
cused Mahinder Singh Oberio.
127. Another interesting aspect is that name of accused Manmohan Singh came to surface for the first time in the disclosure statement of co accused Mahinder Singh Oberio while he was arrested on the pointing out of coaccused Ravinder Pal Singh Tikka. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio has nowhere pointed out the house of accused Manmohan Singh and has not even identified accused Manmohan Singh. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio disclosed that he exchanged his scooter with the scooter of accused Manmohan Singh. However, no evidence has been adduced on record to prove that accused Manmohan Singh was the owner of scooter no. DEV 530 or someone else was registered owner of said scooter to establish the identity of accused Manmohan Singh. It was incumbent upon the Investi gating Agency to bring on record documentary evidence from Regional Transport Office to find out as to whether the scooter which was stated to have been exchanged by coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio was infact registered in the name of accused Manmohan Singh or not.
128. No evidence viz. statement of any person from neighbourhood of accused Manmohan singh was adduced to substantiate the allegation that some of the cabinets were transported to the house of accused Manmohan Singh. Similarly, no public witness was joined in the investigation while making recovery of pamphlet from the house of Manmohan Singh. In any case, original pamphlets or their contents were never produced before the court and one does not know as to what was written on those pamphlets.
FIR No.238/85 70/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
129. There are suspicious circumstances surrounding the arrest of accused Manmohan Singh. As per the case of prosecution, accused Man mohan Singh was arrested on 20.05.1985. However, telegram Ex. PW71/DX dated 17.05.1985 was addressed by father of accused Manmo han Singh on 17.05.1985 to the then Home Minister, the then Lt. Governor of Delhi, the then Commissioner of Police, Delhi, stating that Manmohan Singh was taken away on 16.05.1985 at 1:30 PM in car no. DEB 3149. True copy of this telegram attested by Assistant Superintendent, (T.T.) I/C., DTO, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was produced during evidence and was taken on record as Ex. PW71/DX. Same is admissible in evidence in view of Section 76 & 77 of Indian Evidence Act. If as per contents of said tele gram, accused Manmohan Singh was taken away by police on 16.05.1985, prosecution version that accused Manmohan Singh was arrested on 20.05.1985 becomes highly doubtful.
130. The obvious conclusion is that prosecution failed to lead any cogent or admissible evidence to prove the charge against accused Manmo han Singh.
131. Prosecution version against accused Gurdev Singh is that he attended the Bhog at the house of coaccused Kartar Singh Narang and also attended various meetings at the house of coaccused Kartar Singh Narang and at the house of coaccused Jagjit Singh. A meeting is stated to have been held at the house of accused Gurdev Singh. It has also been alleged FIR No.238/85 71/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
that accused Mahinder Singh Oberio handed over one bomb to accused Gurdev Singh and one pamphlet was recovered from the house of accused Gurdev Singh. Disclosure statement of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio recorded on 13.05.1985 indicated about involvement of accused Gurdev Singh.
132. Vital points regarding involvement of accused Gurdev Singh is the question of identity of accused Gurdev Singh. During personal search of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio, a slip was recovered on which the word 'Gurdev' was written. Other particulars viz. father's name, residence, etc. were not mentioned in that slip. Name of father of accused Gurdev Singh is mentioned differently in three documents viz. pointing out memo Ex. PW4/A prepared at the instance of accused Gurdev Singh, document Ex. PW104/B and disclosure statement of accused Gurdev Singh Ex. PW102/DB. When questioned on this aspect by learned defence counsel in cross examination, PW 104 ACP Udaivir Singh deposed that father's name was mentioned in these three documents on the basis of information pro vided by accused Gurdev Singh. The said slip has not been produced before the Court. It is, therefore, obvious that no efforts were made by police offi cials who were associated with investigation of this case to establish iden tity of accused Gurdev Singh.
133. Sofar as recovery of pamphlets from the house of accused Gurdev Singh is concerned, the said pamphlets were not produced in the Court as HC Madan Lal No. 270/West informed the Court that the pam FIR No.238/85 72/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
phlets recovered from the house of accused Gurdev Singh are not available with him. Even contents of said pamphlets have not been explained by any of the prosecution witnesses. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) deposed that there was no evidence as to who had supplied pamphlets in the house of accused Gurdev Singh. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) further de posed that he has no knowledge if any person of the locality from where pamphlets were recovered was examined to the effect that accused Gurdev Singh had instigated or asked anyone to resort to any activity in pursuance to recovery of printed pamphlets. Hence, it was not proved that accused Gurdev Singh indulged in any activity to ignite hatred among community or was involved in any conspiracy to overthrow the government.
134. PW 77 Vijay Manchanda (Rtd. ACP) further deposed that con tents of pamphlets were not recorded by the Investigating Officer or any other document in his presence.
135. PW 174 ACP Vijay Manchanda deposed that Investigating Of ficer had prepared pointing out memo in his presence regarding the places pointed out by accused Mahinder Singh Oberio pertaining to the house of accused Gurdev Singh. However, after seeing the Court file, PW 174 de posed that no such document (pointing out memo) is on record. It has also come in the deposition of PW 174 that police team has asked some neigh bours to join investigation before arrest of accused Gurdev Singh and search of his house, but public person refused to join investigation and no action was taken against public persons who refused to join the investiga FIR No.238/85 73/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
tion.
136. One witness PW 66 Surender Kumar was associated as public witness at the time of effecting arrest of and conducting personal search of accused Gurdev Singh. However, this witness has not supported the case of prosecution and deposed that he does not know what was recovered from the house of accused Gurdev Singh. PW 66 Surender Kumar further de posed that accused Gurdev Singh was his neighbour and he does not know as to what happened at his house.
137. It is, therefore, obvious that no credible efforts were made by Investigating Officer to associate public persons with the investigation at the time of arrest of accused Gurdev Singh and recovery of pamphlet. Thus, recovery of pamphlets from the house of accused Gurdev Singh itself becomes doubtful.
138. PW 174 ACP Vijay Manchanda further deposed that he does not know whether any investigation was conducted to find out place from where pamphlets recovered from the house of accused Gurdev Singh was got printed. In other words, sincere efforts were not made by Investigating Officer to connect various links in the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against accused Gurdev Singh.
139. PW 102 SI Rajbir Singh was posted at PS Kingsway Camp in May 1985. On 27.05.1985, Special Staff, Central District, informed PS FIR No.238/85 74/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Kingsway Camp that two persons namely Gurdev Singh and Mahinder Singh Oberio have been arrested in a case related to PS Patel Nagar and they have made disclosure statement in respect of a case registered at PS Kingsway Camp. Thereafter, PW 102 SI Rajbir Singh moved an applica tion before learned CMM for production of accused Mahinder Singh Obe rio and Gurdev Singh and obtained their custody. PW 102 was cross exam ined at length by learned defence counsels to highlight the irregularity and illegality in obtaining the custody of Gurdev Singh. However, deposition of PW 102 does not throw much light on the role or involvement of accused Gurdev Singh.
140. There is nothing on record that any investigation was con ducted to find out the truth of disclosure statement of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio that accused Gurdev Singh had participated in the Bhog and various other meetings including one meeting held at his house. No witness in this regard was examined from neighbourhood of places where the said meetings took place.
141. Similarly, no effort was made by the Investigating Officer to prove that coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio gave one bomb to accused Gurdev Singh. It is interesting to note that accused Mahinder Singh Oberio disclosed about giving bomb to accused Gurdev Singh for the first time in his disclosure statement dated 25.05.1985 after having made various disclo sures and having been in the custody for more than 13 days. It is highly un believable that coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio would not disclose FIR No.238/85 75/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
about handing of bomb to accused Gurdev Singh in his earlier disclosure statement.
142. Accused Gurdev Singh is stated to be apprehended from his house on 20.05.1985 alongwith Kulbir Singh Bhola and Inderjeet Singh. However, as per contents of FIR No. 16/85, u/s. 309 IPC, PS Ashok Vihar Ex. PW 77/DB, accused Kulbir Singh Bhola attempted to commit suicide while he was in police custody at PS Ashok Vihar on 16.05.1985. This FIR brings entire proceedings of arrest of these persons under shadow of doubt.
143. The obvious conclusion is that prosecution failed to lead any cogent or admissible evidence to prove the charge against accused Gurdev Singh.
144. The case of the prosecution against accused Sewa Singh is that he was handed over 12 bombs to be distributed in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab. He introduced coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberoi to accused Arjun Singh and his son Rajinder Singh and that 11 empty bomb shell, two woods core boxes and electric wire, five polythene bags containing chemical of different colors, one magazine, diary, one aluminum pattern and one wooden pattern was recovered from the house of accused Sewa Singh bearing No. 37 Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi.
145. Accused Sewa Singh was interrogated by PW68 ACP Mahadev Mehta on 18.06.1985 and his disclosure statement Ex.PW68/4 FIR No.238/85 76/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
was recorded. PW100 ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam deposed that on 01.06.1985, Mahender Singh Oberoi made a disclosure statement in his presence wherein he disclosed that he had handed over bombs, again said - shells, again said bomb shells for threading purpose to accused Sewa Singh. PW 100 ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam further deposed that Hardeep Singh made a disclosure statement and stated that Mahinder Singh Oberoi gave four transistor bombs which were kept by him with accused Sewa Singh. PW 100 ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam further deposed that Hardeep Singh has infact stated the name of Avtar Singh resident of Uttam Nagar and he has not mentioned the name of Sewa Singh. PW 100 ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam deposed that on earlier occasion, he has mentioned the name of Sewa Singh due to mistake.
146. PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh inter alia deposed that on the intervening night of 4th/5th June 1985 he alongwith police party had gone to Sewa Singh at H.No. 37 Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur and 11 empty bomb shell, two woods core boxes and electric wire, five polythene bags containing chemical of different colors, one magazine, diary, one aluminum pattern and one wooden pattern were recovered. The photocopy of the seizure memo of the articles recovered from the aforesaid house was exhibited as PW102/Y. In cross examination PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh was asked as to whether he collected any documentary evidence regarding the ownership of House No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur and he admitted that he did not inquire regarding the ownership. He further deposed that only on the pointing out of the accused Mahinder Singh FIR No.238/85 77/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Oberoi and from inquiry from neighbour that House No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, first floor, Azad Pur, Delhi belonging to Sewa Singh, police visited the said house. PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh further deposed that when they visited the house No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, 23 persons were present but they did not obtain the signature of those persons on the search memo at the time of search of House No. 37.
147. PW 106 Inspector Abhiroop Bannerjee deposed about the disclosure statement made by coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberoi wherein he disclosed that Sewa Singh had introduced him to Sardar Arjun Singh, at factory near Ghanta Ghar, Jaipuria Mills to get the grooves made on the shells. It is interesting to note that as per the deposition of PW102 ACP Rajbir Singh, the disclosure statement of Mahinder Singh Oberoi was recorded at Red Fort while according to PW 106 Inspr. Abhiroop Banerjee the disclosure statement of Mahinder Singh Oberoi was recorded at PS Ashok Vihar. Thus, two material prosecution witnesses contradicted each other as regards the place where the disclosure statement of accused Mahinder Singh Oberoi was recorded which weakens the case of the prosecution.
148. It is obvious that original seizure memo that was prepared after the search of House No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi and seizure of incriminating articles therefrom was not produced in the court. It has already been discussed that prosecution has not been able to prove that original of the documents whose photocopy were produced in the court FIR No.238/85 78/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
ever existed or not. The photocopy of the seizure memo which came on record as Ex.PW102/Y is not admissible in evidence as the necessary condition for leading secondary evidence were not fulfilled by the prosecution. The obvious conclusion is that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the recovery of incriminating articles from House No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi.
149. Although, the document Ex.PW102/Y bears signature of two public witnesses namely Satish and Raj Kumar, however, these witnesses were not examined as prosecution witnesses. No persons from neighbourhood of House No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi were associated with the search proceedings nor their signature were obtained on the search memo and thus, the entire search proceeding was not inconformity with the requirement of Section 100 CrPC.
150. The accused Sewa Singh while applying for bail before the court of learned Sessions Judge has contended that he has no connection with House No.37, Rameshwar Nagar, Delhi. Another specific defence of accused Sewa Singh from the beginning is that he is not a Punjab Police official as was disclosed by accused Mahinder Singh Oberoi. Once these specific defence pleas were taken by accused in his bail application, it was incumbent on the investigating agency to collect evidence to prove that House No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi was infact owned by or belonged to accused Sewa Singh. However, no such evidence was led by the prosecution. It was not even proved that House No. 37, Rameshwar FIR No.238/85 79/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi was in possession of accused Sewa Singh or not. Similarly, no effort was made by the Investigating Officer to find out as to whether accused Sewa Singh is an official of Punjab Police or not as disclosed by accused Mahinder Singh Oberoi in his disclosure statement.
151. Even while conducting the search of House No. 37, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi, no recovery was made of personal articles viz. Ration card, passport and other documents which would normally be available in a house so as to connect the said house with accused Sewa Singh.
152. Accused Sewa Singh led evidence in his defence to prove that he infact is a resident of House No. 49, Rameshwar Nagar, Delhi. DW1 Veena Mittal from the office of election commission produced the electoral roll of 1984 wherein at item No. 162 name Sewa Singh is mentioned and he is shown to be a resident of Plot No.30. DW 8 Mr. Prince Roshan from Regional Passport office was examined, who brought a register from his office in which the name of wife of accused is mentioned as Trilochan Kaur wife of Sewa Singh, R/o. H.No. 49 Rameshwar Nagar, Delhi.
153. DW 11 Dev Jyoti Majoomdar, came from the office of Peerless Insurance Company. After seeing the original Endowment certificate issued by Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. in favour of Ms. Trilochan Kaur wife of Sewa Singh, R/o. House No. 49, Plot No.38, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi. DW 11 deposed that FIR No.238/85 80/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
nominee of the certificate of Mr. Sewa Singh, husband of policy holder. All these defence witnesses have proved that Sewa Singh was resident of House No.49, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi.
154. Accused Sewa Singh was interrogated on 18.06.1985, eleven days after his arrest. The prosecution has not explained this undue delay in interrogating the accused Sewa Singh. In any case no recoveries were made pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Sewa Singh.
155. The obvious conclusion is that prosecution failed to lead any cogent or admissible evidence to prove the charge against accused Sewa Singh, S/o. Charan Singh.
156. A secret information was received by police on 17.05.1985 that a bag containing some articles is lying at Satyam Park. ACP Vijay Manchanda (PW77) alongwith Sodan Singh (PW346) went to the spot where he found some transistors were lying and Military Bomb Disposal Squad was called. Military Bomb Disposal Squad diffused the bombs and handed over the same to police.
157. On 05.06.1985, accused Mahinder Singh Oberio made disclo sure statement, inter alia, disclosing that he left six transistor bombs in the house of Surjit Kaur (mother of accused Surender Singh @ Dolly). On 10.05.1985 when Surjit Kaur asked accused Mahinder Singh Oberio what has to be done with these six transistor bombs, accused Mahinder Singh FIR No.238/85 81/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Oberio asked her to keep the bombs and further told her that he will give instruction regarding these bombs at appropriate time. On 08.06.1985, ac cused Surinder Singh @ Dolly was arrested and he made disclosure state ment. Accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly pointed out the place where he had disposed of six transistor bombs at Satyam Park. Accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly also got recovered some articles/chemicals from the parchatti of his house at Sadar Bazar. It is the case of prosecution that on 10.06.1985, accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly got recovered two cassettes containing some inflammatory speech and one letter addressed to British High Com mission from his house.
158. Material witness who was examined to prove the charge against accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly is PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda inter alia deposed about arrest of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly from a shop at Matkelwali Gali, Sadar Bazar and about his disclosure statement and personal search Ex. PW77/C. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda deposed in detail about disclosure statement of ac cused Surinder Singh @ Dolly. Accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly is stated to have disclosed that on 11.05.1985, he asked accused Mahinder Singh Oberio as to what is to be done with articles (samaan) kept in the bag and accused Mahinder Singh Oberio told him that now these articles (samaan) will not be used and same should be thrown at some abandoned place.
159. PW 7 ACP Vijay Manchanda deposed that accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly further disclosed that on 11.05.1985, accused Mahinder FIR No.238/85 82/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Singh Oberio had come to his house in the afternoon and had placed one bag containing articles for manufacturing bombs in his house. Accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly is also stated to have disclosed that accused Mahinder Singh Oberio gave him two tapes for hearing. It is pertinent to mention here that original disclosure statement of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly is not on record. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda further deposed that accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly brought out one bag from the par chatti of his shop and bag was checked and same was found containing one plastic box (dibba) containing aluminum metal fine power, one glass bottle containing amonium nitrate, one glass bottle containing pickric acid, one kundi and one moosli, one cardbox box (gatte ks dibba) containing detona tors which were in 11 in number.
160. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda further deposed that a recovery memo at the time of recovery of bag was prepared and one public witness namely Ashok Kumar was also joined in for recovery proceedings. How ever, the said Ashok Kumar was not examined as a prosecution witness. Even original recovery memo is not available on judicial file. Photocopy of same was taken on record as Ex. PW77/E. PW 77 ACP Vijay Man chanda further deposed that accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly also took out typed signed letter addressed to British High Commission Ex. PW77/F which was handed over to him by accused Mahinder Singh Oberio. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda further deposed that accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly pointed out the place where he left the bag containing these transistor bombs.
FIR No.238/85 83/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
161. Six transistor bombs allegedly placed by accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly at Satyam Park had already been recovered before arrest of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly and recording of his disclosure statement. In other words, those six transistor bombs were not recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly and hence, part of the disclosure statement of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly that he left the bag containing six transistor bombs at Satyam Park is inadmissible in evidence and accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly cannot be connected with those six transistor bombs.
162. As has been discussed above, original disclosure statement of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly and recovery memo that was prepared at the time of recovery of incriminating articles from the shop of accused are not on record. It has already been observed in the earlier part of this judg ment that prosecution has not fulfilled the criteria for being permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of documents whose photocopy were tendered during examination of various witnesses and hence, photocopy of disclosure statement of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly and photocopy of recovery memo cannot be treated as legally admissible evidence.
163. It is clear from cross examination of PW 77 ACP Vijay Man chanda that accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly did not know about contents of articles lying in the thaila/bag which was recovered from his shop. In fact, the shop from where accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly got recovered FIR No.238/85 84/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
the thaila/bag was not mentioned in the disclosure statement of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda has not clarified as to how he reached this shop. Thus, the fact that accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly was in conscious possession of articles which were recovered from his shop was not proved.
164. PW 346 Sodan Singh deposed that recovery of six transistor bombs near Satyam Park was made on 08.06.1985 on the pointing of ac cused Surinder Singh @ Dolly. This part of deposition of PW 346 Sodan Singh completely demolished the case of prosecution against accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly.
165. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda deposed about recovery having been made from near Satyam Park in pursuance of secret information. In terestingly, PW 346 Sodan Singh who received secret information did not say anything about the recovery of six transistor bombs on 17.05.1985.
166. Public witness namely Ashok Kumar who was joined in recov ery proceedings while effecting recovery from the shop of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly was not examined as prosecution witness. Since recovery was effected from a shop in the market, public witnesses who could have been easily available at the spot viz. shopkeeper of nearby shops, etc. ought to have been associated with the investigation while ef fecting recovery from the shop of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly.
FIR No.238/85 85/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
167. The net result is that PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda while ef fecting recovery did not associate any public witness while effecting recov ery from the said shop which would have made recovery proceedings credi ble and reliable. Even the seal affixed on the articles which have been re covered during the search from the shop of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly does not belong to any of the police officials associated with investi gation of this case.
168. PW 346 Sodan Singh who was part of police party that ar rested accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly and made recovery from his shop does not say anything about recovery from the shop. PW 346 Sodan Singh only deposed about effecting recovery from near Satyam Park on 08.06.1985.
169. During cross examination of PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda register no. 19 of Moharrar Malkhana Ex. PW77/M was brought on record wherein it is mentioned that articles which have been recovered on 08.06.1985 have already been deposited on 05.06.1985 by PW 77. The arti cles deposited by PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda in the malkhana on 05.06.1985, as per register no. 19 Ex. PW77/M, are articles which were re covered from accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly on 08.06.1985. Thus, regis ter no. 19 Ex. PW77/M falsifies the recovery effected from the shop of ac cused Surinder Singh @ Dolly.
170. Two cassettes are stated to have been recovered from the FIR No.238/85 86/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
house of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly. However, these cassettes were never produced before the Court. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda admitted in cross examination that he cannot identify the speaker whose voice is recorded in these cassettes. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda did not give any transcript even in the seizure memo and it was nowhere mentioned as to what were the contents of said cassettes and as to whether PW 77 had heard those cassettes.
171. As regards the letter recovered from the house of accused Surinder Singh @ Dolly, the said letter is not signed by anyone nor it bears any date. No investigation was conducted to find out as to whether it was sent to British High Commission or not.
172. The obvious conclusion is that prosecution failed to lead any reliable or credit worthy evidence to prove the charge against accused Surinderpal Singh @ Surinder Singh @ Dolly.
173. The role attributed to accused Rajinder Singh is that he and his father Arjun Singh had done threading work on the bomb shells on the ask ing of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio and have thus, participated in the conspiracy. Accused Mahinder Singh Oberio had made disclosure state ment on 13.05.1985 disclosing that accused Sewa Singh had introduced him with Arjun Singh, owner of Singh Engineering Works, and accused Sewa Singh told Arjun Singh and Rajinder Singh that this work is to be done for Panth and it has to be kept as secret.
FIR No.238/85 87/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
174. Case of prosecution is that on 01.06.1985, during raid at the factory of Arjun Singh, two bomb shells and one lathe machine were recov ered. Material witness so far as accused Rajinder Singh is concerned is PW 100 ACP Rajinder Prasad Gautam, who inter alia deposed that on 01.06.1985, accused Mahinder Singh Oberio lead police party to Singh En gineering Works, Jaipuria Mill, Subzi Mandi and disclosed that he had handed over bomb shells for threading purpose to Sewa Singh and Mahin der Singh Khalsa. Thereafter, a raid at Singh Engineering Works was con ducted in the presence of Arjun Singh and his son Rajinder Singh and two bomb shells and one lathe machine were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW100/D. PW 100 ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam further deposed that Arjun Singh and Rajinder Singh were arrested by SI Rajbir Singh.
175. In cross examination, PW 100 ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam deposed that he cannot tell exact material recovered in this case and sent to FSL.
176. PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh, inter alia, deposed that on 31.05.1985, accused Mahinder Singh Oberio made disclosure statement about involvement of Sukhan Lal and Chittar Mal of Shiv Foundry and ac cused Rajinder Singh and Arjun Singh, owners of Singh Engineering Works.
177. PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh deposed that accused Mahinder FIR No.238/85 88/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Singh Oberio had made disclosure statement to the effect that bombs were prepared in premises no. 217, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and threading work (churi) on these bombs were got done at Singh Engineering Works, Jaipuria, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi. In cross examination, PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh was asked a specific question as under :
"Q. When you reached Shiv Foundry Works and found number of shells which according to you were bomb shells, did you take any action against the owner of the said foundry ?
In response to this question, PW 102 answered as under :
" Sukhan Lal and Chitar Lal owners of Shiv Foundry met. I enquired from them. They did not know as to for which purpose these shells were to be used, therefore, no action was taken against them."
In cross examination, PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh was also asked following question :
"Q. Did you seize or recover any tool or implement or in strument from Singh Engineering Works which can prove and ascertain that threading works (chuddi) could be done of Singh Engineering ?"
In response to this question, PW 102 answered as under :
FIR No.238/85 89/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
" We had seized the lathe machine because accused Arjun Singh and Rajender Singh had told that lathe machine was used for threading purpose."
178. It is pertinent to mention here that Arjun Singh died during pendency of case.
179. Since, the specific allegation against accused Arjun Singh is that two bomb shells were recovered from Singh Engineering Works, there fore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that Arjun Singh was in any way associated or connected with Singh Engineering Works. Prose cution has not examined any witness viz. employee of victory, employees or owner of neighbouring factories/areas to prove that accused Rajinder Singh used to assist his father Arjun Singh in his business.
180. It has come on record that at the time of raid at the factory of Arjun Singh, servants of Arjun Singh were available. However, none of those servants were examined as witness to establish that accused Rajinder Singh was working in the said factory or was in any way concerned with day to day affairs of the factory. No documentary evidence was adduced to prove that accused Rajinder Singh was being paid any salary from that fac tory or to show that accused Rajinder singh was involved in any manner with the said factory.
FIR No.238/85 90/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
181. It is interesting to note that raid was conducted at Shiv Foundry Works owned by Sukhan Lal and Chittar Pal on 31.05.1985 and two bomb shells were recovered. Surprisingly, neither the said Sukhan Lal nor Chittar Mal was arrayed as accused. When PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh was questioned on this aspect in cross examination, he deposed that he did not make they accused as they were not aware as to for which purpose they were making shells. It is surprising that 52 bombs shells were recovered from the said factory and police official sincerely believed the owner of factory that they were not aware about the purpose for which those bomb shells were kept in the factory. This part of deposition of PW 102 ACP Ra jbir Singh appears to be far from truth.
182. It is a clear cut policy of pick and choose on the part of police officials who were associated with investigation of this case.
183. Another aspect to be noted is that when police officials raided the factory of Sukhan Lal and Chittar Mal, photographs of recovered arti cles were taken and site plan of the place where bomb shells was prepared. However, when police officials raided the factory of Arjun Singh no site plan was prepared and no photographs were taken. No threading was found on the two bomb shells recovered from the factory of Arjun Singh. If the same were given to Arjun Singh for the purpose of threading, said bombs should have been threaded.
184. One independent witness namely Ved Prakash Kaushik was FIR No.238/85 91/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
associated with investigation when Shiv Foundry was raided. However, the Ved Prakash Kaushik was not examined as a witness in this case. No rea sonable explanation was given by prosecution for none examination of said Ved Prakash Kaushik. No neighbour was asked to join investigation when the factory with the name Singh Engineering Works was raided.
185. Bomb shells which were recovered from the factory of Arjun Singh are different from those recovered 52 bomb shells recovered from Shiv Foundry Works owned by Sukhan Lal and Chittar Pal. The bomb shells were recovered from factory of Arjun Singh are like pipe only. The question which ought to have been put to CFSL was whether a particular shell recovered from the factory of Arjun singh could have been fitted in a transistor so fas as to make transistor bomb or not. However, this question was not put to CFSL. If a particular piece cannot be fitted in transistor or transistor cabinet, then it is surely not an explosive sofar as this case is con cerned.
186. The obvious conclusion is that prosecution failed to lead any credible or admissible evidence to prove the charge against accused Rajin der Singh.
187. Prosecution case against accused Shahbaz Singh is that he was handed over certain bomb shells for kharad work for cutting groves. It is al leged that 21 bomb shells were recovered at the pointing out of accused Shahbaz Singh and upon his arrest on 08.06.1985, receipt Ex. PW 72/A is FIR No.238/85 92/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
sued by Sukhan Lal of Shiv Foundry Works was recovered. PW 72 Inspec tor Ram Singh deposed about arrest and interrogation of accused Shahbaz Singh. PW 72 Inspector Ram Singh deposed that from personal search of accused Shahbaz Singh, two paper like receipt and one postcard on which address of Shahbaz Singh was written was recovered.
188. PW 72 Inspector Ram Singh deposed that accused Shahbaz Singh disclosed that accused Mahinder Singh Oberio had given him some bomb shells for kharad work for cutting groves. Accused Shahbaz Singh is further stated to have disclosed that he had completed the kharad work for cutting groves on the bomb shells but accused Mahinder Singh Oberio and his associates did not come back to collect the same because they were ap prehended on 12.05.1985. Accused Shahbaz Singh further disclosed that he concealed those bomb shells under the puliya due to fear of police. PW 72 Inspector Ram Singh further deposed that in pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Shahbaz Singh led the police party to G1/108, Khazan Basti, Mayapuri and got recovered the bag, Ex. PW72/C containing 21 bomb shells from under the puliya.
189. PW 72 Inspector Ram Singh in cross examination deposed that he does not know that case property stated to have been recovered at the in stance of accused Shahbaz Singh when produced before Hon'ble High court during the hearing of bail application of accused were found to be plain bottle. PW 72 Inspector Ram Singh further deposed in cross examination that he cannot say if bomb shells produced in the Court are empty break FIR No.238/85 93/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
cylinder used in assembly of break of cars or motorcycles.
190. PW 332 SI Satvir Singh deposed about arrest of accused Shah baz Singh from House No. 161/37A, Khazan Basti, Maya Puri, Delhi and recording of his disclosure statement, Ex. PW72/B and recovery of 21 bomb shells which were seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW 72/C.
191. PW 332 SI Satvir Singh deposed in cross examination that no person from neighbourhood was associated with investigation at the time of arrest of accused Shahbaz Singh despite the place of his arrest being sur rounded by residential area.
192. PW 332 SI Satvir Singh further deposed in cross examination that the puliya (small bridge) underneath which recovery was effected pur suant to disclosure statement of accused Shahbaz Singh was accessible to common public.
193. It has come in evidence that the place (small bridge) under neath which recovery of 21 bombs were recovered pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Shahbaz Singh was accessible to common public.
194. It will be relevant to reproduce section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as under :
" When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the cus FIR No.238/85 94/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
tody of police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
195. The words "discovered in consequence of information re ceived from a person accused of an offence" occurring in Section 27 of In dian Evidence Act are of great significance. A fact is discovered when it was not earlier known to anybody except the person who provided the in formation leading to discovery of that fact. However, in the present case, the place of recovery was also accessible to common public and hence, re covery of 21 bombs recovered pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Shahbaz Singh will not be covered by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
196. Recovery was effected at the instance of accused Shahbaz Singh after almost 25 days of articles having been abandoned. It is surpris ing that the bag lying underneath the puliya at Mayapuri was not seen or noticed by any person during 25 days despite the fact that there was red alert in Delhi following bomb blasts.
197. In State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Deepak & Anr. decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.05.2011 it was held that recovery of the dead body is alleged to have taken place from the open field. The exclu sive knowledge of the dead body, being kept in the open field, cannot be imposed upon accused directly in the present case as the said field is an FIR No.238/85 95/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
open field. It has been so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kora Ghasi Vs. State of Orissa, 1983, Crl. J. 692 (2).
198. In the disclosure statement given by accused Mahinder Singh Oberio on 31.05.1985, he has not referred to accused Shahbaz Singh. After five days separate disclosure statement of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio was recorded wherein he stated that 50 bomb shells were handed over to accused Shahbaz Singh for the purpose of making groves. It is inexplicable as to why accused Mahinder Singh Oberio did not disclose name of ac cused Shahbaz Singh on 31.05.1985 when he disclosed about Shiv Foundry and Sukhanlal and gave name of other persons who played some role.
199. Another important point to be noted is that disclosure state ment of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio indicating the role of Shahbaz Singh was recorded on 05.06.1985 but accused Shahbaz Singh was arrested on 08.06.1985. Prosecution has not explained even the delay in arrest of ac cused Shahbaz Singh when entire police force was gearedup to solve cases pertaining to transistor bomb blasts.
200. Sofar as recovery of receipt of Shiv Foundry from the posses sion of accused Shahbaz Singh is concerned, original of document was not placed on record nor produced before the Court and hence, one does not know as to exactly what documents were recovered from accused Shahbaz Singh.
FIR No.238/85 96/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
201. It transpired from record that there are about four witnesses to recovery of bombs by police at the instance of accused Shahbaz Singh viz. Ram Singh, Hari Kishan, Ct. Mukhtiar Singh and St. Satbir Singh. How ever, Hari Singh, public witness and Ct. Mukhtiar Singh were not exam ined as prosecution witnesses. No reasonable explanation has come forth form prosecution as to why witnesses particularly public witness Hari Kis han was not examined to prove recovery of 21 bombs at the instance of ac cused Shahbaz Singh.
202. The obvious conclusion is that prosecution failed to lead any solid and reliable evidence to connect the accused Shahbaz Singh with the alleged crime. Hence, charge against accused Shahbaz Singh could not be proved.
203. In the disclosure statement of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio recorded on 13.05.1985, name of one Manjeet Singh figured. It was dis closed by accused Mahinder Singh Oberio that on 10.05.1985, he along with Jagjit Singh Bhatia distributed 10 transistor bombs to Manjeet Singh at his shop no. 1415A/13, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi, directing him to place the same in buses and public places. Some written slips/papers marked Q19 were also recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio. Transistor bombs were also found/exploded in South Delhi area and in this connection 10 FIR's bearing FIR no. 582/1985, u/s. 302/307 IPC & 4/5 of Explosive Act, PS Kalkai, FIR No. 583/1985, u/s. 302/307 IPC, PS Kalkaji, FIR No. 584/1985, u/s. 302/307, PS Kalkaji, FIR No. 586/1985, u/s. 3/4/5 FIR No.238/85 97/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
of Explosive Act, PS Kalkaji, FIR No.202/1985, u/s. 302/307 IPC, PS Sriniwaspuri, FIR No. 203/1985, u/s. 302/307 IPC, PS Sriniwaspuri, FIR No. 125/1985, u/s. 3/4/5 of Explosive Act, PS Badarpur, FIR No. 134/1985, u/s. 3/4 of Explosive Act, PS Vasant Vihar, FIR No. 210/1985, u/s. 3/4 of Explosive Act and FIR no. 125/1985 PS Defence Colony were registered.
204. Accused Manjeet Singh was arrested on 17.05.1985 by SI Satyadev. It has come in the deposition of SI Satdev that on the same day, other five accused persons namely Dalvinder Singh, Jaspal Singh, Narinder Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Harvinder Singh (died) were also arrested. It is pertinent to mention here that SI Satdev could not identify accused persons during his testimony in the Court.
205. The role attributed to accused Gurmeet Singh, son of Sewa Singh in the charge sheet is that on 10.05.1985 after receiving transistor bombs, accused Manjeet Singh and Dalvinder Singh went to Gurmeet Singh at Vasant Vihar Shop where they met Gurmeet Singh and Harvinder Singh persuaded them to place bombs in buses. Accused Harvinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh took one transistor bomb which they carried to outer ring road on the scooter of accused Harvinder Singh. Accused Harvinder Singh boarded a bus and asked accused Gurmeet Singh to follow the bus on motorcycle. Finding the bus crowded, accused Harvinder Singh got down from the bus at Vasant Vihar Depot and boarded another bus no. 620 going towards IIT and placded transistor bomb in it and got down near Jawahar FIR No.238/85 98/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Lal Nehru University. Accused Gurmeet Singh who was following the bus on motorcycle picket accused Harvinder Singh and they went to their hoses.
206. The above role ascribed to accused Gurmeet Singh is based on the disclosure statement of accused. No substantial evidence was led by prosecution to prove specific role stated to have been played by accused Gurmeet Singh in the conspiracy. Infact, Investigating Officer has not in dicated as to whether any evidence was collected to corroborate the facts emerging from disclosure statement of accused Gurmeet Singh and other accused persons.
207. The bus in which bomb was allegedly placed by Harvinder Singh with the help of accused Gurmeet Singh was not seized nor its regis tration number is mentioned in the charge sheet. There is a mystery as to what happened with the bomb that was placed by accused Harvinder Singh in the bus. Even the motorcycle on which accused Gurmeet Singh was stated to have been following the bus no. 620 was not seized. In other words, nothing incriminatory has come on record against accused Gurmeet Singh except the disclosure statement of coaccused. No investigation was conducted to even prove the factum of plying of bus no. 620 in the year 1985 and its route.
208. Prosecution case against accused Jaspal Singh is that Amrik Singh (Subsequently turned an approver) accompanied him and thereafter, FIR No.238/85 99/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Amrit Singh, Jaspal Singh and Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan went on a scooter to place one transistor bomb at Tara Apartment, one transistor bomb near Alaknanda, one transistor bomb near Chander Lok Cinema and one transistor bomb near Gurudwara near C.R. Park.
209. As discussed above, accused Mahinder Singh Oberio disclosed on 13.05.1985 that he alongwith Jagjit Singh Bhatia distributed 10 transis tor bombs on 10.05.1985 at 4 PM to Manjeet Singh at his shop no. 1415A/3, Govindpuri. However, accused Jaspal Singh confessed in his dis closure statement dated 18.05.1985 that on 10.05.1985 at 4 PM, 10 transis tor bombs were received by him in his work shop. Therefore, one finds contradiction even in the disclosure statements of accused Jaspal Singh and Mahinder Singh Oberio.
210. The role attributed to accused Narender Singh is that in the evening of 10.05.1985, after receiving two bags containing 10 transistor bombs from accused Mahinder Singh Oberio and Jagjit Singh Bhatia, ac cused Manjeet singh gave five bombs to accused Narender Singh and Dalvinder Singh and asked them to place these bombs in buses.
211. Name of accused Narender Singh has come in the disclosure statement of accused Manjeet Singh recorded on 17.05.1985 and in pur suance of said disclosure statement, accused Narender Singh was arrested on 18.05.1985. Nothing incriminatory was found against accused Narender singh except the disclosure statement of himself. Even his house was not FIR No.238/85 100/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
thoroughly searched by Investigating Officer after his arrest.
212. SI Satdev (PW 6) admitted in cross examination that on the day of arrest of accused Jaspal Singh, Narender Singh and Gurmeet Singh, nothing incriminatory was recovered from their houses. SI Satdev (PW6) further deposed in cross examination that he had handed over disclosure statement of accused Jaspal Singh, Narender Singh and Gurmeet Singh to SI L.N. Rao but neither he nor SI L.N. Roa had prepared handing over memo of same.
213. PW 49 ACP Mahender Ram Mehmi was entrusted with inves tigation of FIR No. 583/85. During investigation of this case, PW 49 got recorded statement of Amrik Singh who was examined as PW 63. PW 49 ACP Mahender Ram Mehmi has deposed that he had also received pocket diary alongwith file from SI Satdev Singh. However, the diary given by SI Satdev as not available in Court record.
214. PW 55 ACP Sobhan Singh was the first Investigating Officer of FIR No. 586/85 PS Kalkaji. All six persons i.e. Manjeet Singh, Dalvin der Singh, Jaspal Singh, Narneder Singh, Harminder Singh and Gurmeet Singh were formally arrested in FIR No. 586/85. However, formal arrest memos of accused persons were not prepared nor accused persons were taken to relevant place for the purpose of pointing out. PW 55 ACP Sobhan Singh failed to identify accused Gurmeet Singh in the Court.
FIR No.238/85 101/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
215. PW 63 Sardar Amrik Singh, inter alia, deposed that he knew accused Manjeet Singh because he had worked with him as Mechanic in the year 1985; on the relevant day, PW 63 PW 63 Sardar Amrik Singh was not at his shop and when he came back, he did not find Manjeet Singh in the shop; PW 63 Amrik Singh waited till 9:30 PM at the shop and then some neighbours told him that Manjeet Singh had been taken away by po lice during day time, then PW 63 Amrik Singh went to Police Station to find out Manjeet singh and he was detained in the Police Station and re mained in police detention for 56 days. PW 63 Sardar Amrik Singh further deposed that police persuaded him to give his statement before Magistrate and he proved photocopy of reconstruction statement Ex. PW 49/C. In re sponse to Court query, PW 63 Sardar Amrik Singh deposed that he made statement Ex. PW49/C before learned Metropolitan Magisterial. When PW 63 Sardar Amrik Singh was cross examined by Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. K.K. Manan, learned defence counsels, startling facts were disclosed. Rel evant portion of cross examination of PW 63 Amrik Singh is being repro duced herein as under :
"It is correct that whatever, I testified before learned Magis trate was not correct and I made that statement only under pressure, threat and torture of police. I never saw accused Manjeet Singh in dulging in any illegal, anti social or terrorist activities."
216. It is worthwhile to note that original statement of accused Am rik Singh under Section 164 Cr.PC was not produced in the Court and same FIR No.238/85 102/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
was not even authenticated by PW 61 Sh. M.K. Gupta, the then learned Metropolitan Magisterial who recorded the statement.
217. It is, therefore, obvious that PW 63 Amrik Singh was pressur ized and tortured by police to give his statement before learned Metropoli tan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC. In fact, PW 63 Amrik Singh had given clean chit to accused Manjeet Singh in cross examination. This shows high handedness of police while conducting investigation in these cases.
218. PW 88 Dharampal, a public witness lifted transistor bombs on 10.05.1985 when he was going to his house alongwith Ram Kumar on a bi cycle while coming back from Chander Lok Cinema Hall. However, tran sistor bombs were not shown to PW 88 Dharampal during his examination before the Court.
219. Another important witness sofar as cases pertaining to bomb blasts in South Delhi is concerned is PW 69 Mr. L.N. Rao, Addl. DCP. PW 69 Mr. L.N. Rao who was posted as SubInspector in Special Staff (South District) was entrusted with investigation of FIR No. 202/85, PS Srini waspuri on 25.05.1985. PW 69 discussed the matter with his senior offi cials and came to know that accused persons involved in serial transistor bomb blast cases were arrested in FIR No. 583/85 PS Kalkaji. PW 69 con tacted IO of FIR No. 583/85 i.e. SI Mahender Rana and obtained copies of disclosure statements of accused Manjeet Singh, Narender Singh, Dalvin FIR No.238/85 103/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
der Singh, Jaspal Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Harvinder Singh and Harcharan Singh. PW 69 failed to identify any of these accused persons in the Court. In cross examination, PW 69 admitted that no new facts were revealed by accused persons after their disclosure statements were recorded in FIR No. 583/85. It has come in cross examination of PW 69 that nothing was recov ered at the instance of accused Manjeet Singh, Narender Singh, Dalvinder Singh, Jaspal Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Harvinder Singh and Harcharan Singh in FIR No. 202/85.
220. It is the case of prosecution that accused Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan had written one letter to Jagjit Singh Bhartia (proclaimed of fender) wherein name of accused Manjeet Singh, Jaspal Singh, Narender Singh, Dalvinder Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Harvinder Singh were men tioned. In this letter, accused Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan sought the help of Jagjit Singh Bhatia mentioning "aapke dwara diye 10 nag thikane laga diya hai or sub pakde gaye, hume appne hi chudwana hai."
221. However, the original letter was not available on judicial record and it was reported that same is missing from judicial file. Even oth erwise, at the time of recovery of said letter, no family member from house was joined in the investigation.
222. Investigating Agency sent specimen writing and questioned document i.e. letter to CFSL but did not send admitted writing of accused to CFSL. Even otherwise, specimen writing of accused persons were ob FIR No.238/85 104/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
tained by police when accused persons were in police custody and no per mission from concerned Metropolitan Magistrate was sought by Investigat ing Agency for obtaining specimen right of accused persons.
223. According to PW 6, SI Satdev, one diary was recovered from accused Manjeet Singh on 17.05.1985 during his personal search but entry in register no. 19 does not reflect the said diary was deposited in the malkhana on 17.05.1985 which creates serious doubt about entire story of recovery of dairy from accused Manjeet Singh. In the diary, name of some of accused persons are mentioned. However, it is not the case of prosecu tion that those accused persons were arrested on the basis of said diary. Merely because names of accused persons are mentioned in the diary will not imply that they are involved in the conspiracy. In any case, original di ary was not produced before the Court. Even the seizure memo of diary was not on judicial file.
224. Interestingly, neither PW 6 SI Satdev nor subsequent Investi gating Officer PW 69 L.N. Rao indicated that accused Mahinder Singh Oberio who was main accused, has allegedly distributed transistor bombs to accused Manjeet Singh. Even police officials did not bother to formally arrest him in any of the cases registered at South Delhi.
225. As per testimony of police officials, unexploded transistor bombs were defused by Bomb Disposal Squad. However, officers/person nel who were part of Bomb Disposal Squad were not examined as witness FIR No.238/85 105/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
during trial.
226. Another important point to be noted is that after allegedly placing bombs in different places, accused Gurmeet Singh, Jaspal Singh and Narender Singh were found in their respective houses at the time of ar rest. In normal circumstances, a person after committing such a heinous crime will try to abscond and evade the law enforcement agency. There fore, conduct of accused persons after alleged offence become relevant in view of Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
227. No cogent evidence was adduced by prosecution to connect accused persons namely Narender Singh, Dalvinder Singh, Jaspal Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Harvinder Singh and Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan with transistor bomb blasts which happened in South Delhi from 10.05.1985 to 12.05.1985. Prosecution failed to prove as to which of accused was specifi cally involved in which case and what was the fate of five other cases which were registered in South Delhi pursuant to serial bomb blasts in South Delhi. It was even not proved that these accused persons were known to each other and thus, the very foundation of charge of conspiracy is shaken. It was further not proved as to which of accused person was expert in making transistor bombs which were not earlier used in any case of bomb blast.
228. It is, therefore, obvious that prosecution failed to lead any con vincing, reliable and cogent evidence to prove the charge against accused FIR No.238/85 106/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Gurmeet Singh, Jaspal Singh and Narender Singh.
229. Sofar as accused Surjit Kaur, wife of Kartar Singh Narang, is concerned, it is stated in the charge sheet that she absconded and NBW for her arrest was obtained. Wireless messages were sent to all Superintendents of Police in India of her arrest. Accused Surjit Kaur was arrested by Punjab Police in Jalandhar on 31.05.1985 and police party brought her to Delhi. During investigation, accused Surjit Kaur admitted khat during 'Akhand Path and Bhog' held at her house on 08.04.1985, accused persons held meeting at her house where plan to take revenge of Blue Star Operation and November 1984 riots was discussed. Accused Surjit Singh is stated to have admitted that her husband and son Narender Pal Singh actively participated in the conspiracy.
230. Even if, role attributed to accused Surjit Kaur in the charge sheet is taken to be true, same will not constitute any offence. Factual posi tion is that there is hardly any evidence on record against accused Surjit Kaur besides her own disclosure statement. Even arrest of accused Surjit Kaur by Delhi Police is shrouded in mist of mystery as no documents were produced on record by prosecution showing arrest of accused Surjit Kaur by Punjab Police or by Delhi Police. It was not even clear as to when ac cused Surjit Kaur was brought to Delhi. Any article recovered from the house of accused Kartar Singh Narang cannot be treated as evidence against Surjit Kaur. It is, therefore, obvious that one hardly finds any evi dence on record against accused Surjit Kaur and hence, charge against ac FIR No.238/85 107/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
cused Surjit Kaur could not be proved.
231. Thus, the prosecution failed to lead any admissible and reliable evidence to prove the charge against accused Surjit Kaur.
232. Accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy was declared proclaimed offender and he subsequently surrendered before the Court. As per charge sheet, name of accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy was revealed from tele phone nos. 569646 and 564964 written on ruled pieces of paper recovered from the jamatalashi of accused Mahinder Singh Khalsa (deceased). Prose cution has not brought on record any material from MTNL or other office/organization to establish that telephone connections of above men tioned numbers was installed either in the name of accused or in the name of any of his family members or at his place of residence or business. In other words, no effective investigation was conducted to connect accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy with telelphone numbers which were written on piece of paper recovered from accused Mahinder Singh Khalsa (deceased). Nodoubt, accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy absconded. However, mere act of absconding on the part of accused alone does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion regarding guilt of accused as even innocent person may become panic stricken to run away from law when suspected wrongly of committing grave offence. Accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy was sought to be implicated on the basis of disclosure statements of coaccused per sons. However, no recovery was effected pursuant to those disclosure state ments and hence, disclosure statements are inadmissible in evidence.
FIR No.238/85 108/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
233. Name of accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy also figured in the statement of Jagjit Singh and his two daughters namely Manmohan Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur u/s. 164 Cr.PC. However, all these three witnesses re tracted from their confession in cross examination.
234. It is clear from the deposition of PW 353 Gurmeet Kaur and 354 Manmohan Kaur that they and their family members were forced and coerced by police officials to give statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. Rel evant portion of deposition of PW 353 is being reproduced herein as un der:
" After a few days the police officials came to our house with our father in a jeep and took both us sisters alongwith our father to Po lice Station Karol Bagh. They informed us that both us sisters are being arrested in various cases. Upon hearing this both of us became very ner vous and started crying. My father pleaded with the police officials that his daughters (us) should not be framed in any case and should be al lowed to go, upon which the police officials told my father and us that there was only one way out which was that all the three of us should make statements before the court as per the directions of police officials and only then all of us will be released. Our father was sent to jail and we were taken to various other police stations. We had been handed over a written statement which we were asked to remember and make the same statement before the Court when we are produced. Under these circum FIR No.238/85 109/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
stances, fearing for our safety and life of our father both us sisters agreed to make the statement as given to us by the police officials. When my statement was being recorded in the court my sister was in the cus tody of police officials and when her statement was being recorded, I was kept in their custody. We made the statements as per the instructions of police officials out of fear and to save our father before learned Magis trate. I do not know any of the accused present in the Court and cannot identify any of them."
235. Therefore, statements given by Jagjit Singh, Manmohan Kaur (PW 354) and Gurmeet Kaur (PW 353) were not voluntary. It is a settled law that where there is reason to doubt voluntariness of statement/confes sion, the Court will be loath to believe the statement/confession. In the present case, Jagjit Singh was in the custody of police and at that time statements of his two daughters were recorded. Hence, no reliance can be placed on statements of these witnesses under Section 164 Cr.PC. Even otherwise, original statements are not on record. Only photocopy of state ments were read over to these witnesses. It has also been concluded that prosecution has not fulfilled the criteria for leading secondary evidence and hence, in the absence of original statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, one hardly finds any material against accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy.
236. There is no other witness/evidence to show presence or partici pation of accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy in any meeting for hatching FIR No.238/85 110/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
conspiracy at any place on or before 10.05.1985. Infact, none of the wit nesses have identified accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy. No recovery of any incriminatory material was effected from possession of or at the in stance of accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy after his arrest.
237. Thus, there is no hesitation in concluding that prosecution failed to lead any convincing, reliable and cogent evidence to prove the charge against accused Gurmeet Singh @ Happy.
238. Names of accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy came to light after their telephone numbers 774595 and 773264 written on a ruled piece of paper were recovered from jamatalashi of coac cused Mahinder Singh Khalsa. As in the case of accused Gurmeet Singh, no investigation was conducted to establish that telephone connections of above said numbers were installed either in the names of these two accused persons or in the name of any member of their family or at the place of their residence or business.
239. Some contradiction in the charge sheet is also noticed as re gards arrest of accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy. At one place (para 37 of charge sheet) it is stated that on 22.05.1985, accused no. 2 Mahinder Singh Oberio led the police party to Gurdev Singh where accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy were arrested. However, in para 11 of the charge sheet, it is stated that name of accused Gurdev Singh was identified during inquiries from accused Kulbir Singh @ FIR No.238/85 111/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy which indicates that accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy were arrested before the arrest of accused Gurdev Singh.
240. PW 68 ACP M.D. Mehta who was the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 238/85 has nowhere deposed that accused Gurdev Singh, Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy were arrested from the house of ac cused Gurdev Singh. Infact, PW 68 deposed that accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola was arrested in this case and his personal search was conducted on 20.05.1985. If accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola was arrested on 20.05.1985, then it was incumbent upon prosecution to explain as to why his jamata lashi was conducted two days later i.e. 22.05.1985. In cross examination, PW 68 deposed that names of accused Gurdev Singh, Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy were discussed in the disclosure statement of coaccused Mahinder Singh Oberio recorded on 13.05.1985. If that be the case, prosecution has not explained as to why accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy were left to move freely for about seven days after their active involvement in the offence as per the charge sheet came to the notice of police as early as on 13.05.1985. One independent witness namely PW 66 Surender was also examined to prove arrest of accused Gur dev Singh. However, PW 66 Surender deposed that he does not know any thing about what happened at the house of accused Gurdev Singh and when he was taken to Police Station his signatures were obtained by police on many papers. Hence, signatures of PW 66 Surender on various documents relating to disclosure statement and search memo of accused Kulbir Singh FIR No.238/85 112/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
@ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy are of no consequence.
241. Accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola has also relied upon letter dated 17.05.1985 stated to have been written by Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Arora to various authorities wherein name of Kulbir Singh @ Bhola figured at se rial number 10 of list of names of Sikh persons forwarded by Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Arora to Lt. Governor of Delhi and other authorities. Copy of this letter was exhibited as Ex. PW77/DC. Infact, Ms. Sima Gulati, learned defence counsel relied upon copy of letter Ex. PW77/DC. Original letter has not come on record and the document, Ex. PW77/DC, is only copy of letter stated to have been written by Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Arora to various authorities where name of Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and other persons are mentioned.
242. Mr. L.D. Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State, raised an objection to the admissibility of this document submitting that original letter was not produced in the Court and photocopy is inadmissible in evidence.
243. Mr. Rakesh Mahajan and Ms. Sima Gulati, learned defence counsels, relied upon R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswe saraswami & V.P. decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 08.10.2003. In this case, legal proposition regarding admissibility of a doc ument and objection thereto was laid down as under :
" The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence FIR No.238/85 113/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in ap peal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evi dence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the docu ment is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit."
244. The present case will fall in first category mentioned in the aforesaid judgment as objection of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was to the admissibility of the document since photocopy of document is not ad missible in evidence unless conditions are fulfilled for leading secondary evidence. Therefore, the objection as to the admissibility of document, Ex. PW77/DC could have been taken at the stage subsequent to marking of document as an exhibit. The document Ex. PW 77/DC is inadmissible in evidence since it is merely a photocopy and original was not produced.
245. Ms. Sima Gulati, learned defence counsel, also relied upon FIR No.238/85 114/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Virender Kumar & Ors. decided by Ho'ble High Court of Delhi on 11.06.2008 wherein similar view was ex pressed. Ms. Sima Gulati also relied upon Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 11.03.2019 where again the judgment given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder (supra) was referred to and relied upon. Ms. Sima Gulati also relied upon Piara Singh and Sons Vs. Gurudwara Baba Jorawar Singh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 16.05.2007. In this case, the issue was regarding admissibility of certified copy of registered sale deed and objection raised about the same. It may be mentioned here that certified copy of a document is admissible u/s. 76 & 77 of Indian Evidence Act and hence, facts of the case in hand are distinguish able.
246. The net conclusion is that reliance placed by Mr. Rakesh Ma hajan and Ms. Sima Gulati, learned defence counsels on copy of letter Ex. PW77/DC stated to have been written by Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Arora to various authorities complaining about illegal arrest of various Sikh persons will not advance to the case of accused persons as the said document is in admissible in evidence.
247. It was put to PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda in cross examina tion that while being in police custody, FIR No. 231/85, PS Ashok Vihar on 16.05.1985 at 3:30 AM was registered against accused Kulbir Singh @ FIR No.238/85 115/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Bhola under Section 309 IPC and as per contents of FIR, accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola was in custody in Police Station Ashok Vihar in connection with case under Section 107/151 Cr.PC. PW 77 ACP Vijay Manchanda showed complete ignorance about the kalandra mentioned in the said FIR. However, accused examined DW 16 Inspector Arti Sharma, SHO PS Ashok Vihar to produce order passed by ACP (HQs) of the office of DCP (NorthWest), Delhi, regarding destruction of summoned record pertaining to kalandra under Section 107/151 Cr.PC against accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola during the period from 10.05.1985 to 20.05.1985. DW 16 produced original FIR No. 231/85 PS Ashok Vihar. As per this FIR, accused while being in police custody attempted to commit suicide on 16.05.1985. If con tents of FIR No. 231/85, photocopy of which was exhibited as Ex. PW16/B are true, then entire prosecution case against accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola that he was arrested on 20.05.1985 fails.
248. DW 5 Radhey and DW 6 Manmohan have deposed that ac cused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and other persons were arrested by police in the evening of 12.05.1985 and representation/letter in this regard was writ ten by many persons to higher authorities. There was no effective cross ex amination of DW 5 and DW 6 as regards material facts deposed by them. Thus, it is established beyond doubt that accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola was not arrested on 20.05.1985. Rather, he was arrested on 12.05.1985 and if that be the case, there is no question of accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola being present in the morning of 13.05.1985 at Bus Stand Panipat and plant ing bomb.
FIR No.238/85 116/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
249. Similarly, DW 3 Mohan Singh and DW 4 Prahlad Rai have de posed that accused Inderjit Singh @ Happy was apprehended by police on 12.05.1985. There was hardly any cross examination of these two witnesses by the prosecution on material assertion of facts that accused Inderjit Singh @ Happy was arrested on 12.05.1985. This strengthens the defence of ac cused persons that accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy were taken in police custody on 12.05.1985 and not on 20.05.1985.
250. Material brought on record to prove that accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy had been participating in meetings held for achieving motive by means making, distributing, planting and explod ing bombs are statements/confession of Jagjit Singh and his two daughters namely Manmohan Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur. It has already been observed that Jagjit Singh and his two daughters namely Manmohan Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur were coerced and pressurized by police to give their state ments before learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC and hence, their testimonies do not advance the case of prosecution.
251. It is the case of prosecution that Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy had been conducting survey of addresses, locations, availability of leaders who were responsible for attack on Gurudwaras and innocent Sikh persons and that they had been contacting other persons and distributing bombs. However, these allegations were not substantiated by any effective investigation/evidence. For instance - accused Kulbir Singh FIR No.238/85 117/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
@ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy are stated to have used one motorcycle for achieving their purposes but neither the said motorcycle nor its documents were brought on record.
252. As per the version given in the charge sheet, on 12.05.1985, accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy were given two bombs. However, this version is not supported by any material on record. Accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy have disclosed having received bombs. However, there was no recovery pursuant to said disclosure statements and hence, these disclosure statements are hit by Sec tion 25 of Indian Evidence Act and are not saved by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise, those original disclosure statements are not on record.
253. PW 248 Bhagwan Dass noticed two persons outside female toilet at Panipat Bus Stand in the morning while opening canteen on 13.05.1985. However, PW 248 Bhagwan Das failed to identity accused persons in his examination in chief. In cross examination, PW 248 Bhag wan Dass stated 'Yes' when accused persons were pointed to him in cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State. However, PW 248 Bhagwan Dass deposed that accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inder jeet @ Happy are not the persons whom he saw near ladies toilet on 1305.1985.
254. There are contradictions in statements of different witnesses FIR No.238/85 118/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
who have deposed about role of accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inder jeet @ Happy. Further, unexplained delay in recording statements of wit nesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and case property not being produced and proved in the Court against accused persons created doubt about prosecu tion case.
255. It is, therefore, obvious that prosecution failed to lead any con vincing, reliable and cogent evidence to prove the charge against accused Kulbir Singh @ Bhola and Inderjeet @ Happy.
256. So far as accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa and Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan are concerned, there is no material on record as far as conspiracy aspect is concerned. Charge sheet does not say anywhere that these two accused persons ever met any of the coaccused or had any com munication with any of the coaccused before 10.05.1985. Thus, one of the very essential ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy is missing sofar accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa and Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan are concerned.
257. It is stated in the charge sheet that Manjeet Singh and Dalvin der Singh @ Pappa went to Gurmeet Singh where they met Gureet Singh and Harvinder Singh and persuaded to place transistor bombs in buses. The very fact that they persuaded accused Harvinder Singh at the time of handing over one bomb to them means there was no planning/conspiracy before that point of time.
FIR No.238/85 119/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
258. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Manjeet Singh and Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa went on a scooter to Munrika where accused Dalinder Singh @ Pappa placed one transistor bomb in a bus and they went to accused Manjeet singh in Govind Puri. Investigating Officer took no pain to obtain registration number or other details of the scooter used by accused Manjeet Singh and Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa. Similarly, no details viz. numbers etc. of the buses in which accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa allegedly placed bomb were obtained. Even the scooter used in the crime was not produced before the Court.
259. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Manjeet Singh gave five transistor bombs to Narender Singh and accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa asked them to place bombs in buses. Accused no.41 Harvinder Singh and Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa went by scooter to Lajpat Nagar Bus Stand where accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa boarded a bus going towards Ashram Chowk. Again, no number or other particulars of scooter used by accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa and accused no.41 Harvinder Singh were obtained. Similarly, no details of bus going towards Asheam Chowk have come on record.
260. It is next stated in the charge sheet that accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa had been given one transistor bomb by accused no.41 Harvinder Singh and he boarded a bus at Lagjpat Nagar going towards Kalyanpuri. It is pertinent to mention that in earlier part of charge sheet, it FIR No.238/85 120/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
was mentioned that the bus was going towards Ashram Chowk but subse quently, it was stated that bus was going towards Kalyanpuri. This contra diction in the charge sheet itself has not been explained by the prosecution.
261. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that bus was very crowded and accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa got down from it near Baba Sahib Gurudwara without placing bomb; then he boarded a delux bus going towards Maharani Bagh and placed the bomb in it and came back to his house. No details/particulars of bus including its number, etc were col lected by Investigating Officer. No evidence was collected to clarify as to whether bomb placed in the bus exploded or remained unexploded and if bomb remained unexplained whether same was diffused or not. Infact, no body has come before the Court to depose that he diffused the bomb. There is no material on record to suggest that bomb placed by accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa ever exploded.
262. So far accused Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan is concerned, it is stated in the charge sheet that Amrik Singh asked Jaspal Singh to accom pany him and he alongwith Jaspal Singh and Harcharan Singh went on a scooter and placed one transistor bomb at Tara Apartments, one transistor bomb near Alaknanda, one transistor bomb near Chanderlok Cinema and one transistor bomb near Gurudwara in Chitranjan Park. Again, no details of scooter used by accused Jaspal Singh, Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan and Amrik Singh were obtained. It is clarified that Amrik Singh had turned ap prover and he even went back on his statement recorded under Section 164 FIR No.238/85 121/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Cr.PC, which was the only material against accused Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan. Investigation revealed that one inland letter was taken into pos session during house search of Jagjit Singh Bhatia of Narelawala (pro claimed offender no.3). It was further revealed that this letter is in the hand writing of accused Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan as per opinion of handwrit ing expert.
263. This letter was recovered from the place which is open, acces sible and visible to all and hence, its recovery did not fulfill all the require ments of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
264. Public persons were available when this letter was recovered but noone from public was made a witness to recovery proceedings. In any case, the said letter was not recovered from the premises to which it was addressed. Name of accused Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan is not mentioned in the investigation of original Investigating Officer, i.e. SI Satdev Singh, who had arrested six accused persons in this case.
265. It is, therefore, obvious that prosecution failed to lead any con vincing, reliable and cogent evidence to prove the charge against accused Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa and Harcharan Singh @ Gulshan.
266. Prosecution case against accused Hardeep Singh is that four transistor bombs were given to him by accused Mohinder Singh Oberio through Jagdish Narelawala which were kept by him with accused Sewa FIR No.238/85 122/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
Singh. On 10.05.1985, accused Hardeep Singh planted one bomb in bus route no. 831 and on 11.05.1985, he planted one transistor bomb in bus no.
159. Accused Hardeep Singh gave one transistor bomb to accused Sewa Singh for planting it in some bus. Pursuant to disclosure statement dated 09.05.1985, of accused Mohinder Singh Oberio, accused Hardeep Singh was interrogated. On 02.06.1985, disclosure statement of accused Hardeep Singh was recorded by SI Rajbir Singh wherein he stated that on 07.05.1985, accused Mohinder Singh Oberio and Jagdish Narelawala met him in Uttam Nagar Gurudwara and planting of transistor bombs was dis cussed; on 09.05.1985, in the evening, accused Mohinder Singh Oberio and Jagdish Narelawala handed over four transistor bombs kept in different bags to Hardeep Singh who kept the same at the residence of Avtar Singh; on 10.05.1985, out of those four transistor bombs, accused Hardeep Singh kept one transistor bomb in DTC Bus; on 11.05.1985, he kept second tran sistor bomb in tool box of a bus at Shadipur Depot. Regarding remaining two transistor bombs, one was kept by Avtar Singh in DTC Bus and an other was kept by Gurvinder Singh in Ganda Nala, Janakpuri near Jhuggis.
267. Accused Hardeep Singh was arrested on 01.06.1985. Material witnesses qua accused Hardeep Singh are ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam (PW 100), ACP Rajbir Singh (PW 102) and PW 106 Inspector Abhirup Banerjee. In cross examination, PW 100 ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam, inter alia, deposed that he had visited only one site where the bomb blasted and after bomb blast, no shell was recovered; the bomb blasted at Theka Desi Sharab, Mohindra Park, PS Adarsh Nagar; accused Hardeep Singh FIR No.238/85 123/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
was not taken at Theka Desi Sharab, Mahindra Park and in neighbouring places of bomb blast sites for the purpose of identification. In cross exami nation PW 100 deposed that no recovery was effected from accused Hard eep Singh following his disclosure statement in his presence.
268. During cross examination, PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh deposed that from the house search of accused Hardeep Singh, he had seized pam phlets. PW 102 further deposed in cross examination that the said pam phlets and documents recovered from the house of accused Hardeep Singh were not sealed. PW 102 ACP Rajbir Singh further deposed that nothing was recovered after recording of disclosure statement of accused Hardeep Singh dated 02.06.1985. PW 102 admitted in cross examination that no body had seen accused Hardeep Singh planting or keeping transistor bomb anywhere and that there was no independent witness on record to the effect that accused Hardeep Singh had distributed transistor bombs to anyone anywhere. PW 102 further deposed in cross examination that besides the disclosure statement of accused Hardeep Singh, he had disclosure state ment of accused Mahinder Singh Oberio as evidence against accused Hard eep Singh. In cross examination of PW 106 Inspector Abhirup Banerjee de posed that recovered pamphlets from the house accused Hardeep Singh were not sealed. PW 106 deposed that when pamphlets were recovered from the house of accused Hardeep Singh, accused Hardeep Singh was not found present there but two elderly persons were found present there in the house. However, signature of those two elderly persons were neither ob tained on the recovered pamphlets nor on the seizure memo of said pam FIR No.238/85 124/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
phlets.
269. PW 102 Inspector Rajbir Singh in cross examination by learned defence counsel deposed that except the disclosure statements of accused Hardeep Singh amd Mohinder Singh Oberio, there was no inde pendent witness against them.
270. No public persons was joined as witnesses at the time of said house search of accused Hardeep Singh. To a specific question put to PW 102 in cross examination, PW 102 stated that case diary dated 31.05.1985 do not mention about asking neighbours of accused Hardeep Singh for join ing the investigation.
271. Investigating Officer took no pain to obtain registration num ber or other particulars viz. its route etc. of the buses i.e. bus no. 831 and bus no. 159 where accused Hardeep Singh planted transistor bombs on 10.05.1985 and 11.05.1985. Original pamphlets were not produced before the Court. Original disclosure statement of accused Hardeep Singh has not come on record.
272. It is, therefore, obvious that prosecution failed to lead any ad missible evidence to prove the charge against accused Hardeep Singh.
273. Prosecution case against accused Mukhtiyar Singh, Anoop Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Arvinder Singh, Manjit Singh and Tirath Singh FIR No.238/85 125/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
and Daljeet Singh is that during police custody in case FIR No. 238/85 PS Patel Nagar, these accused persons made disclosure about their involve ment in case FIR No. 105/85, PS Gokalpuri and other cases. These accused persons disclosed that on 08.05.1985, they all assembled at Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar where one Chander Mohan Singh met them; after sometimes accused Mohinder Singh Oberio alongwith his nephew came on a scooter and instigated accused persons; they assembled at the shop of Anoop Singh on 08.05.1985 in the evening; after sometime accused Mahinder Singh Oberio alongwith his nephew came there and he was carrying two thailas (bags) containing 10 transistor bombs; Mohinder Singh handed over six bombs to Chander Mohan and he kept four bombs with himself; one transistor bomb was handed over to accused Bhupinder Singh, one transistor bomb was handed over to accused Mukhtiar Singh, one transistor bomb was handed over to accused Anoop Singh, two transis tor bombs were handed over to Arvinder Singh, Manjit Singh and Tirath Singh and remaining bombs were handed over to Sukhwinder Singh and Nimma Singh; the transistor bombs were delivered on 09.05.1985 and were planted on the next day in bus route no. 134, 135, 790, 791, 187 and other buses. On 30.05.1985, house search of accused Manjit Singh, Anoop Singh and Tirath Singh was carried out vide seizure memo.
274. Pursuant to disclosure statement, accused Tirath Singh got re covered one thaila from his house no. WAA1/152, Hastsal Road, Delhi which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW142/H. Pursuant to disclosure statement, accused Manjit Singh got recovered one scooter no. DHK 8145 FIR No.238/85 126/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
from his house No. WZA1/201, J.J. colony, Hastsal Road, Delhi which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW142/J.
275. Accused Manjeet Singh, Chander Mohan Singh, Anoop Singh, Mukhtiar Singh led the police party to the place where they had planted transistor bombs vide pointing out memos Ex. PW 142/K to Ex PW142/O. Pointing out memo of accused Bhupender Singh and Arvinder Singh of the place where they had planted transistor bombs were prepared vide memos Ex. PW142/S & Ex. PW142/T.
276. PW 142 SI Bhim Singh (Rtd.) deposed that on 10.05.1985, ten transistor bombs were planted by accused Mukhtiar Singh, Anoop Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Arvinder Singh, Chander Mohan, Tirath Singh and Man jeet Singh.
277. No evidence was collected to clarify as to whether bomb placed in the bus by accused persons exploded or remained unexploded and if bomb remained unexploded whether same were diffused or not. No de tails/particulars of bus including its number, etc were collected by Investi gating Officer. Infact, nobody has come before the Court to depose that he diffused the bombs. Even the original disclosure statements of these ac cused persons are not on record. There is no material on record to suggest that bomb placed by accused Mukhtiyar Singh, Anoop Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Arvinder Singh, Manjeet Singh and Tirath Singh and Daljeet Singh ever exploded.
FIR No.238/85 127/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
278. It is, therefore, obvious that prosecution failed to lead any con vincing, reliable and cogent evidence to prove the charge against accused Mukhtiyar Singh, Anoop Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Arvinder Singh, Man jeet Singh and Tirath Singh and Daljeet Singh.
279. It is amply clear from the evidence adduced on record that dur ing investigation of the present case, police officials had picked up various persons and made them approvers after pressurizing and torturing them. Those persons were warned that if they did not depose as per demands of police, then they would be made an accused in the present case even their family members were also pressurized and tortured by police. Number of witnesses have deposed about the manner in which police pressurized per sons to depose on the dotted lines so a to create a false edifice of the al leged conspiracy. Jagjit Singh who turned approver deposed before the Court the manner in which he was tortured and made to sign documents and statements under fear of his life and that of his daughters. Both his daughters were examined as PW 353 Gurmeet Kaur and 354 Manmohan Kaur. In their depositions, these two prosecution witnesses have stated the circumstances which were created by police officials to pressurize their fa ther i.e. Jagjit Singh, to make false statement before learned Metropolitan Magistrate and how they were put under threat to their lives and dignity to make false statements before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Similarly, PW 3 Gurvinder Singh was made an approver by the police. In his exami nation before the Court, PW 3 Gurvinder Singh stated that his father FIR No.238/85 128/132 St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
and elder brother were picked up by the police and were let off only after PW 3 made a statement as per the wish of police officials. PW 3 Gurvinder Singh has also deposed that he was put in fear of death.
280. As discussed above, entire case of prosecution is based on cir cumstantial evidence. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive to commit the crime is an important factor to be proved by prosecution. It is prosecution's version that accused persons had hatched a conspiracy to create disharmony amongst various communities to take revenge of Blue Star Operation and riots that happened in November 1984. However, prose cution miserably failed to prove that any relatives, friends, near & dears of accused persons died in 1984 riots or in Blue Star Operation.
In Tomaso Bruno's case (supra) it was held that where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important corroborative piece of evidence. If motive is indicated and proved, it strengthens the probability of the commission of the offence.
281. It is clear from the above discussions that none of the cir cumstances from which the inference of guilt of the accused was sought to be drawn by the prosecution was proved by cogent and reli able evidence. There are vital links missing in the chain of circum stances and it could not be proved conclusively that the crime was committed by the accused persons and none else.
FIR No.238/85 129/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
282. As discussed in earlier part of this judgment, vital documents viz. disclosure statements, seizure memos, statements under Section 164 Cr.PC, pamphlets/letters, etc. are not on record. It cannot even be said that these documents went missing as it was not established by prosecution that these documents did exist or were filed with the charge sheet. Even in the FIR No. 309/06, u/s. 381/409/120B IPC, PS Tilak Marg lodged by learned Predecessor, nature/particulars of documents missing are not mentioned. As a result, various police officials associated with investigation of these cases while deposing in the Court attempted to reproduce disclosure state ments of accused and statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. Such efforts on the part of police officials (witnesses) failed to yield any tangible result sofar as the case of prosecution is concerned, since no recovery was effected pursuant to disclosure statements of most of accused persons. Be sides, whenever recoveries were effected from or at the instance of accused or during search of houses, no effort was made by Investigating Officers to associate public witnesses to recovery/search proceedings rendering the same doubtful.
283. In some cases, public witnesses were associated with the in vestigation but they were not examined in the Court. The indisputable con clusion is that investigation conducted in these cases was defective, loop sided, unfair and suffered from various lacuna. Accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of evidence collected during such faulty investiga tion.
FIR No.238/85 130/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
284. The natural conclusion is that prosecution miserably failed to prove charges against accused Surjit Kaur, Manmohan Singh, Gurdev Singh, Buta Singh, Kulbir Singh @ Bhola, Inderjit Singh @ Happy, Hard eep Singh, Tirath Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda, Arvinder Singh @ Nitu, Anoop Singh, Manjeet Singh, Joginderpal Singh Bhatia, Tarjit Singh, Saravjit Singh, Surinderpal Singh, Daljit Singh, Rajin der Singh, Sewa Singh, Surinderpal Singh @ Dolly, Shahbaz Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jaspal Singh, Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa, Narender Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Harcharan Singh, Gurdeep Singh Sehgal and Gurmeet Singh @ Happy @ Karatewala, beyond reasonable doubt.
285. Accordingly, accused Surjit Kaur, Manmohan Singh, Gurdev Singh, Buta Singh, Kulbir Singh @ Bhola, Inderjit Singh @ Happy, Hard eep Singh, Tirath Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda, Arvinder Singh @ Nitu, Anoop Singh, Manjeet Singh, Joginderpal Singh Bhatia, Tarjit Singh, Saravjit Singh, Surinderpal Singh, Daljit Singh, Rajin der Singh, Sewa Singh, Surinderpal Singh @ Dolly, Shahbaz Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jaspal Singh, Dalvinder Singh @ Pappa, Narender Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Harcharan Singh, Gurdeep Singh Sehgal and Gurmeet Singh @ Happy @ Karatewala are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
286. Bail bonds and surety bonds of accused persons are cancelled. Sureties furnished by accused them are discharged. Original documents of sureties, if any, be released.
FIR No.238/85 131/132St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
287. In terms of Section 437 (A) Cr.PC, accused persons have already furnished their personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/ each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court for a period of six months for their appearance before Hon'ble High Court in the event, the State wishes to file an appeal challenging the present judgment.
288. Before concluding, the court places on record its deep appreciation for Mr. L.D. Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State, Mr. R.M. Tewari, Ms. Sima Gulati, Mr. Rakesh Mahajan as well as Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma, learned defence counsels who extended their whole hearted cooperation in speedy disposal of these 34 years old cases particularly after day to day hearing commenced in these cases from July 2019.
File be consigned to Record Room. Since five accused persons namely Surjit Singh @ Tyrewala, Jagdish Singh @ Narelawala, Iqbal Singh @ Bhale @ Pappa, Narinder Pal Singh and Saravjit Singh are proclaimed offenders, file be preserved.
Announced in open Court (Sandeep Yadav)
on 05.03.2020 Additional Sessions Judge2 (South East)
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No.238/85 132/132
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.