Delhi District Court
State vs . Devender Kumar & Ors. on 19 December, 2015
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh
ASJ/Special Judge : NDPS(N-W) : Rohini Courts : Delhi
In the matter of :
SC No. 42/14
State Vs. Devender Kumar & Ors.
FIR no. 473/92
PS Samai Pur Badli
U/s 147/148/149/186/353/332/307 of IPC
State
Versus
1. Devender Kumar
S/o Sh. Satya Narain
R/o Village Siraspur
Delhi 110042.
2. Sultan Singh.........................(Expired)
3. Daya Nand............................(Expired)
4. Balbir Singh
S/o Sh. Sultan Singh
R/o Village Siraspur
Delhi 110042.
5. Dharmender........................ (Expired)
6. Smt. Bimla
W/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o Village Siraspur
Delhi 110042.
7. Smt. Kamla
W/o Sh. Sant Ram
SC no. 42/14 Page 1 of 37
2
R/o Village Siraspur
Delhi 110042.
8. Smt. Phuloo.........................(Expired)
9. Smt. Shanti Devi...................(Expired)
10. Satbir Singh
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o Village Siraspur
Delhi 110042.
11. Jai Narain............................(Expired)
12. Inderjeet
S/o Sh. Risal Singh
R/o Village Siraspur
Delhi 110042.
13. Smt. Roshni Devi
W/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
R/o Village Siraspur
Delhi 110042.
14. Jaswant...............................(Expired)
Date of receipt : 28.06.1994
(Received in this court) : 09.05.2014
Date of arguments : 19.12.2015
Date of announcement : 19.12.2015
JUDGMENT
1. The present judgment is directed against the above named seven surviving accused only. Besides these seven accused, six more accused, namely, Sultan Singh, Dayanand, Dharmender, Smt. Phulo, Smt. Shanti Devi and Jai Narain were also chargesheeted.
SC no. 42/14 Page 2 of 37 3Those six accused have expired during pendency of trial and proceedings against them stood abated. It may be mentioned here that Jaswant Singh expired during investigation, and regarding his death a cross case was registered under FIR no. 560/1994 in police station S. P. Badli which was registered on 16.12.1994 i.e. more than two years after the incident of this case. Subsequently, pursuant to directions of Hon'ble High Court, the investigation of that cross case was taken up by the CBI under RC no. 4(S)/95/DLI/CBI/N.D, which was also tried together with the present case. Name of Jaswant Singh was mentioned in the present charge sheet also, whereas he had already expired. The present judgment is, therefore, directed against accused Devender Kumar, Balbir Singh, Smt. Bimla, Smt. Kamla, Satbir Singh, Inderjeet and Smt. Roshni Devi only.
1.1. Briefly stated, facts of this case are that on 2.12.1992 at 10.45 AM information was received at police station Samai Pur Badli through PCR, that there was some quarrel at Khera Road, Siraspur at "Jamadaron Wala Kuan". This information was noted in DD no. 13B, and HC Krishan Kumar & Ct. Rajender Singh were deputed to go to the spot. SHO of the police station was also informed and, the SHO along with SI Nand Kishore (Investigating Officer of this case), SI Kanwar Lal, ASI Ramesh Singh, Ct. Jagdish, Ct. Chand Singh, Ct. Arvind Kumar and, Ct. Niranjan Singh also left for the spot. At the spot, SI Ramesh Narang (complainant), Ct. Meer Singh, Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Rohtash Singh, Ct. Pawan Kumar, Ct. Jasvir Singh and Ct. Faiz Ahmad met the investigating officer and the other police SC no. 42/14 Page 3 of 37 4 team and SI Ramesh Narang gave his complaint.
1.2. In his complaint, SI Ramesh Narang stated that he along with Ct.
Meer Singh, Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Rohtash Singh, Ct. Pawan Kumar, Ct. Jasvir Singh and Ct. Faiz Ahmad came to the house of accused Balbir Singh at village Siraspur for arresting the accused who were wanted in another FIR no. 467/1992 of police station Samai Pur Badli U/s 324/307/34 IPC, which also was being investigated by SI Ramesh Narang. SI Ramesh claimed that he came to the house of Balbir Singh under DD no. 11B. Balbir Singh accused was standing on the roof of his house, he was asked to come down and join investigation. Accused Balbir Singh started abusing the police team. He also called other members of his family asking them to teach the police team a lesson. Upon it, deceased accused Jaswant Singh came with a "jailley"; Sultan Singh came with a Kasola; Dayanand came with a lathi; Devender came with an iron rod; Dharmender brought one lathi; accused Satbir brought a country made pistol; accused Inderjeet brought some "ustara" like substance and; accused Kamla, Phulo and Bimla also came there. Accused Bimla caught hold of the collar of uniform of SI Ramesh and pulled it. Accused Phulo caught hold of neck of Ct. Jasvir Singh and pulled him and also tore his uniform. Accused Kamla started beating SI Ramesh with her sleeper. Accused Inderjeet inflicted a blow from ustara kind of article on the chest of SI Ramesh. All the accused persons started beating the police team members with the help of weapons they were carrying. As a result, Ct. Bal Kishan sustained injury on his face from jailley, and SI Ramesh Narang and other SC no. 42/14 Page 4 of 37 5 constables also sustained injuries. In the meanwhile, accused Satbir fired a bullet from his country made pistol towards SI Ramesh, but the bullet missed SI Ramesh. When SI Ramesh found the situation going out of control, he took out his service revolver and fired two rounds of bullet in air, in order to scare the assailants. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot. But after sometime all these accused along with accused Jai Narain, accused Roshni and, 5-6 more persons returned to the spot. The accused persons started assaulting the police team with the help of weapons they were carrying, as mentioned above. Accused Shanti Devi and 4-5 other ladies also started pelting stones on the police team from the roof top. Meanwhile, SI Nand Kishore, the SHO of police station and other police force arrived, and used appropriate force to control the situation. Accused Balbir Singh, Jaswant Singh, Devender, Dayanand, Sultan Singh, Dharmender Singh, Smt. Bimla, Smt. Kamla, Smt. Shanti and Smt. Phulo Devi were apprehended from the spot. In the incident, Ct. Arvind Kumar, Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Satya pal, Ct. Duli Chand, Ct. Jasbir Singh and, SI Ramesh Narang sustained injuries. It is claimed that the weapons of offence i.e. jailley, lathi, iron rod, Kasola, etc. were recovered from the spot. Subsequently, accused Satbir Singh was arrested on 4.12.1992. Accused Jai Narain, Inderjeet and Roshni Devi were granted anticipatory bail. Accused Jaswant expired during investigation and qua his death cross case was registered.
1.3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the thirteen accused persons, under the above mentioned sections.
SC no. 42/14 Page 5 of 37 62. Accordingly, vide order dated 8.4.2003, my Ld. Predecessor directed framing of charges against the accused persons U/s 147/148 IPC & also Sec. 186, 353, 332 & 307 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC. Formal charges were framed against the accused persons on 6.5.2003 under the above mentioned sections, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined total 15 witnesses, out of whom the eye witnesses examined are PW1 Randhir Singh; PW2 Ct. Bal Kishan; PW6 Ct. Arvind; PW9 SI Ramesh Narang and; PW13 HC Niranjan Singh. The investigating officer SI Nand Kishore is examined as PW14. Other witnesses are more or less formal in nature.
3.1. PW3 Dr. Rekha Jain was examined twice in the matter, on 14.2.2006 and on 24.4.2006. She proved the MLC of Ct. Arvind Kumar and Ct. Duli Chand as Ex.PW3/A & B, respectively. She also proved MLC of complainant SI Ramesh Narang as Ex.PW3/C. According to this witness injury no. 1 on SI Ramesh Narang was with sharp weapon and injury no. 2 was a blunt injury. In the cross examination, the witness agreed to the suggestion of accused that that there was a possibility that the injury no. 1 could have been caused by nails.
3.2. PW4 Dr. C. P. Sharma examined X-ray plates of accused Sultan Singh, Balbir Singh, Dharmender and the X-ray plate of witness Ct. Jasvir Singh, and gave his report Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and, Ex.PW4/D & E. SC no. 42/14 Page 6 of 37 7 3.3. PW5 Deep Chand Joint CP proved his complaint U/s 195 of Cr.P.C as Ex.PW5/A. 3.4. PW7 Dr. Ratna Chopra proved the MLCs of accused Sultan Singh, Balbir and Shanti Devi as Ex.PW7/A, B & C, respectively.
3.5. PW8 Dr. R. N. Sahai proved the medical case sheets of accused injured Sultan Singh, accused injured Balbir Singh and accused injured Smt. Shanti Devi, as Ex.PW8/A, B & C. He also proved the MLC of accused injured Dharmender as Ex.PW8/D. 3.6. PW10 Dr. S. Bansal proved the MLCs of Ct. Satya Pal Singh, Ct.
Bal Kishan, accused Sultan Singh, Ct. Jasvir Singh and, accused Shanti Devi as Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW7 /C, respectively.
3.7. PW11 Dr. O. P. Thakur proved the MLC of deceased accused Jaswant as Ex.PW11/A. 3.8. PW15 Ms. Suman Lata did not support the case of prosecution qua the fact that she accompanied any policeman from the police station Samai Pur Badli to the spot on the date of incident or that she took the four ladies accused namely Smt. Phulo Devi, Smt. Shanti, Smt. Bimla or Smt. Kamla from the spot to the hospital. The witness deposed that as a Home Guard Constable, she was posted in police Station S. P. Badli on 2.12.1992, and at 10.30 AM on the request of some police officer, she accompanied those four ladies to the hospital from the police station itself. She also deposed that she conducted personal search of the four lady accused in the police station. The witness was declared hostile by the SC no. 42/14 Page 7 of 37 8 prosecution and was cross examined. In the cross examination by the prosecution also, the witness maintained the stand that she did not accompany Ct. Inder Singh, Ct. Chander Phool or Ct. Rajender Singh to the spot from the police station and that she did not take the lady accused to the hospital from the spot. The time of taking the lady accused to the hospital, as claimed by this witness in her examination in chief, is 10.30 AM.
It would be worth mentioning here that in the MLC Ex.PW7/A of accused Shanti Devi, the time of reaching hospital is 3.00 PM. It would also be worth noting here that in the personal search memos of these four ladies, Ex.PW13/H, J, K & L, name of Ct. Niranjan appears in a different ink from the ink used in the contents of the rest of the document. These documents do not bear signatures of Ct. Niranjan. In any case, Ct. Niranjan was not a witness to the personal search of the ladies. But this fact that his name appears as a witness on these documents indicates manipulation with the documents by the investigating officer.
3.9. PW12 ASI Daya Chand was the duty officer in the police station on 2.12.1992. He deposed that he got the FIR of the present case registered at about 1.00 PM when Ct. Niranjan Singh came and handed over rukka sent by SI Nand Kishore for registration of FIR. The copy of FIR is proved as Ex.PW12/B. In his cross examination, the witness denied that the FIR of this case was ante timed, but admitted that on the FIR the time of recording of FIR contains an over writing. Perusal of the FIR reveals that against the column SC no. 42/14 Page 8 of 37 9 of the date and time when reported, DD no. 8A dated 2.12.1992 is noted with time. The time appears to have been changed from 8.00 PM to 1.00 PM. In his cross examination, the witness also admits that Ct. Jasbir no. 665-NW left the police station for ACP office on government motorcycle at 3.00 PM as per DD no. 3A in the rojnamcha register.
3.10. PW1 Randhir Singh, the so called independent witness from the neighbourhood where the incident took place, did not support the case of prosecution at all. He deposed that certain police officials had asked his name and address on date of incident and he did not know anything about the case. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined, in which also nothing in favour of the prosecution could be brought forth. The witness denied that in his statement given to the police he had said that he had witnessed the incident or that he was unable to narrate the incident in court due to fear of the accused. The witness also denied any such statement given to the police. Rather he deposed that he had not witnessed the incident and he did not even come to know about the incident later on.
3.11. PW2 Ct. Bal Kishan was a member of the initial police team which reached the spot with SI Ramesh Narang. He supported the case of prosecution. The witness deposed that on 2.12.1992 at about 10- 10.15 AM, he along with SI Ramesh Narang, Ct. Jasbir Singh, Ct. Meer Singh, Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Faiz Ahmad reached the spot in connection with investigation of FIR no. 467/92. Accused Balbir was found on the roof top of the house. He was asked to come down, SC no. 42/14 Page 9 of 37 10 but accused Balbir started abusing the police team and started attributing motives to the police team. He also called his other family members. All the accused persons and others gathered. Accused Jaswant Singh was carrying a jailley. Accused Sultan Singh was carrying a Kasola. Accused Devender Singh was carrying an iron rod. Accused Dayanand and Dharmender were carrying lathies. Accused Inderjeet was carrying an ustara like weapon and, accused Satbir Singh was carrying a country made pistol. Accused Bimla caught the collar of SI Ramesh Narang. Accused Phulo caught collar of Ct. Jasbir Singh and she also tore uniform of SI Ramesh Narang. Accused Kamla started beating SI Ramesh Narang with her sleepers. Accused Inderjeet gave a blow on the chest of SI Ramesh Narang with the ustara like weapon he was carrying. Other persons also attacked the police team. Accused Satbir Singh fired bullet from his country made pistol towards SI Ramesh Narang, but SI Ramesh Narang managed to save himself. Thereafter, SI Ramesh Narang fired two air shots from his service revolver in order to disperse the accused. The accused persons then fled from the spot, but they returned to the spot within 5-7 minutes, this time accompanied by 2-3 more persons. This time the lady accused were having stones and bricks in their hands. One Jai Narain was also accompanying them at this time besides Roshni and Shanti Devi. Meanwhile, pursuant to a message sent by SI Ramesh Narang through his wireless set, SHO of the police station along with additional police force arrived at the spot. Lathi charge had to be resorted to, in order to disperse the accused persons and SC no. 42/14 Page 10 of 37 11 their associates who were attacking the police team. In the incident in question, this witness Ct. Bal Kishan, SI Ramesh Narang, Ct. Jasbir Singh, Ct. Duli Chand, Ct. Satpal and Ct. Arvind sustained injuries. According to the witness, all the accused persons including the deceased accused were apprehended from the spot itself while they were trying to flee from the spot. The investigating officer SI Nand Kishore recorded statements of the victims at the spot and took the weapons of offence in possession vide seizure memos. The witness identified the accused persons in the court.
The weapons of offence i.e. lathi, kasola, jailey etc., which were allegedly recovered from the accused persons at the spot, were never produced in the evidence of the prosecution. Instead it was claimed that all those weapons were not traceable in the Malkhana, and regarding that fact one case under section 409 of IPC was lodged under FIR no. 356/2003 in the police station Samai Pur Badli against the concerned malkhana moharrar. It may be mentioned here that, what was the outcome of that investigation against the malkhana moharrar of the police station qua missing of the weapons has never been brought forth till now by the prosecution. Whether any charge sheet was filed against anyone in that case U/s 409 of IPC, or whether any trial at all took place, is not known. However, interestingly, two parcels sealed with the seal of RPS which contained torned police uniform were produced. One of those two parcels contained vest and shirt of Ct. Jasbir Singh, Ex.P1 & P2. Another parcel contained shirt, SC no. 42/14 Page 11 of 37 12 vest and handkerchief of SI Ramesh, Ex.P3 to P5. Interestingly, neither the malkhana moharrar was examined in the present matter to prove the deposition of weapons of offence or any other article vide any entry in the register no. 19, nor those entries were proved. When it was the case of prosecution that the weapons were deposited in the malkhana after having been recovered from the accused, and when those weapons were missing from the malkhana subsequently, at least those entries ought to have been proved. But even those entries were not proved.
3.12. PW9 SI Ramesh Narang is the complainant of this case. He was investigating officer of earlier case FIR no. 462/92. This witness deposed that he along with Ct. Meer Singh, Ct. Pawan, Ct. Faiz Ahmad, Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Jasbir left for investigation of that earlier case under DD no. 11B. They reached village Siraspur in order to arrest accused Balbir and others, at about 10.15 AM. Accused Balbir was spotted on the roof top of his house. He was asked to come down and join the investigation of the said earlier case. The accused Balbir started abusing and attributing motives to the police team. He called his other family members, upon which accused Jaswant came with a two fork jailley; accused Sultan Singh came with a kasola; accused Dayanand and Dharmender came with a lathis; accused Devender came with an iron rod; accused Satbir came with a country made pistol and; accused Inderjeet came with an ustara like weapon. Accused Bimla, Kamla and Phulo also came there. All the accused SC no. 42/14 Page 12 of 37 13 persons started abusing and quarreling with the police team. He tried to reason with the accused, but they did not pay any heed to his request. The police team was in uniform. He was carrying his service revolver and a wireless set. Ct. Bal Kishan was carrying a rifle, whereas, other policemen were unarmed. Accused Bimla caught hold of collar of this witness and accused Kamla started beating this witness with her sleepers. In the incident, his uniform got torn. Accused Phulo started manhandling Ct. Jasbir and tore his uniform too. In the meantime, accused Inderjeet attacked this witness with the sharp edged weapon carried by him, on the left side of his chest, as a result of which blood started oozing out. He immediately called for extra force by asking Ct. Jasbir to make a call to the control room. Accused Satbir fired upon him with country made pistol, but he saved himself. Accused Jaswant attacked Bal Kishan with Jailley and Bal Kishan sustained injuries on his face. The accused persons continued giving beatings to the police officials. He then fired two air shots from his revolver upon which the accused persons fled, but returned within moments. This time they were accompanied by other accused Roshni, Jai Narain, Shanti and others. It is stated that besides the accused persons, there were 10-12 other persons including approximately half of them as ladies, but they could not be identified or apprehended. The accused persons again attacked the police party and this time bricks and stones were also thrown from the roof top of accused Balbir and other nearby houses. In the meantime, SHO with additional force, the PCR Van, as well as Police Reserved Force, SC no. 42/14 Page 13 of 37 14 arrived at the spot. Lathi charge had to be resorted to. It is deposed that accused Dharmender, Devender, Balbir, Jaswant, Dayanand, Sultan Singh, Bimla, Kamla, Phulo and Shanti were apprehended from the spot itself and the weapons of offence carried by the accused persons were also recovered from them at the spot itself. Six police officials sustained injuries, including this witness. The witness also deposed that during the incident when the accused persons tried to flee from the spot and in the process fell on the way before they were apprehended, the accused also sustained some injuries.
The witness deposed that at the spot itself, he was feeling very low because of the injuries sustained by him and at the spot itself, his uniform was taken into possession by the investigating officer, after his complaint was recorded. Thereafter, from the spot the injured policemen were sent to the hospital. Interestingly, though the witness claims that he was feeling very low because of injuries sustained, but he was not taken to the hospital immediately and he remained at the spot till after his statement was recorded, FIR was registered, accused were arrested and, recovery of weapon was effected at the spot.
3.13. PW6 Ct. Arvind Kumar reached the spot along with the SHO after receiving a distress signal from the team at the spot. The witness deposed that at about 10.45 AM on 2.12.1992, SHO of PS Samai Pur Badli told them about the incident at the spot and then he along with the SHO, ASI Ramesh, ASI Kanwar Lal, HC Krishan Kumar, SI SC no. 42/14 Page 14 of 37 15 Nand Kishore and certain other police officials went to the spot. At the spot, he saw accused Devender, Dharmender, Balbir, Jaswant and 3-4 other persons along with the lady accused Kamla, Bimla, Phulo and Shanti, were throwing bricks. All of them were giving beatings to SI Ramesh Narang and other police officials with the weapons they were carrying and the ladies were throwing bricks from the roof top. Reasonable force was used to control the crowd. The witness deposed that he sustained injuries due to the lathi blow given by one of the accused. But he did not specify in his evidence as to which of the accused gave that lathi blow. He claimed that he sustained injuries on his back also due to the stone pelting. He claimed that the police party as well as accused party sustained injuries in controlling the crowd and thereafter accused were apprehended from the spot with weapons.
3.14. PW13 HC Niranjan Singh also deposed that he accompanied ASI Nand Kishore and other police officials to the spot after receipt of information about the incident under DD no. 13B. The witness claimed that when he reached the spot with SI Nand Kishore and others, he saw the accused persons present at the spot were armed with various weapons. The ladies accused were throwing bricks and stones on the police team i.e. SI Ramesh Narang and others. Accused Balbir was carrying a jailley and other accused were also armed, but the witness could not specify as to which of the accused was armed with which kind of weapon. He deposed that after force was used under the directions of SHO, the crowd dispersed and the accused persons were apprehended. He SC no. 42/14 Page 15 of 37 16 deposed that accused Balbir, Devender and Dharmender, along with a number of other persons including ladies, were apprehended by the police team. Thereafter, complaint of SI Ramesh Narang was taken down, rukka was prepared and he was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. After getting the case registered, the witness returned to the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka which he handed over to SI Nand Kishore. Thereafter, uniform of SI Ramesh, bricks and stones, weapons were taken into police possession after sealing them with the seal of NK. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Prosecutor on the point as to which accused was carrying which weapon and which accused was arrested from the spot. The witness in his cross examination admitted the suggestion of the Prosecutor that it was accused Jaswant and not accused Balbir who was carrying jailley; it was accused Jaswant who was carrying Kasola; Sultan Singh was carrying lathi and; Devender was carrying an iron rod.
3.15. PW14 SI Nand Kishore was the investigating officer of this case, who also supported the case of prosecution. The witness deposed that on receipt of DD no. 13B, he reached the spot along with other police officials including PW6 Ct. Arvind and PW13 HC Niranjan. At the spot, the accused persons were assaulting SI Ramesh Narang and others. The accused persons were over powered after using adequate force and after dispersing the crowd. From accused Jaswant Singh a jailley; from accused Sultan Singh a Kasola; from accused Devender an iron rod; from accused Dayanand and Dharmender lathies, were recovered. In the process of SC no. 42/14 Page 16 of 37 17 overpowering the accused, the accused persons also sustained injuries. Police officials had also sustained injuries due to the beatings given by the accused persons. Thereafter, complaint of SI Ramesh Narang was taken down, on which rukka was prepared and the case was got registered through Ct. Niranjan. The weapons of offence were also recovered and taken into possession. Uniform of SI Ramesh Narang and Ct. Jasbir were also taken into possession. The accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted. Medical of the injureds was also got conducted. Accused Satbir was arrested on 3.12.1992. However, the country made pistol used by Satbir could not be recovered.
4. On completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons facing trial were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused persons denied the evidence against them and claimed that they never were armed at the spot and they never abused or quarreled with the police team. SI Ramesh Narang and other policemen, were never assaulted by any of the accused. Rather the police officials gave beatings to them including the lady accused. In the beatings given to the accused persons by the policemen, Uday Singh and his two sons, Krishan and Jai Prakash were also there. It is claimed that accused Inderjeet and Satbir were not even present at the spot. It is although admitted by the accused persons that SI Ramesh Narang fired shots in the air, but it is claimed that he did so to create a false defence against merciless beatings given to the accused persons. It is also claimed that there was no chance of accused fleeing from the spot as they were injured in the beatings SC no. 42/14 Page 17 of 37 18 given by the police. It is also claimed that accused Roshni Devi, Jai Narain and Shanti were not even present at the spot. Shanti and Dayanand were apprehended later on and brought to the police station. Recovery of weapons is denied. The injuries on the policemen are claimed to be self-inflicted injuries. It is also claimed that Jaswant Singh expired due to the beatings given by SI Ramesh Narang and others, regarding which a cross case was registered which was later investigated by CBI. It is claimed that accused Satbir was apprehended on 2.12.1992 when he went to the police station to serve food to the injured co-accused and he was falsely shown as arrested on 3.12.1992. It is also claimed that the story of missing of weapons is concocted one and that the clothes of injured were not blood stained.
4.1. Accused claimed that SI Ramesh Narang along with Ct. Meer Singh, Ct. Pawan Kumar, Ct. Mohsin Khan, Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Rohtash, Ct. Jasbir came to the spot along with Uday Singh and his two sons Jai Prakash and Krishan, but it is claimed that Ct. Faiz Ahmad was not with SI Ramesh Narang. Accused Balbir Singh admitted that he was present in his house at that time and he came down from the roof as police officials signaled him. He claimed that accused Dayanand, Shanti Devi, Inderjeet, Satbir, Jai Narain and Roshni Devi were not even his family members and they were not present in his house at that time. He claimed that accused Jaswant, Sultan Singh, Devender, Dharmender, himself and his family ladies were unarmed at that time and nobody abused or assaulted the police team. He claimed that Dayanand, Inderjeet and Satbir were SC no. 42/14 Page 18 of 37 19 not even present at the spot and they were implicated falsely by the police to save their own skin. He claimed that Ct. Mohsin Khan was carrying a rifle and, SI Ramesh Narang was not carrying any wireless set. He also claimed that Ct. Meer Singh was not in uniform. He also claimed that Lady Ct. Suman lata was not with the police at the spot at any time. He also claimed that the so called blood stained clothes of injured police officials were not sent to the FSL. He claimed that family of Uday Singh had a dispute of land with the accused and in the earlier case FIR no. 467 of 1992, the accused had been acquitted and the police officials fabricated the DD entries to shield the guilty policemen.
4.2. In support of their defence, all the accused persons examined total six witnesses.
4.3. DW1 Rajender Singh deposed that accused Satbir was present in Village Kheda Khurd from 7 AM till 12 noon on 2.12.1992 as he was running a tent business at Village Siraspur and he had brought the articles to erect tent for marriage function of family member of one Sardar Singh.
4.4. To the same effect is the evidence of DW2 Pramod Kumar who deposed that accused Satbir was asked to erect the tent in the marriage of his sister Sheela Devi at Village Kheda Khurd at about 7.30 or 8.00 AM on 2.12.1992 and thereafter he got busy in other work in the house.
4.5. DW3 Rajbir deposed that on 2.12.1992 at about 11-11.15 AM, police officials were threatening and beating some public persons SC no. 42/14 Page 19 of 37 20 and when he intervened, he was also given 4-5 danda blows and then he was taken to the police station, but was later on released, after an hour.
4.6. Similarly, DW4 Sabir Ali deposed that on 2.12.1992 at about 11- 11.15 AM, he was going to dispensary located at Village Siraspur and when he reached in front of house of accused Balbir Singh, he saw that some police officials were throwing bricks and stones and were also taking photographs of the site. Thereafter, police started lathi charge and the witness left the spot.
4.7. DW5 Vijay Pal Rana, who is grandson of deceased accused Shanti, deposed that on 2.12.1992 at about 11-11.15 AM, some police officials came to their house, enquired about his father Prakash Chand Rana i.e. son of Shanti Devi and when she expressed ignorance, she was abused and taken to the police station. When the witness tried to reason, he was threatened by the police officials.
4.8. The sixth defence witness examined in the matter is none other than accused Balbir Singh. However, inadvertently this witness has been numbered as DW1. This witness Balbir Singh deposed that a quarrel took place between Uday Singh and others on the one hand and Risal Singh and others on the other hand, on 22.11.1992 at about 8 PM. In the said quarrel Surat Singh, Mehtab, Kartar Singh and Jai Narayan received injuries on their head. But instead of registering case against Uday Singh and his associates, FIR no. 467 of 1992 was registered against injureds of that case SC no. 42/14 Page 20 of 37 21 U/s 324/34 IPC on the complaint of Rishi Rana. In the said FIR, Surat Singh, Prakash Chand and Jagdish were only shown as accused and no one else was an accused. SI Ramesh Narang was the investigating officer of that case. Thereafter, on 24.11.1992, SI Ramesh Narang prepared a Kalandara U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C vide DD no. 28A and in the said Kalandara also, name of Balbir Singh was not shown anywhere. The said DD entry is proved as Ex.DW1/1. Thereafter on 25.11.1992, some miscreants broke the window panes of bus no. DL1P 2118, of brother of this witness. A PCR call was made qua this incident. Again SI Ramesh Narang came to attend the call and lodged DD no. 45B Ex.DW1/2 in this regard. Even at that time, SI Ramesh Narang came and met this accused/witness Balbir Singh, but did not interrogate him or arrest him in FIR no. 467/92, because till that time his name did not exist as an accused in that case. Subsequently, on 27.11.1992, SI Ramesh Narang personally admitted Surat Singh, Prakash Chand and Jagdish to bail in the said FIR no. 467/92 at the house of accused Dayanand and till that time also, name of accused Dayanand and this accused/witness Balbir Singh did not exist in FIR no. 467/92. In this regard, DD no. 22 is proved as Ex.DW1/3. Thereafter, on 2.12.1992, SI Ramesh Narang along with six other police officials came to his house at 10.00 AM and he was signaled to come down from the roof top of his house. Accordingly, he came down. At that time, Uday Singh and his two sons were also with the police team. Uday Singh pointed out towards accused/witness Balbir Singh. SI Ramesh Narang was carrying one revolver and a SC no. 42/14 Page 21 of 37 22 lathi, one constable was carrying a rifle and the remaining police officials were carrying dandas in their hands. SI Ramesh Narang enquired about Prakash Chand and Jagdish from this witness/accused Balbir Singh. The witness/accused expressed ignorance. Upon it, SI Ramesh Narang asked the witness/accused to accompany the police to the police station. In the meantime, his elder brother Jaswant (deceased) reached there and questioned as to why the witness/accused was being taken to police station. Uday Singh told SI Ramesh that this witness/accused was instrumental in getting Prakash Chand released on bail in the FIR no. 467/92 and exhorted that the witness/accused and others be beaten till they die. SI Ramesh Narang thereafter fired three gun shots in the air. The witness/accused and Jaswant rushed towards the house due to fear, but they were caught by Jai Prakash and Kishan and were thrown to the ground. Jaswant was also beaten by Jai Prakash and Kishan. Ramesh Narang started giving lathi blows to Jaswant. Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Meer Singh started beating this accused/witness Balbir. In the meanwhile, Smt. Bimla, Kamla and Phulo, the family members of this witness/accused reached there. They questioned SI Ramesh Narang as to why Balbir and Jaswant were being beaten. On this, Ct. Mohammad Hashim Khan started beating Bimla Devi. Ct. Pawan gave beatings to Smt. Kamla. Other police officials gave beatings to Phulo Devi. When accused Devender came out of the house and enquired about the beatings being given, Ct. Meer Singh gave beatings to Devender also. Dharmender also came out of the house, but rushed back. The SC no. 42/14 Page 22 of 37 23 witness/accused and his other family members were bundled into the police vehicle. Additional force was called. The witness/accused and his family members were again taken out of the vehicle and again were mercilessly beaten. Subsequently, they were taken to the police station. Sultan Singh, father of the witness, who was aged about 85 years, was also dragged by the police. In order to take out Dharmender from inside the house, police entered the house, and gave beatings to him. In the police station this witness/accused and Jaswant were forced to lie on the ground in front of the lock up, and again they were beaten. Jaswant, who was seriously injured, asked for water but was refused by SI Ramesh Narang. The family members of the witness/accused were beaten for two hours in the police station and no medical aid was provided. The lady family members were taken to the police station without presence of any lady police official. Subsequently, they were taken to the hospital. From the hospital, the witness and his family members, except Jaswant were brought to the police station, where signatures of the witness/accused and other accused were taken by SI Ramesh Narang along with the photographs. When Satbir Singh brought some tea and snacks for the accused persons, even he was apprehended by SI Ramesh Narang at the instance of Kishan son of Uday Singh. In the night, again this witness/accused was beaten. Witness/accused was again examined in DDU hospital along with some other accused vide MLCs Ex.DW1/4 to 1/7. Subsequently, Jaswant Singh expired due to the beatings given by the police. The witness also deposed that he came to know from his SC no. 42/14 Page 23 of 37 24 sister-in-law Murti Devi that police officials took away some articles from the house and had also taken photographs of the crime scene by planting certain stones at the road, regarding which complaints were sent to different authorities by this witness. The inquest proceedings conducted by SDM qua death of Jaswant Singh have been exhibited as Ex.DW1/8 collectively.
5. I have heard Ld. Prosecutor for the State, and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. SI Ramesh Narang has been heard personally also. I have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused persons.
6. There is delay in registration of the present FIR. Admittedly, the incident of this case occurred at about 10.30 AM. The information qua the incident, whatever occurred at the spot, reached police station S. P. Badli at 10.45 AM, regarding which DD no. 13 was lodged. The rukka of this case is claimed to have been dispatched at 12.30 PM. The FIR is claimed to have been registered at 1.00 PM. FIR in this case has been exhibited as Ex.PW12/B. 6.1. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that the time of registration of FIR has been changed and over written from 8.00 PM to 1.00 PM. That overwriting is writ large on this document. This fact indicates that the FIR of the present case was registered belatedly and not at 1.00 PM. It seems that for the said reason in the rukka also, the endorsement qua registration of FIR, which is usually made in all the cases, is not there in the present case. The rukka is Ex.PW14/A, where there is no endorsement by the duty officer after SC no. 42/14 Page 24 of 37 25 registration of FIR, which is usually done in every criminal case. It seems that either the last page of rukka Ex.PW14/A was replaced or that the said rukka itself was prepared belatedly. For the same reason, there is no DD entry proved regarding registration of FIR at 1.00 PM. This delay in registration of FIR has not been explained.
7. The case property of this case viz., the weapons and arms used by the accused against the police team i.e. lathies, jailey, kasola, etc. have never been produced in the trial of this case. Though it is claimed that those weapons were recovered from the accused persons who were arrested at the spot, but those weapons were never produced in the court. It is mentioned in the rukka itself that from possession of deceased accused Jaswant Singh one jailey; from Sultan Singh one kasola; from (Davender) one iron rod; from Dayanand and Dharmender one lathi each, were recovered. Though during trial it was claimed that the case property was lost from malkhana and regarding it one FIR U/s 408 of IPC was registered, but the fate of that case was never proved. It was not even proved whether any charge sheet was filed in that case. This is important particularly in view of the fact that though at the spot the uniform of SI Ramesh Narang and another police official was also claimed to have been recovered and were produced in the court, but the weapons which were recovered simultaneously were never produced.
8. The DD entries of this case appears to have been manipulated.
8.1. The DD no. 13 lodged at 10.45 AM regarding proceeding of HC SC no. 42/14 Page 25 of 37 26 Krishan Kumar, Ct. Rajender Singh and others, including SI Nand Kishore the investigating officer, to the spot would reveal that it is a manipulated document. The original DD register is annexed in the cross case against the police officials. In the said original DD register, DD no. 13 is Ex.PW28/A, and it would show that entry qua the fact that Lady constable Suman Lata went with SI Nand Kishore and others to the spot, is added with a different pen and ink. Also the fact that the arms were carried, was added subsequently. In the present file, true copy of DD no. 13 is Mark B during prosecution evidence but during defence evidence, this DD was proved as Ex.DW1/12 in the evidence of DW Balbir Singh. This document is relied upon by the prosecution itself. Prosecution cannot deny this document. The said true copy of DD no. 13 does not talk about carrying of weapons or the fact that lady Ct. Suman Lata went to the spot with SI Nand Kishore and others. It means that when this true copy was prepared there was no mention in the original DD about carrying of weapons or the fact that lady Ct. Suman Lata went to the spot with SI Nand Kishore and others.
8.2. Similarly, there is cutting and addition in DD no. 11, which was registered at 9.50 AM by SI Ramesh Narang to the effect that he along with other constables went to Siraspur village. The fact that the police team went in government vehicle with driver and that arms were carried, has been added in this DD subsequently, as is clear from the entry itself. In the column no. 3, of this DD, the case FIR no. 467/92 and under sections, intending to show that SI Ramesh Narang went qua investigation of FIR no. 467, has been SC no. 42/14 Page 26 of 37 27 added with a different ink. The said original DD register in cross case contains the DD no. 11 as Ex.PW29/F.
9. The claim of PW2 Ct. Bal Kishan that Ct. Fayaz Ahmad accompanied the first team headed by SI Ramesh Narang to the spot gets belied from the fact that Fayaz Ahmad categorically deposed that he was not a member of the first party and he was off duty at that time. Similarly, the claim of SI Nand Kishore that Ct. Fayaz was already present at the spot when he reached the spot, becomes doubtful.
10. The claim of Bal Kishan (PW2) that lady Ct. Suman Lata accompanied the SHO and SI Nand Kishore etc. gets belied from the fact that Suman Lata as PW15 specifically denied that fact and, the fact that Suman Lata went to the spot as contained in DD no. 13 is also subsequently added in the DD.
11. There is a serious contradiction in the testimony of witnesses as to how SI Ramesh Narang called the additional force. SI Ramesh Narang claimed that since his wireless set was defective, he asked Ct. Jasbir to make a call for additional force, whereas Ct. Bal Kishan claimed that SI Ramesh Narang called additional force from his wireless set itself.
12. The genuineness of the case of prosecution is also doubtful from the fact that in the recovery memos of the arms, purportedly recovered from the accused persons, the witnesses shown are Ct. Arvnid, Ct. Bal Kishan and Ct. Niranjan Singh. In the recovery memos, two or all three of them are witnesses. In the recovery SC no. 42/14 Page 27 of 37 28 memo of kasola from accused Sultan Singh and; in the recovery memo of lathis from Dharmender and Dayanand, all three of them are witnesses. In the recovery memo of jailey from deceased Jaswant and; iron rod from Devender, Ct. Bal Kishan and Ct. Niranjan Singh are witnesses. Out of them, Ct. Arvind and Ct. Bal Kishan allegedly sustained injuries at the hands of the accused persons. Ct. Arvind Kumar and Ct. Bal Kishan both reached HRH at 1.10 PM as reflected from their MLCs Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW10/B, respectively. Rukka contains time of dispatch from the spot as 12.30 PM. Admittedly recovery memos of weapons were not prepared prior to rukka. Perusal of the MLC of SI Ramesh Narang & Ct. Duli Chand reveal that they reached HRH at 1.20 PM. FIR of this case is shown to have been registered at 1 PM. If FIR was registered at 1.00 PM, these recovery memos which bear FIR number could not have been prepared before it. It was not possible to prepare these recovery memos between 1 PM to 1.10 PM and then the injured police officials reaching the hospital within ten minutes, particularly when the distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital is more than ten kilometers. Also the MLCs of police officials mostly records that the police officials absconded from the hospital. This fact is revealed in MLC of Ct. Satyapal Ex.PW10/A, MLC of Ct. Bal Kishan Ex.PW10/B, MLC of Ct. Arvind Ex.PW3/A and MLC of Ct. Dui Chand Ex.PW3/B. When these police officials absconded from the hospital, it is highly unlikely that they went to the spot from hospital to become witnesses in these recovery memos, after the registration of FIR.
SC no. 42/14 Page 28 of 37 2913. Medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular allegations. The injuries sustained by the police team as reflected in the MLCs also does not support the case of prosecution, so far as the nature of injuries and the allegations made by the police team against the accused are concerned. In brief, police team alleges that Balbir Singh and his family members were armed with dangerous weapons viz., jailey, kasola, iron rod, lathies, ustara and a country made pistol. They also pelted stones on the police team, as per the allegations. Police officials claim that they were attacked by Balbir Singh and his family members with those weapons and also by stone pelting. In the background of those allegations, if one peruses MLCs of police officials, the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular one. In the MLC of Ct. Arvind, what is mentioned is that he was having pain and swelling on right hand and he complained of back pain. In the MLC of Ct. Duli Chand, only pain and swelling in left hand was observed. In MLC of Ct. Satyapal Singh, pain in knee, thumb and right side chest was only disclosed. Ct. Bal Kishan had a punctured wound and swelling of size 2 cm X 2cm below left eye, that too 2 cm below. It was only SI Ramesh Narang in whose MLC one clean incised wound of 8 cm on his chest was noticed. His second injury was complaint of back pain.
13.1. It does not go down well that the accused persons who were many in numbers and were armed with deadly weapons, attacked the police team for a substantial time in a free for all kind of attack, yet, most of the police officials sustained only superficial kind of injuries. Had the police officials been actually attacked with those deadly SC no. 42/14 Page 29 of 37 30 weapons, the injuries would have been certainly different and more serious in nature. It indicates that what is claimed before this court is not the actual occurrence of events and indeed colour has been given to the sequence of events that took place. How much is the improvement made by the complainant side in this case, i.e. the police team, cannot be ascertained. It cannot be found as to how much of the deposition of police officials is true and how much false.
14. Allegedly, one gun shot was also fired by one of the accused from a country made pistol towards SI Ramesh Narang and it is claimed that SI Ramesh Narang saved himself. But then no fired cartridge was also found from the spot. No country made pistol has been recovered from anybody from which the fire could have been made. Non-recovery of the fired cartridge, absence of any bullet injury to any injured and absence of any other scientific evidence from the spot indicating that any such bullet was fired, makes it difficult for the court to believe this version.
15. Contrary to the nature of injuries suffered by the police team, the accused persons suffered various injuries which have not been explained. The police team tried to explain the injuries on the accused persons by claiming that those injuries were sustained by the accused persons when the police resorted to lathi charge in order to control the mob and when there was a stampede like situation at the spot. It has never been the version of police officials that the outsiders from public also participated in the melee. Yet, the injuries noticed on the dead body of Jaswant at the time of his post SC no. 42/14 Page 30 of 37 31 mortem would reveal that he had suffered various injuries including fracture of his femur. The injuries sustained by Jaswant Singh, as recorded in his post mortem report, are as follows :-
External Injuries
1) Contusion 9 x 2cm, outer aspect of lower part of forearm, blue in colour;
2) Contusion 8 x 5 cm, back of right hand, blue in colour;
3) Contusion 6 x 3 cm front of lower part of right leg, blue in colour;
4) Scabbed abrasion 3 x 2 cm, outer aspect of lower part of right leg;
5) Contusion 12 x 8 cm, outer aspect of right ankle joint and adjacent part of right foot, blue in colour;
6) Scabbed abrasion 3 x 1 cm mid front of left leg;
7) Scabbed abrasion 6 x 3 cm front of left knee;
8) Swelling of upper part of right thigh with fracture near the upper hand of the femur bone. About 1.5 litre of blood was present in the surrounding tissues;
9) Contusion 7 x 3 cm back of left hand blue in colour;
10) Contusion 15 x 4 cm ulnar aspect of lower and of middle part of left forearm. Blue in colour.
11) Contusion 6 x 4 cm on outer aspect of left elbow joint, blue in colour.SC no. 42/14 Page 31 of 37 32
During internal examination, extravasation of blood was noticed in the left temporal and occipital region of scalp. Initially, no definite opinion as to cause of death of Jaswant could be given, but after receipt of chemical analysis report, Ex.PW17/C, subsequent final opinion was given on 1.06.1993 regarding death of Jaswant. The cause of death was opined as hemorrhage and shock consequent upon multiple injuries, mainly fracture of femur. All injuries were found ante mortem in nature and due to blunt force impact. Those injuries were opined as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
15.1 Besides Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh and his other family members also sustained injuries in this incident, which albeit are not grievous as per the MLCs prepared in HRH. Even if the injuries sustained by Jaswant are seen, the sheer presence of as many as eleven injuries with fracture of femur would reveal that the prosecution has tried to conceal as to how Balbir Singh and his family members suffered those injuries.
15.2 Therefore, there is non explanation of grievous injuries suffered by the opposite side which indicates that the version of incident presented before this court is not the correct one. There is something for the prosecution to hide, shaking the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and impeaching their veracity.
15.3 In this regard the principles laid down by Supreme Court in various cases may be recollected, as follows:
SC no. 42/14 Page 32 of 37 331. The prosecution has to come forward with the whole truth. When the explanation has not been given as to how the accused happened to receive injuries by the prosecution, the version given by the defence cannot be rejected.
2. When the accused persons received fairly number of injuries and some of them were on vital parts, the prosecution has to give a plausible explanation. In the absence of any explanation given by the prosecution naturally an adverse inference has to be drawn.
3. When there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.
4. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused may give rise to the inference that the prosecution is guilty of suppressing the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus had not presented the true version.
16 Even otherwise, it is not explained properly that when the incident occurred at about 10.30 AM and the situation was controlled by the time the additional police force arrived, why the injured policemen SC no. 42/14 Page 33 of 37 34 were not given medical attention till about 1.10 or 1.20 PM. This was despite the fact that Ct. Bal Kishan had suffered a punctured wound near his left eye and SI Ramesh Narang had suffered a sharp incised wound on his chest. It is also not explained as to why Balbir Singh and his family members were sent to HRH many hours after the injured policemen reached the hospital. Sultan Singh reached HRH at 3.15 PM; Balbir Singh at 2.40 PM; Shanti Devi at 3 PM; Dharmender at 3 PM.
17 While acquitting the accused of FIR no. 467 of 1992, which includes accused Balbir Singh, the Ld. Sessions Judge in its Judgment dated 27.05.2005 specifically observed that investigation in the said FIR no. 467 was also tainted, in which the case diaries also appeared to be manipulated. The Learned Court observed that the conduct of investigating officer SI Ramesh Narang (the complainant of this case), was highly suspicious.
17.1 It is argued on behalf of accused Balbir Singh and others that the DD entries and records of that case FIR no. 467 reveals that earlier Balbir Singh was not even named or wanted in that case and his involvement was fabricated, which impinges on the facts of this case also as it is the case of prosecution that Balbir Singh was wanted in FIR no. 467 and the police team had gone to apprehend him and others.
17.2 The fact that in the earlier case the court while acquitting the accused observed that the case diaries were manipulated and records were manipulated indeed has a bearing on the truthfulness SC no. 42/14 Page 34 of 37 35 of the present case since the very foundation of prosecution case is that the police team of the present case went to apprehend Balbir Singh and others in that earlier case no. 467, in which by that time Balbir was not even an accused. It may have been done to justify the visit of police team to the house of Balbir Singh on 2.12.1992 or may be to justify excess committed on 2.12.1992, if any, by the police.
18 PW6 Ct. Arvind Kumar deposed that Balbir Singh was also carrying some arm/weapon in his hand viz., kasola, jailey or iron rod, whereas the case of prosecution was that Balbir Singh was unarmed.
19 SI Ramesh Narang is claimed to have received a sharp incised injury from some ustara like weapon through the hands of Inderjeet. In the vest of Ramesh Narang the cut was 21 Cms long, whereas the corresponding cut on the shirt was only 10 Cms. No forensic examination of the vest and shirt was done to explain that discrepancy as to how the vest, which was under the shirt, got a longer cut than the shirt which was on top. Also there has been no forensic examination to find out any blood stains on the vest and shirt of SI Ramesh Narang.
20 SI Ramesh Narang lodged DD no. 17A in his own handwriting upon return from HRH. The said DD is Ex.PW9/DX, lodged at 4.00 AM, in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December, 1992. In the said DD, there is no mention by SI Ramesh Narang that he sustained any injury in the incident in question. Though in DD no. 17, SI Ramesh SC no. 42/14 Page 35 of 37 36 Narang claimed that Satbir Singh fired some gunshot, but he did not mention that he sustained any injury from ustara and also there is no mention of any injury sustained by Ct. Bal Kishan from jailey.
21 It is argued on behalf of accused that as per PW12 ASI Daya Chand, Ct. Jasbir was sent from police station to ACP office, Narela on government motorcycle at 3.00 PM vide DD no. 9A on 2.12.1992 itself, whereas, Ct. Jasbir also had sustained injuries in the incident and he was taken to HRH. The argument seems to be arriving out of some confusion with accused. It was not Ct. Jasbir who so went to the ACP office, but it was Ct. Jasmer Singh with belt no. 592/North West, whereas Ct. Jasbir's belt no. is 665/North West.
22 DD no. 7 dated 2.12.1992, Ex.DW1/12, lodged at 8.45 AM, and the original of this DD as reflected in the original DD register in the cross case under Ex.PW29/E, shows that the fact that Lady Ct. Suman Lata came to join her duty at 8.45 AM on 02-12-1992 is a fact added in this DD subsequently after the earlier portion of DD was written. It is evident from the very contents as the DD was once concluded and then name of this lady was added in a different ink and also in a different hand writing.
23 All the above mentioned discrepancies and suspicious conduct has to be viewed particularly, in the context that the only independent witness Randhir Singh as PW1 did not support the case of prosecution at all.
24 Needless to say that in a criminal trial, burden of proving the case is on the prosecution and it is quite heavy. The prosecution needs to SC no. 42/14 Page 36 of 37 37 prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before it can seek conviction of an accused.
25 In the case of Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1976 Criminal Law Journal 1471, it was held that the guilt of an accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, even if there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole the prosecution may be true, but between may be true and must be true, there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.
26 In the given facts & circumstances, the standard of proof requisite in a criminal trial to prove a case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt, is not met, benefit of which goes to all the accused persons and all the accused persons are acquitted of the charges.
Announced in the open court on 19th day of December, 2015. Dig Vinay Singh ASJ/Spl.Judge : NDPS (N-W) Rohini Courts/Delhi SC no. 42/14 Page 37 of 37