Delhi District Court
Cbi vs (1) Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, on 9 June, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Sessions Case No.01/11
RC Number : 6(S)/2009 CBI/SCB/Lucknow
CBI Vs (1) Sh. S.K. Jaiswal,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Bahadur Singh
R/o. Civil Lines, Kutub Khana
Road,Opp. Telephone Exchange,
PS Kotwali, Barreilly.
(2) Sh. Gopal Dutt Bhatt
S/o Sh. Puran Chandra Bhatt
R/o Village Matola, PS Jageshwar,
Tehsil Bhanauti, Distt.: Almora,
Uttrakhand.
(3) Sh. Rajesh Bisht
S/o Sh. Jhoon Singh
R/o House no. 7, Type III,
PS Raipur, Dehradun.
(4) Sh. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o. TypeIII, Near PS Raipur,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
(5) Sh. Nitin Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh Chauhan
R/o. H.No. 19, Vivek Vihar,
PocketII,GMS Road, Dehradun.
S C No.01/11 1/139
2
(6) Sh. Chander Mohan Singh Rawat
S/o Late Sh.Shobha Singh Rawat,
R/o Deepnagar, Near Water Tank,
Ajabnpur, Kalan, Dehradun.
(7) Sh. Ajeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Om Pal Singh
R/o Village Gadarjudda,
Post Manglore, Haridwar.
(8) Sh.Satbir Singh
S/o Shri Rakam Singh
R/o. 5, Cement Road, Kanranpur,
PS Dalanwala, Dehradun.
(9) Sunil Saini
S/o Shri Kadam Singh
R/o Village Kurdi, PS Manglore,
Haridwar.
(10) Chander Pal
S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram
R/o Village Kankhal Barakothi,
Pahari Bazar, Haridwar.
(11) Saurabh Nautiyal
S/o Shri Hiramani Nautiuyal ,
R/o Village Kairada, Post Nagraja
Dhar, Distt. Tehri Garhwal.
(12) Nagendra Rathi
S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh ,
R/o. Village Narsangh Kalan,
PS Manglar, Haridwar.
S C No.01/11 2/139
3
(13) Vikas Chandra Baluni
S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Baluni,
R/o Village Baluni Banek,
PO Banek, Distt.:Pauri,Garhwal.
(14) Sanjay Rawat
S/o Shri Sain Singh Rawat ,
R/o. Village Kundali, PS Satbuli,
Ekeshwar Block,Tehri Garhwal.
(15) Mohan Singh Rana
S/o Shri Pratap Singh Rana
R/o. Village Reni , PS Joshimath,
Chamoli.
(16) Inder Bhan Singh
S/o Shri Janmadeo Singh
R/o.Village Saga Rai, PS Darauli,
District Seewan (Bihar).
(17) Jaspal Singh Gosain
S/o Late Shri Manbar Singh Gosain ,
R/o. Village Kamoldi, Post Kwalli,
Tehsil Agast Muni,Rudraprayag.
(18) Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri Tej Pal Singh
R/o. Village & Post Chunsa,
APS Bhorakalan, Mujjafar Nagar.
Under Section: 120B r/w 364, 302 & 201 IPC and substantive
offences u/s 364, 302 & 201 IPC
S C No.01/11 3/139
4
Date of Institution : 22.12.2009
Date of conclusion of arguments: 29.05.2014
Date of judgment : 06.06.2014
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused no.1, S.K. Jaiswal, was posted as SHO, P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand on 03.07.09, and on the basis of statement made by him, two cases being case Crime no. 98/09 under Section 307 I.P.C, and case Crime no. 99/09 under Section 25 Arms Act, were registered at P.S. Raipur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. The cases being Crime nos. 98/09 and 99/09, were registered relating to an incident in the afternoon of 03.07.09 in Ladpur forest area of Dehradun, wherein a young boy named Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh R/o Village Nirojpur Emma, P.S. and Tehsil Khekra, Distt. Bagpat , U.P., was killed. The version of the police as per the statement of accused no.1, S.K. Jaiswal, relating to the incident was that the said person was killed in a cross firing when the police had to resort to the firing in selfdefence after the deceased fired at the police party, when it was chasing him to apprehend him, as he alongwith two of his associates had entered into a scuffle with accused no.2, G.D. Bhatt, at Mohini S C No.01/11 4/139 5 Road, near Gurudawara, Dehradun City and those miscreants including the deceased, had run away from the spot after snatching the revolver of SI G.D. Bhatt. A2, G.D. Bhatt, was posted at P.S. Dalanwala as SubInspector and was on routine checking in the area. Her Excellency, Smt. Pratibha Devi Singh Patil, the then President of India, was visiting Dehradun City on 03.07.09.
2. However, after the incident was highlighted and news regarding the incident were telecast on T.V. channels, questions were raised as regard the genuineness of the version of the police and relatives of deceased Ranbir Singh including his father, Ravinder Pal Singh protested claiming that deceased Ranbir Singh had been killed by police officials, while in custody, and a false story of encounter had been concocted by the police. After the hue and cry was raised, investigation of Crime nos. 98/09 and 99/09, both of P.S. Raipur, were entrusted to Insp. D.C. Baunthiyal, SHO, PS Cantt. District Dehradun, as per directions of SSP Dehradun on 05.07.09.
3. A case FIR no. 101/09 under Sections 147/148/149/302/506 I.P.C, was registered at P.S. Raipur, S C No.01/11 5/139 6 Dehradun on 06.07.09, on a complaint by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, father of deceased Ranbir Singh.
4. However, father, relatives and family members of deceased Ranbir Singh were not satisfied with the investigation of the case, and they had approached the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand and other higherups in the Government of Uttarakhand and vide order no. 723/XX(3)14/CB/CID/2009 dated 05.07.09, Government of Uttarakhand transferred the investigation of the cases Crime nos. 98/09 and 99/09 P.S Raipur, Dehradun to CBCID. Father, relatives and family members of deceased, Ranbir Singh continued to agitate and there was apparent criticism of the investigation, forcing Government of Uttarakhand to hand over the investigation of the cases, Crime No. 98/09 under Section 307 I.P.C and Crime No. 99/09 under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Raipur, Distt. Dehradun and Crime No. 101/09 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Raipur, Distt, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and Crime no. 143/09 under Section 394 I.P.C, P.S. Dalanwala, relating to death of Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh. Crime no. 143/09 P.S Dalanwala, was in regard to the case S C No.01/11 6/139 7 registered on the basis of statement of accused no.2, G.D. Bhatt, as regards snatching of his pistol on 03.07.09 at Mohini Road, near Gurudwara, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to CBI, and issued Notification no. 542/XX(1)/126/CBI/2009 dated 08.07.09, gave its consent for investigation of the case by CBI. Pursuant to the Notification dated 08.07.09, issued by Government of Uttarakhand, Government of India also issued Notification no.228/37/2009AVD2 dated 09.07.09, gave its consent for investigation of the cases by CBI.
5. The present case relates to case Crime no. 101/09, P.S. Raipur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, registered on the complaint of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, father of deceased Ranbir Singh, which was taken over by CBI, and regular case RC No. 0532009S006, hereinafter to be referred as RC 6(S)/2009, was registered at CBI/SCB at Lucknow, U.P. on 30.07.09
6. After completion of investigation, CBI filed the chargesheet in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate(CBI), Dehradun on 22.12.09, which was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, as Special Judicial Magistrate was on leave on 22.12.09, against 18 accused, i.e. A1 Santosh S C No.01/11 7/139 8 Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar. A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, were chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 364,302 and 201 I.P.C and Substantive offences punishable under Sections 364,302 and 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C and u/s 218 I.P.C. A8, Satbir Singh, was chargesheeted for offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and under section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C. A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal Singh, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Baluni and A14 Sanjay Rawat, were charged for offences punishable under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 IPC and 302 I.P.C as well as under Section 218 S C No.01/11 8/139 9 I.P.C. A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar, were charged for offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. Sanction for prosecution as required under Section 197 CrPC against the accused persons, they being the police officials, were obtained from the State Government. A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar, were not arrested in the case by the CBI. A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, were in judicial custody, when the chargesheet was filed. A1 to A7 were granted bail by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court vide order dated 20.01.2010. Ravinder Pal Singh, father of deceased Ranbir Singh, and complainant, challenged the order, passed by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court, before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Crl. Appeal Nos. 748/2011 to 753/2011, relating to A1 to A7, and vide order dated S C No.01/11 9/139 10 17.03.2011, the appeals filed by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the complainant, were allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and order passed by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court, granting bail to A1 to A7, was set aside.
7. Again, in Transfer Petition (Crl.) no. 222/2010, filed by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the complainant, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2011, transferred the case Crime no. 03/2010 titled as State through CBI Vs. S.K. Jaiswal, from the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun, to the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, for its assignment to appropriate court, as the Special Judge may consider it fit and proper.
8. However, during the period, vide order dated 10.12.2010, Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun, had committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge, Dehradun and by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, the case was assigned for trial to IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Anti Corruption(CBI), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Record of the case being ST no. 237/2010, CBI Vs. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors, was received by Sh. Pradeep Chadha, Special S C No.01/11 10/139 11 Judge(CBI01), Central/Delhi, on 04.04.2011 vide letter dated 02.04.2011 of Sh. Pradeep Pant, IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Branch(CBI), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The case was assigned to Sh. V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, my Ld. Predecessor. On 04.04.2011 itself, my Ld. Predecessor, Sh. V.K. Maheshwari, entertained some reservations as he was dealing with the cases pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act only, and he directed to put up the file before Ld. District & Sessions Judge1, Central District, for appropriate orders. Vide order dated 05.04.2011, the case file was directed to be sent to the Court of Sh. V.K. Maheswari, my Ld. Predecessor, Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, and it was observed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Delhi that apart from being Special Judge/CBI, he was also competent to deal with and decide the case as Additional Sessions Judge.
9. The facts, in brief, as per the investigation carried out by CBI, as per the chargesheet filed, is that deceased Ranbir Singh had gone to Dehradun on 02.07.09 alongwith his accomplices Shekhar Tyagi, Ram Kumar, Ashok Panwar, after S C No.01/11 11/139 12 they had entered into a conspiracy to commit theft at the house of Smt. Kavita Saxena, who was a cousin of one Amit Bhatnagar, who was also a party to the conspiracy. Deceased Ranbir Singh and his associates Ram Kumar and Ashok Panwar, stayed at Flat no.9 of Jain Dharamshala, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. The other accomplice Shekhar Tyagi, after pointing out the house of Smt. Kavita Saxena, returned back to Meerut. House of Smt. Kavita Saxena was situated at 14, Madhuban Enclave, Mohini Road, Dehradun. On 03.07.09 at about 12.30 noon, deceased Ranbir Singh and Ashok Panwar left Jain Dharamshala with one black bag containing Katta, ropes and Cello Tape etc. on a motorcycle no. HR 06G 9093, which was used by deceased Ranbir Singh and Ram Kumar for reaching Dehradun from Meerut. Ram Kumar followed them. Ashok Panwar was sent to see the lane, where house of Smt. Kavita Saxena was located. While Ranbir Singh and Ram Kumar were waiting for Ashok Panwar at a place near Gurudwara at Mohini Road, Dehradun at around 12.45 hours, SI G.D. Bhatt(A2), Incharge Aaraghar Post under P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, reached while patrolling on routine checking. While S C No.01/11 12/139 13 he was questioning the deceased Ranbir Singh and his associate Ram Kumar, there was a scuffle between them. Deceased Ranbir Singh caught hold of service pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt. One passerby Anjum Parvez Khan, came at the spot, fired two rounds in the air from his licensee pistol. Deceased Ranbir Singh was caught on the spot, whereas his associate Ram Kumar was able to run away from the place, who had in the meantime snatched the service pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt (A2) from Ranbir Singh, alongwith service pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt (A2). As per the case of CBI, a case being Crime no. 143/09 of P.S Dalanwala, was registered as regard the scuffle and robbery of pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt (A2). However, after the deceased Ranbir Singh had been caught on the spot, there was a conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and particularly, A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, has been named by CBI in the chargesheet, to kill deceased Ranbir Singh. He was not shown to have been arrested in case Crime no. 143/09 P.S Dalanwala, was S C No.01/11 13/139 14 abducted and was killed claiming that he had been killed in crossfiring with the police in an encounter, when he fired at the police party, which was chasing him, he having run away alongwith two of his accomplices on the motorcycle, in the area of Ladpur forest, Dehradun. It was the case put up by the local police, including the accused persons, that deceased Ranbir Singh was not caught on the spot of incident at Mohini road, Dehradun, and he had been able to run away from the place alongwith two of his accomplices. It was the case put up by the local police of P.S. Dalanwala and others, claiming to be involved in the said encounter, that two of accomplices of deceased, had been able to run away from Ladpur forest area.
10. The case, as put up by CBI, after investigation is that to cover up the story of deceased Ranbir Singh having been caught from Mohini Road near Gurudwara, information of which was given by A1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, Dehradun to City Control Room at 1.12 P.M., to the effect that one person with Tamancha had been brought to police station Dalanwala, and so, the search for the miscreant be stopped, story of one Karunesh was inserted, who as per GD entry at 1.10 P.M. of S C No.01/11 14/139 15 P.S. Dalanwala was shown that CheetahVI, Ct. Satbir and Ct. Jitender Joshi had brought one miscreant to P.S. having revolver and then G.D. Entry at 1.20 p.m that said Karunesh, was a Constable and was shadow of Kunwar Pranav Singh, MLA, and was having his service revolver. The role attributed to each of the accused person individually, had been stated as revealed during investigation, by CBI.
11. Charge for offences punishable under Section 120B I.P.C r/w Sections 302, 364,201 and 218 I.P.C, was framed against all the accused on 02.06.2011. Further charge for substantive offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 I.P.C was framed against A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh. Further, charge for substantive offences punishable under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 302,364 IPC and substantive office punishable under Section 218 I.P.C were framed against A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit S C No.01/11 15/139 16 Singh, A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat. Further, accused no.8, Satbir Singh, was charged for substantive offences punishable under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C. A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar, were further charged for substantive offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. Pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2011 of Hon'ble Supreme Court, cancelling the bail of A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, they had surrendered in the Court on different dates. Thereafter, an application was filed by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the complainant for cancellation of bail of A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 S C No.01/11 16/139 17 Inderbhan Singh, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar, on the ground that charge for offences punishable under Section 120B I.P.C r/w Sections 364,302, 201 and 218 I.P.C, had been framed against all the accused persons. Earlier, as per the chargesheet, there were allegations of only bailable offences against A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar, and after the framing of charge, they had been charged for offences of criminal conspiracy in commission of offences punishable under Sections 364 & 302 I.P.C, which were nonbailable. The application was disposed of by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 17.11.2011 and the bail granted to A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar, were cancelled. The issue was agitated by A8 to A18 before S C No.01/11 17/139 18 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as before Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 29.05.2012 in Special Leave to Appeal ( Crl.) no. 4396/2012, Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain the Special petition filed by the accused persons. In this way, all the 18 accused persons, are in judicial custody.
13. Prosecution examined 122 witnesses in order to substantiate the allegations against the accused persons.
14. Accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC and their statements were recorded.
15. The stand taken on behalf of accused nos. 1 to 7 is that, it was a case of genuine encounter and deceased Ranbir Singh was killed in crossfiring with the police and it was when the deceased Ranbir Singh had fired at the police party, which was chasing him and that the police was compelled to return fire in selfdefence.
16. The allegations against A8 Satbir Singh as regards the specific role played by him were that he was instrumental in introducing the story of bringing Ct. Karunesh at P.S. Dalanwala alongwith Ct. Jitender Joshi while on duty S C No.01/11 18/139 19 on CheetahVI( being riders of motorcycle), was claiming that the boy(Ct. Karunesh) was seen by them, when they reached at Mohini Road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, the place of the incident, who was matching the description as per the information being given from the City Control Room and was found running towards Laxmi Road. A8 Satbir Singh denied that he was knowing Ct. Karunesh before he was apprehended by them that he was a member of the police force and was deputed as a shadow of an MLA. A8 Satbir Singh had also taken the stand that it was a genuine case of deceased Ranbir Singh, having been killed in exchange of fire, with the police and he at the time of encounter at Ladpur forest, had taken cover behind a tree.
17. A9, Sunil Saini has also taken the stand that it was a genuine encounter and deceased Ranbir Singh was killed in exchange of fire at Ladpur forest. A9 Sunil Saini had also claimed that on 03.07.09 he had accompanied A4 Neeraj Kumar to Sahastradhara Crossing at Dehradun, checking for the miscreants, who had run away from the Mohini Road near Gurudawara, after robbing the service pistol of A2, G.D. S C No.01/11 19/139 20 Bhatt.
18. A10 Chander Pal Singh had taken a different stand in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The allegations against him as per the role assigned, was that he had accompanied A5 Nitin Chauhan, Incharge, Special Operation Group, Dehradun on 03.07.09, and was accompanying him at the time of alleged encounter. It was also alleged that he was a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh. However, in the statement under Section 313 CrPC, A10 Chander Pal Singh had taken the stand that he had not accompanied SI Nitin Chauhan on 03.07.09 at any place and was at office of Special Operation Group throughout the day and had been forced to sign the documents by A5 Nitin Chauhan and Senior officers. In particular, A10 Chander Pal Singh had claimed that Seizure memo Ex. PW36/A as well as another Memos Ex. PW38/G and Ex.PW38/H were signed by him at police station Raipur, and he was in no way involved with the said encounter and do not know anything about that .
19. Similarly, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal has taken the stand that he had not accompanied A5 Nitin Chauhan, S C No.01/11 20/139 21 Incharge, Special Operation Group on 03.07.09, and remained present in SOG office from morning till evening. The role assigned to him was that he was with A5 Nitin Chauhan, Incharge SOG on 03.07.09 and also, at the time of alleged encounter, and was a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh. A11 Saurabh Nautiyal has claimed that he was also forced to sign documents and was called to reach P.S. Raipur on that day by A5 Nitin Chauhan, and it was only under pressure of A5 Nitin Chauhan, Incharge, Special Operation Group, that he had reluctantly signed the documents in P.S. Raipur in the morning of 04.07.09 which are Ex. PW36/A, Seizure Memo dated 03.07.09 Ex. PW38/G and Ex.PW38/H.
20. A12 Nagender Rathi in his statement under Section 313 CrPC has taken the stand that it was a case of genuine encounter, deceased Ranbir Singh having been killed in exchange of fire between the deceased and the police officials. The role assigned to A12 Nagender Rathi is that he was accompanying A1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S. Dalanwala on 03.07.09 and was also a party to abduct and kill deceased S C No.01/11 21/139 22 Ranbir Singh.
21. A13 Vikas Baluni has taken the stand that on 03.07.09, he was detailed for VVIP duty at GTC Helipad, Cantt. Dehradun, due to the visit of President of India in Dehradun City, on that day, and he had not accompanied SO Rajesh Bisht, Incharge of P.S. Nehru Colony on 03.07.09. The role assigned to A13 Vikas baluni is that he had accompanied A3 Rajesh Bisht, SO, P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun on 03.07.09, was present at the time of alleged encounter and was a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh. A13, Vikas Baluni has taken the stand that being detailed for VVIP duty on 03.07.09 in the afternoon, he was on rest in the morning hours, and was present at his house when at about 2.00 P.M., he received a call from A3, Rajesh Bisht, asking him to reach Pullia No.6 in the area of P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun, and also to convey the same message to A14, Ct. Sanjay Rawat. As per the stand taken by A13 Vikas Baluni, he conveyed the message to Ct. Sanjay Rawat A14 and reached at Pullia no.6 where Ct. Sanjay Rawat A14 had also reached, but SO Rajesh Bisht did not meet them there. S C No.01/11 22/139
23 They were not able to connect to SO Rajesh Bisht(A3), but somehow they were able to call A16 Inderbhan Singh on his mobile, the driver of the vehicle of SO Rajesh Bisht(A3), who instructed them to reach Ladpur forest. A13 Ct.Vikas Baluni claimed that when they reached in the Ladpur forest, they found a crowd and a person lying on the ground. A13 Ct.Vikas Baluni also claimed that he was forced to sign the documents by A3 Rajesh Bisht, as well as other senior officers.
22. A14 Sanjay Rawat, has also taken the stand like A13 Ct. Vikas Baluni, he was also detailed for VVIP duty on 03.07.2009, and was not accompanying A3 Rajesh Bisht, SO, P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun, and he was called through A13 Ct. Vikas Baluni, and was also forced to sign the documents by A3 SO Rajesh Bisht, and other senior police officers, when he had reached Ladpur forest alongwith A13 Ct. Vikas Baluni.
23. A15 Mohan Singh Rana has also taken the stand that he was not involved in any conspiracy to abduct or kill deceased Ranbir Singh. The role assigned to A15 Mohan Singh Rana is that he was Ct Driver of P.S. Dalanwala on S C No.01/11 23/139 24 03.07.09, was party to the conspiracy and had made false entries in the log book of the vehicle no. UA08B9981 TATA SUMO which was being driven by him on 03.07.09, framing incorrect record while functioning as a public servant. A15 Mohan Singh Rana has taken the stand that he had not made any false entries, which were made by him as per the directions of SHO, claiming that he was not aware of the places, where the vehicle had gone. A15 Mohan Singh Rana claimed that the movement details in the log book were relating to the movement of the officers and were recorded accordingly and his job was only to ensure maintenance of the vehicle and to keep details of the distance covered by the vehicle and fuel consumed.
24. A16 Inder Bhan Singh has taken the stand that on 03.07.09, after information was flashed by City Control Room, he had driven the vehicle no. UA07A3846 carrying SO Rajesh Bisht(A3),Ct. Sanjay Rawat( A14) and Ct. Vikas Baluni(A13), and he continued to drive the vehicle as per the directions of A3 Rajesh Bisht. The role assigned to A16 Inder Bhan Singh is that he was a Ct. Driver at P.S. Nehru S C No.01/11 24/139 25 Colony on 03.07.09, was party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh on 03.07.09, was present at the time of alleged encounter and made false entries in the log book of vehicle regarding movement of the vehicle.
25. The stand taken by A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he was not party to any conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh. A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain has claimed that he was not known to any of the coaccused prior to 03.07.09, and was not even having telephone number of any of the accused, and had no contact with any of the coaccused on 03.07.09. The role assigned to A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain is that on 03.07.09, he was posted as Head Operator in City Control Room of Dehradun Police, and made false entries in the log book of City Control Room to the effect that information has been received from Panther(SP City) that three miscreants were running towards Nehru Colony, Dehradun City on motorcycle no. HR 06G 9093 and same was done by him despite the fact that intimation as given by T5 (SHO P.S.Dalanwala, A1) at 1.12 P.M. that the boy alongwith Tamancha had reached P.S. S C No.01/11 25/139 26 Dalanwala, and so, the checking for the boy be stopped and only routine checking be continued. A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain has stated that all the informations received by him between 10.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M., while he was on duty in the City Control Room, from Senior officers, were recorded by him correctly in the log book and he had flashed the information, so received.
26. A18 Manoj Kumar has denied being party to any conspiracy on 03.07.09, to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh. The role assigned to A18 Manoj Kumar, as per the case of the prosecution is that on 03.07.09, he was functioning as Ct GD Munshi at P.S. Dalanwala, Delhi, and had made incorrect entries. It is claimed, as per the case of the prosecution, that at 1.10 P.M. on 3.07.09, he made an entry to the effect that one suspect wearing green Tshirt has been brought by Ct. Jitender Joshi and Ct. Satbir of CheetahVI and then making an entry at 1.20 P.M ( overwriting and cutting) to the effect that the suspect brought, was in fact Ct Karunesh, and this was done by him to prevent and save himself and other accused persons from legal punishment. Allegations were S C No.01/11 26/139 27 also to the effect that he was a party to the conspiracy. In his statement, A18 Manoj Kumar, took the stand that the information received by him were recorded correctly, in GD diary at P.S. Dalanwala.
27. In all 30 witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused persons including A11 Saurabh Nautiyal and A13 Vikas Baluni, who have also examined themselves, on oath under Section 315 CrPC, pursuant to the applications moved by them.
28. Arguments were heard on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the accused persons. On behalf of A1 to A9, A12, A16, A17 and A18, submissions were made by Sh. R.M.Tufail, Advocate. On behalf of remaining accused being A10, A11, A13, A14 and A15, submissions were made by Sh. Anupam Sharma, Advocate. Written submissions were also placed on record on behalf of A1 to A9, A12, A16, A17 and A18 and also on behalf of complainant.
29. To prove the fact that it was deceased Ranbir Singh, who was apprehended at the place of incident at Mohini S C No.01/11 27/139 28 road near Gurudwara on 03.07.2009 and was taken to P.S Dalanwala, prosecution has examined several witnesses to the incident. PW9 Anil Vohra (r/o Mohini road, Dehradun) is one of them, who has testified as regard the scuffle which was seen by him on 03.07.2009, when he saw a police man in hands up position and two boys standing in front of him, one of the boy having revolver. PW9 Anil Vohra also deposed that from the gesture, he gathered that the police man was helpless and the boys were dominating him. PW9 Anil Vohra was passing by the place on his motorcycle and on seeing the situation, he made a call at number 100 and told the lady who picked up the phone on other side the situation and asking to send someone immediately at Mohini road, Gurudwara.
30. Another witness examined on behalf of the prosecution is PW11 Surender Singh, who was working at a godown of M/s Himani Gas Service and deposed that on 03.07.2009, when he reached at Circular Road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, after taking 20 cylinders from the godown, he saw a scuffle taking place near the Gurudwara and he had seen two boys in scuffle with a Daroga. PW11 S C No.01/11 28/139 29 Surender Singh further deposed that Daroga had caught hold of a boy and the other boy was having a pistol and was pointing towards Daroga in a manner, as he was about to fire. PW11 Surender Singh did not support the case of prosecution beyond that and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution by Ld. Sr.PP.
31. PW12 Raksh Pal also deposed that on 03.07.2009, he had reached the Gurudwara situated at Mohini road in Dehradun, with his three wheeler Vikram loaded with gas cylinders and between 12.30 to 1.00 noon, he had noticed a crowd near Gurudwara. PW12 Raksh Pal was also working at Himani Gas Agency, Dehradun. PW12 further deposed that two boys were seen by him beating a Daroga and one of the boy was pointing a revolver at the Daroga. Beyond this, PW12 Raksh Pal also did not support the case of the prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution.
32. PW13 is Ravinder Kumar, who was having a tailoring shop under the name and style of M/s Patiyala Shahi Boutique nearby. The witness did not support the case of the S C No.01/11 29/139 30 prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution.
33. PW14 is Smt. Farhad Naaz, who has deposed that on 03.07.2009, she was working in a tailoring shop named Patiyala Shahi Boutique at Mohini road, Dalanwala, Dehradun and at about 12.00/12.30 noon, she heard a lot of noise from outside near the Gurudwara and also heard sound of two fire shots and when she came outside, she had seen people running and had also seen one person running from the place, having a pistol in his hand. Beyond that, PW14 Smt. Farhad Naaz also did not support the case of prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. Sr.PP on behalf of the prosecution.
34. PW15 is Anjum Parvez Khan, who has deposed that he was a resident of 24/61, Circular Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun and on 03.07.2009 between 12.45 and 1 noon, when he had come to his house for changing clothes to offer Namaaz of Jumma, he saw a lot of crowd near the Gurudwara and three persons were quarreling among themselves. PW15 further deposed that due to curiosity, he went to the place and when he reached near the crowd, he saw two boys beating a person, S C No.01/11 30/139 31 who was in police uniform. The two boys had pushed down the police personnel on the ground. PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan, in order to save the police personnel, had fired twice from his licensed pistol, which he brought from his house. PW15 further deposed that after he fired in the air, there was a stampede in the crowd and the boys also ran away with the crowd. This witness also did not support the case of the prosecution fully and was also cross examined on behalf of the prosecution.
35. PW26 Ram Anuj was working as Crime Reporter for Time T.V at Dehradun in month of July 2009 and had deposed that on 03.07.2009, he had followed the Ranbir encounter case for T.V reporting and he had recorded the byte of PW15 Anjum Parvez, with regard to the incident of fighting, which occurred near the house of Anjum Parvez.
36. Statements of PW12 Raksh Pal, PW13 Ravinder Kumar, PW14 Farhad Naaz and PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan were also recorded Under Section 164 CrPC, which was confronted to them in the cross examination on behalf of the prosecution. PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan admitted having S C No.01/11 31/139 32 made the statement Under Section 164 CrPC which is Ex.PW15/A and also admitted correctness of the same. PW15 also admitted the correctness of CD Ex.P1 which was inter alia having the recording of PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan, saying that the Badmash who was having pistol in his hand had run away on foot from the place and the other boy was caught by the police of P.S Dalanwala. However, in cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, he again stated that the person who was apprehended from the stampede was taken away by the police personnels, who had come on the motorcycle, on their motorcycle.
37. It is the case of the local police of Dehradun as well as the defence taken on behalf of accused that instead of deceased Ranbir, it was one Ct. Karunesh, who was apprehended on the spot by Cheeta6 i.e. rider Ct. Satbir Singh (A8) and Ct. Jitender Joshi and he was taken away by them, on their motorcycle.
38. Another witness examined on behalf of the prosecution is PW10 Ram Kumar, cousin of deceased Ranbir, who as per the case of the prosecution, was accompanying S C No.01/11 32/139 33 deceased Ranbir Singh and was present at Mohini Road near Gurudwara, Dehradun on 03.07.2009, at the time of quarrel between them and A2 G.D.Bhatt. However, PW10 Ram Kumar, despite being the cousin of deceased Ranbir Singh, had totally betrayed the case of the prosecution and had even deposed that it was in fact an encounter in the Ladpur forest area while he, deceased Ranbir and one more accomplice were running away on the motorcycle, being chased by policemen and the deceased Ranbir had in fact opened fire, when their motorcycle fell down in the Ladpur forest. Statement of PW10 Ram Kumar was also recorded Under Section 164 CrPC, but he was evasive while answering the questions put to him by Ld. Sr.PP, when confronted with the statement, just stating that he was not remembering what was told by him to the Magistrate, recording his statement Under Section 164 CrPC Ex.PW102/D (proved by PW102 Sh. Arvind Nath Tripathi). PW10 Ram Kumar also stated that whatever was told by him to the Magistrate recording his statement Under Section 164 CrPC was, as told by the CBI to him to state. PW10 was seen supporting the case of the accused persons, in S C No.01/11 33/139 34 their defense.
39. There is PW24 Smt. Sushma Bansal (nearby resident), who had made a call at number 100 to police Control Room on 03.07.2009 after a passerby had come to her house and requested to make a call to the police. PW24 stated that she had not seen the incident herself and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution.
40. PW25 is Mala Singh (nearby resident), who had deposed that on 03.07.2009 between 12.30 to 12.45 noon, she had heard a lot of noise and sound of fire and when she went to the roof of her house to see the incident, she saw a crowd from the terrace of her house. The witness also did not support the case of prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. Sr.PP on behalf of the prosecution.
41. Thus, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as regard the incident of 03.07.2009 at Mohini road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, involving A2 G.D.Bhatt, deceased Ranbir Singh and his cousincumassociate PW10 Ram Kumar, has supported the case of the prosecution to the fuller extent. However, from their testimonies, particularly of S C No.01/11 34/139 35 PW9 Anil Vohra, PW11 Raksh Pal, PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan, it has come on the record that there were only two boys who were involved in the scuffle with A2 G.D.Bhatt on 03.07.2009. All these witnesses have deposed consistently and none have stated that they had seen the third boy also, who was either involved in the scuffle with A2 G.D.Bhatt or that three boys had run away from the place, on a motorcycle, as is the case, which was set up by the local police and is the defense of the accused persons. PW11 Surender Singh Rawat, has deposed only, that the two boys who were in scuffle with the police man, had run away on the motorcycle, one driving the motorcycle and other was sitting holding a pistol in his hand and it was after, he had heard two fire sounds and there was a stampede. PW14 Smt. Farhad Naaz has deposed that after the sound of shot was heard, people were seen running and she had seen one person running from there having a pistol in his hand. PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan has also deposed that after he fired two shots in air from his licensed pistol, both the boys had run away alongwith the crowd. PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan, no where deposing that two boys had run away from the place, on S C No.01/11 35/139 36 motorcycle. There was not even a suggestion to that effect on behalf of the accused persons. PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan also admitted in cross examination on behalf of prosecution, that whatever was recorded in CD Ex.P1 was correct, and it was what had been told by him in his interview, after about three hours of the incident on 03.07.2009 and admitted that he had stated in his interview that the badmash who were having pistol in his hand had 'paidal paidal bhag gaya tha (had run away on foot)' and the other boy was caught by police of P.S Dalanwala. Even in his examinationinchief, PW15 Anjum Parvez Khan has deposed that during the stampede (bhagdad) other police personnels had also reached the spot and one of the boy was caught hold by those police personnels, who had reached the spot.
42. It is the case of prosecution that the accused persons had inserted the story of Ct. Karunesh, a shadow of MLA, Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, was falsely introduced while not arresting deceased Ranbir Singh in case Crime No.143/09 P.S Dalanwala under section 394 I.P.C which was registered in regard to the incident of robbery of S C No.01/11 36/139 37 service pistol of A2 G.D.Bhatt.
43. PW64 Gopal Singh Negi, deposed that Ct. Karunesh was brought at P.S Dalanwala on 03.07.2009 at about 1.00/1.15 P.M (noon) by Ct.Satbir and Ct. Jitender Joshi. It was also argued on behalf of the accused persons that the presence of Ct. Karunesh at the spot i.e. Mohini road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, is also established, because he had also called at number 100, transcript of which is memo Ex.PW17/H (proved by PW17 Ashwani Raturi) regarding the scuffle there.
44. There are two entries in the General Diary Register of P.S Dalanwala, Dehradun recorded by A18 Manoj Kumar, who was acting as GD writer on 03.07.2009 there. First entry is No.28 Ex.PW64/E3 (proved by PW64 Gopal Singh Negi) at 1.10 P.M. It is to the effect that Ct. 149 Satbir Singh alongwith Ct. 915 Jitender Joshi, have brought one person to the P.S, who was matching the description of the person involved in the incident of loot with A2 G.D.Bhatt and he gave the information to the Control Room. Another entry is GD No.29 Ex.PW64/E4 (proved by PW64 Gopal Singh Negi) at 1.20 P.M wherein it was stated that he had given the S C No.01/11 37/139 38 information to the SHO that the person, who was brought by Cheeta6 being Ct. Satbir and Ct. Jitender, was in fact Ct. Karunesh, being the shadow of MLA Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion.
45. It is the case of prosecution that GD entries of 1.10 P.M Ex.PW64/E3 and 1.20 P.M Ex.PW64/E4 made by A18 Manoj Kumar are fake entries and nothing of the sort had happened and the entries were made only to facilitate, non reporting of deceased Ranbir Singh, having been apprehended, in pursuance to the conspiracy to abduct and kill him. Prosecution is claiming that on the ground that intimation to that effect had already been given to the City Control Room at 1.12 P.M by A1 S.K.Jaiswal, then SHO P.S Dalanwala to the effect that the boy with the tamancha had been brought to the P.S and search be discontinued.
46. Ct. Karunesh was a member of the police force and as per GD No.29 Ex.PW64/E4 recorded at 1.20 P.M in the General Diary of P.S Dalanwala, was having his service revolver. As per Ex.PW17/H (proved by PW17 Ashwani Raturi), which is a memorandum of voice file taken from S C No.01/11 38/139 39 police Control Room in regard to the information given by Ct. Karunesh to City Control Room on 03.07.2009 at 12.55.44 and it is to the effect that Ct. Karunesh is telling the operator at City Control Room that they should reach Mohini Road immediately, scuffle is taking place with the Daroga and the persons are also shooting Daroga. In case Ct. Karunesh was having his service revolver with him when the scuffle was going on with A2 G.D.Bhatt, it was not expected from him, not to intervene, he being the member of the police force and having arms. Instead of depending on the arrival of other police personnels, it was his duty to come to the rescue of A2 G.D.Bhatt.
47. On behalf of accused persons, reliance has been placed on the statement of Ct. Karunesh Kumar recorded in case Crime No.l43/09 Ex.PW71/G2 (proved by PW71 SI Bhaskar Lal Shah) wherein he had stated that on 03.07.2009, when he was walking on foot and was proceeding towards Aaraghar post for night pass, on reaching at Mohini road near Gurudwara, he saw three boys in a scuffle with a Daroga and the boys were also pointing a tamancha and a pistol at the S C No.01/11 39/139 40 Daroga, one person came from the side of Circular road, fired with his revolver and three boys, who were in scuffle with the Daroga, had run away on a CBZ motorcycle towards Sanjay Colony. Ct. Karunesh in statement Ex.PW71/G2 (proved by PW71 SI Bhaskar Lal Shah) claimed that he chased those three boys and while he was returning, he was apprehended by Cheeta police, who did not listen, when he told them that he was a member of the staff. Ct. Karunesh also claimed that he was brought to P.S and after inquiries and confirming that he was a police Constable, he was allowed to go. Ct. Karunesh is claiming that he was not having his purse on that day and so, could not show his ID card. Ct. Karunesh also stated that he had given the information at 100 number, being puzzled at that time in his statement recorded Under Section 161 CrPC in case Crime No.143/09 Under Section 394,332 I.P.C PS Dalanwala, Ct. Karunesh has not been examined in the case, on behalf of either prosecution or the defence. Even otherwise, it is difficult to believe the story being put up by Ct. Karunesh Kumar, that he was not able to convince the staff of Cheeta6, being A8 Satbir Singh and Ct. Jitender Joshi, that he was a S C No.01/11 40/139 41 member of the police force. Again A8 Ct. Satbir and Ct. Jitender Joshi would be able to take him to the P.S on the motorcycle, despite having the information that the boys having scuffle, had run away with the service pistol of A2 G.D.Bhatt and would not like to search the boy, after apprehending him to ensure that he was not having any weapon and may not harm them on way to P.S. Again entry no.29 Ex.PW64/E4 (proved by PW64 Gopal Singh Negi) also show some manipulations and overwriting and it is reasonable to assume that same had been done intentionally and same is to the effect that the person brought at P.S is Ct. Karunesh. In entry no.28 Ex.PW64/E3 recorded at 1.10 P.M, it is also mentioned that the Badmash brought is also having a revolver, but there is no mention of the person stating that he was a member of the police force and revolver, he was having, was a service revolver. Ct. Karunesh was expected to tell the same, when he was brought to P.S Dalanwala, as stated to the officials of Cheeta6, as claimed by him in his statement Ex.PW71/G2.
48. Then, there is an entry recorded in log book of the S C No.01/11 41/139 42 City Control Room, Dehradun dated 03.07.2009 which have been exhibited as Ex.PW16/B (proved by PW16 Mahesh Arya) and it is recorded in the entry made at 1.12 P.M that information had been given by T5 (SHO P.S Dalanwala) that the said boy with tamancha (country made pistol) had reached P.S and checking of that boy should be stopped.
49. It is also the case of prosecution that deceased Ranbir Singh alongwith his associates, was staying in flat no.9 at Jain Dharamshala, on 03.07.2009 and immediately after deceased Ranbir Singh,was apprehended and brought to P.S Dalanwala, Dehradun, some police officials had gone to Jain Dharamshala, had broken open the lock of flat no.9 and left the place with a bag from the flat. It is the case of the prosecution that it could have been possible so early only, when deceased Ranbir Singh was apprehended and he had disclosed this fact to the police officials. There is no other way for the police officials to know this fact within half an hour of the incident, except deceased Ranbir Singh, having been apprehended, and disclosing the fact. For that, prosecution has examined Arun Kumar Jain, who was working as Assistant Manager in Jain S C No.01/11 42/139 43 Dharamshala, Dehradun in July 2009 and deposed that on 03.07.2009, around 1.30 (noon), 8 to 10 police personnels came, enquired about room no.9, went there accompanied by PW3 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, a guard, broken open the lock of room no.9, then went to flat no.9, broken open the lock of the same and deposed that later on, he came to know that some bag was taken away by the police personnels, as told by the guard. The witness has also deposed that from the record, he came to know that one boy named Ranbir was staying in flat no.9.
50. Another witness Ram Kumar Garg (PW2) who was also working in Jain Dharamshala, Dehradun deposed that on 02.07.2009, flat no.9 in Jain Dharamshala was alloted to Ranbir Singh, alongwith his two companions and on that day, when he reached for duty around 1.201.25 P.M (noon), 8 to 10 police personnels had come there, enquired about the accommodation no.9, PW3 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, Chawkidar was sent by PW1 Arun Kumar Jain. PW2 Ram Kumar also deposed that they first broke the lock of room no.9 then broke the lock of flat no.9 and then from flat no.9, had taken away one bag as told to him by Chawkidar Bhagwan S C No.01/11 43/139 44 Singh.
51. PW3 is Jagdish Prasad Gairola, who was working as guard in Jain Dharamshala and deposed that on 03.07.2009, he accompanied police personnels, who had reached Jain Dharamshala. The police personnels were first taken by him to room no.9 of which lock was broken by police officials, then they went to flat no.9.
52. PW4 Satender Jain, Manager of Jain Dharamshala, Dehradun has testified that on 03.07.2009 while he had gone to his house at about 1.00 P.M, he received a telephonic call from PW1 Arun Kumar Jain at about 1.30 P.M, who informed him about police personnels having broken open the lock of room no.9 and proceeding towards flat no.9 on 2nd floor. PW4 Satender Jain instructed PW1, Arun Kumar Jain to inform the Secretary of Dharamshala, Sh. Praveen Kumar Jain. PW4 deposed that Ranbir Singh, was staying alongwith his two companions in flat no.9 and room no.9 was allotted to one Dr. Bisht, who has been examined in the case as PW7. PW4 deposed that after Dr. Bisht returned to Dharamshala at about 3.00 P.M, and on being told that lock S C No.01/11 44/139 45 had been broken by police personnels, he called at telephone number 100. Some police officials came to Dharamshala and met Dr. Bisht. PW4 Satender Jain has proved the slip Ex.PW4/B filled up by the visitor to Dharamshala for stay and also proved the receipt Ex.PW4/C in the name of Ranbir Singh. Daily summary for the date 02.07.2009, computer generated printout Ex.PW4/D having the particulars of Ranbir, has also been proved. PW4 Satender Jain also proved the diary maintained at the counter of Jain Dharamshala as Ex.PW4/E having two mobile numbers written alongwith the name of Ajit, Dalanwala Thana. PW4 Satender Jain also deposed that two mobile telephone numbers were written by the police personnels in the diary of Dharamshala, which have been proved by the witness as written in encircled portion Ex.PW4/F.
53. PW5 is Bhagwan Singh, also another Chawkidar in Jain Dharamshala and has deposed as regard the police personnels visiting Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.2009 and deposed that he had seen four police personnels going through the main gate, taking a red colour bag with them. S C No.01/11 45/139
46
54. PW6 Than Bahadur Kshetria was also working with Jain Dharamshala. PW6 deposed that on 03.07.2009, he was working as guard in Jain Dharamshala and at about 1.30 P.M, he had seen 8 to 10 police personnels going out of Dharamshala from the gate of Dharamshala to a gypsy.
55. PW7 is Dr. Raje Singh Bisht, who was staying in room no.9 of Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.2009. PW7 deposed that he returned to Dharamshala between 2.30 to 3.00 P.M on 03.07.2009 and found lock of his room broken and his luggage including his clothes, scattered in the room. PW7 Raje Singh Bisht deposed that on inquiry, he was told by the Dharamshala staff that some police personnels had come and had broken the lock of room and thrown away the luggage in room no.9. PW7 also deposed that he gave a call at number 100 and had also given a call to SSP, Dehradun and had talked to his Steno as SSP had gone to his house for lunch. Thereafter, one SI and 3 constables had come and met PW7 Dr. Raje Singh Bisht.
56. PW8 is Praveen Jain, who was the Secretary of Digambar Jain Panchayat Mandir Awam Jain Bhawan (Jain Dharamshala) and has deposed that on 03.07.2009 at about S C No.01/11 46/139 47 1.30 noon, he had received a telephonic call from Arun Jain, Assistant Manager (PW1) about police personnels reaching Jain Dharamshala. PW8 further deposed that after reaching Dharamshala, he found 7/8 police personnels present and he inquired from them why the lock of room no.9 had been broken. PW8, Praveen Jain also deposed that he had an argument with the police officials and inquired from them as to what had happened with the occupier of the room, to which the police officials replied that they were leaving and whatever the witness can do, should do. The witness was also cross examined on behalf of the prosecution, as he did not support the case of the prosecution beyond that and also in cross examination stated that they had been informed by the local police, prior to the visit of President of India to Dehradun City, that some rooms were required in the Dharamshala for security purpose.
57. Both A1, Santosh Kumar Jaiswal and A7 Ct. Ajit Singh, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 CrPC, has taken the stand that mobile numbers and his name etc. were written by A7, Ajit Singh in the diary of Jain S C No.01/11 47/139 48 Dharamshala, Ex. PW4/E not on 03.07.09, but A7 Ct. Ajit Singh was sent to Jain Dharamshala by A1 S.K. Jaiswal, 2/3 days prior to 03.07.09 for making reservations in Jain Dharamshala for staying of police force in Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.09, which was to reach Dehradun for arrangements relating to visit of the President of India to Dehradun on 03.07.09. A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, had also taken the stand in his statement that he had also requested Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Secretary of Jain Dharamshala to book 2/3 rooms for stay of police force in Jain Dharamshala. Praveen Kumar Jain has been examined as PW8, and it has been argued on behalf of accused persons that PW8 Praveen Kumar Jain in his cross examination had stated that police personnels had in fact came to him for booking of rooms on 03.07.09, when he was sitting in his chamber in Jain Dharamshala, and he had told them to write their mobile phone numbers in the diary, for availability of the rooms on respective dates. Otherwise, witnesses had deposed that they were not making advance bookings for stay in the Jain Dharamshala. From the witnesses examined being the persons working at Jain Dharamshala, and its officials as S C No.01/11 48/139 49 well as PW7, Dr. Raje Singh Bisht, who had stayed at Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.09, and lock of whose room was also broken by the police officials, it is proved conclusively that it was on 03.07.09 that the police personnels had come to Jain Dharamshala, and it was on 03.07.09, when the mobile numbers in the diary of Jain Dharamshala, which are in encircled portion Ex. PW4/F in the diary Ex. PW4/E, were written by A7 Ajit Singh, and not on any other day, and it is a make believe story of A7 Ajit Singh, visiting Jain Dharamshala, 2/3 days earlier to 03.07.2009, at the instructions of A1, S.K. Jaiswal.
58. Further, as per the transcript of the voice file B0000220090703130557, Ex. PW23/B, it was a call made from City Control Room by Smt. Ganga Yadav to Police Station, Dalanwala by A18 Manoj Kumar, and it was informed by A18 Manoj Kumar that he had noted the information and Inspector( A1 S.K. Jaiswal), Incharge, Aaraghar Post as well as CheetahVI, are reaching the place of incident( Mohini Road near Gurudwara).
59. A1 S.K. Jaiswal, in his statement recorded under S C No.01/11 49/139 50 Section 313 CrPC has also taken the stand that on 03.07.09 at about 12.55 P.M, he was near Welham Boys School on Laxmi Road in Dehradun City, when he received the information from City Control Room, and he rushed to Mohini Road near Gurudwara. A1 S.K. Jaiswal, further took the stand that neither he nor the driver (A15, Mohan Singh Rana)were familiar with the colonies road, for reaching Gurudwara on Mohini Road from Laxmi Road and when they ultimately reached crossing of Mohini and Laxmi Road, they found 4 or 5 persons standing there. A1 S.K. Jaiswal, further stated that he had conveyed the information received by him to CO Ajay Singh telling him that he was rushing to the place of incident. In short, A1 S.K. Jaiswal, has stated that by the time, he reached the place of incident, the Badmash were told to had run away from the place of incident and A2 G.D. Bhatt, had been taken on motorcycle, by someone.
60. There is one entry in the log book of City Control Room recorded at 13.15 PM being Q4 in Ex. PW16/B, which is in the handwriting of A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, who was posted as Head Operator( Constable) in City Control Room on S C No.01/11 50/139 51 03.07.09. The entry had been proved by PW16 Mahesh Arya of City Control Room, also posted as Head Operator. Another witness is PW22 HC Narender Kumar, who was posted at City Control Room Wireless Section, as Radio Transmitter on 03.07.09. The writing at Q4 on back page of Ex. PW16/B was examined by PW110 R.S. Rana, Scientist at CFSL Unit, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, and he had proved his report Ex. PW110/B to the effect that the portion Q4 at back page of Ex. PW16/B, had been inserted later on. The entry being in the handwriting of A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain, is not disputed by him, but it is stated that entry was made on 03.07.09 at 1.15 P.M., as per the information received, regarding checking of motorcycle no. HR 06G 9093, as directed by SP City. Even without opinion of an expert, the entry at 1.15 P.M. at Q4 on the back of Ex. PW16/B, being the log book of City Control Room, Dehradun dated 03.07.09, it is clear with naked eye, that entry has been made later on and the entry has been made for a purpose. It makes no difference, if other entries recorded at 1.20 PM on 03.07.09, and subsequent to that also speaks for continuation of the checking to apprehend the miscreant, since S C No.01/11 51/139 52 the information recorded at 1.20 PM, is the one having been received from T5(A1 S.K. Jaiswal), and he had informed City Control Room that checking is to continue, as per the direction of SP City(Panther). If the information received from SP City has already been recorded in the log book of City Control Room at 1.15 PM, there was no question of further information through T5(A1 S.K. Jaiswal) that checking shall continue, which was to continue even otherwise, if the information recorded at 1.15 PM, being Q4, on the reverse page of Ex. PW16/B was correct and had been received from S.P City.
61. The entry recorded in General Diary of Police Station Dalanwala dated 03.07.09 vide entry number 29 at 13.20 hours ( cuttings and overwriting) Ex.PW64/E4, it is stated that the person brought by CheetahVI, was Ct. Karunesh, was having a service revolver, and on this, SHO immediately gave the intimation to City Control room as well as to senior officers, and then, SP City gave the directions to continue the checking. Directions from SP City to that effect are already recorded at 1.15 PM being Q4( Ex. PW16/B) in S C No.01/11 52/139 53 the log book of City Control Room, and another entry at 1.20 PM of the information being received from SHO, P.S. Dalanwala, A1 S.K. Jaiswal. Thus, the entry being Q4 in Ex. PW16/B, being the log book of City Control Room dated 03.07.09, is a manipulated entry and circumstances points to nothing else. Also, as per entry Ex. PW64/E4 being the entry in General Diary of P.S. Dalanwala dated 03.07.09, Ct. Karunesh was having a service revolver whereas in fact as deposed by PW68 Rajender Singh Negi, he was issued only a rifle, and no effort was made to ascertain whether the revolver in case, Ct. Karunesh was carrying, was the service revolver, had been issued to him, particularly, when it is the case of the local police as well as the defence of the accused persons that he was apprehended, as a suspect of the incident of Mohini Road and was taken to police station, Dalanwala by officials on duty at CheetahVI, being the motorcycle riders.
62. DW16, Ct.Paras Mani, examined on behalf of A1 to A9, A12, A16, A17 and A18 has proved that the entry Ex.DW16/B was recorded by him, as per the information given to him by SO, Nehru Colony, Rajesh Bisht, and it was S C No.01/11 53/139 54 argued that so, the entry at 1.15 P.M at Q4 in Ex.PW16/B cannot be said to be fake one. The information was recorded as per the information given by A3 Rajesh Bisht, and no inference as regard the correctness of the same can be drawn.
63. From the above circumstances, as discussed in detail earlier, the only conclusion which can be reached is that there were only two persons, being deceased Ranbir Singh and his accomplice and cousin Ram Kumar, who were involved in the scuffle with A2 G.D. Bhatt on 03.07.09 at about 12.55 PM, and it was deceased Ranbir Singh, who had been brought to P.S. Dalanwala and not Ct. Karunesh, which is a story inserted to cover up the situation and resultant conspiracy to kill him, instead of arresting him in case Crime no. 143/09, P.S. Dalanwala, relating to the robbery of the service pistol of A2, G.D. Bhatt. The circumstances also point to only situation that it was on 03.07.09, when some officials including A7 Ajit Singh had gone to Jain Dharamshala around 1.30 PM, and they had taken away a bag, being of black colour or black/red colour, after breaking open the lock of Flat no.9 of Jain Dharamshala where deceased Ranbir Singh was staying S C No.01/11 54/139 55 alongwith his associates.
64. Postmortem in the matter was conducted by a panel of two doctors, being PW86 Dr. Ajit Gairola and PW92 Dr. Anil Arya. PW86 Dr. Ajit Gairola has proved the postmortem report Ex.PW92/A, which was also proved by PW92 Dr. Anil Arya, and as per the external examination of the body of deceased, following injuries were noticed External injuries
1. lacerated wound size 2 X 1.5 cms on left side of chin.
2. Abrasion size 4 cm X 1.5 cm on front of chest.
3. Abrasion size 2 cm X 1 cm on right shoulder 10 cm below acromion.
4. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on right side of chest 9 cm below supra sternal notch margins inverted, blackening present.
5. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left side of chest 10 cm above sub costal margins inverted, blackening present.
6. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 4 cm below injury no.5 margins inverted, blackening present.
7. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 4 cm S C No.01/11 55/139 56 below injury no.6 margins inverted, blackening present.
8. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 7 cm above left nipple margins inverted, blackening present.
9. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left arm medially 10 cm below shoulder margins inverted, blackening present.
10. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm in upper part of left arm 4 cm lateral to injury no.9 margins inverted, blackening present.
11. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of abdomen in lumber area 5 cm above iliac crest margins inverted, blackening present.
12. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on thigh upper part left side just medial border of iliac crest inverted margins, blackening present.
13. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on left thigh mid part medially margins inverted, blackening present.
14. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on mid of left thigh medially margins inverted, blackening present.
15. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm in left thigh 2 cm lateral to injury no.14 margins inverted, blackening present.
16. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left thigh 3 cm above S C No.01/11 56/139 57 knee joint inverted margins, blackening present.
17. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm 4 cm lateral to injury no. 16 margins inverted, blackening present.
18. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left forearm 9 cm above wrist joint.
19. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on right side of abdomen in lumber area 9 cm above iliac crest.
20. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back of left knee joint in popliteal fossa margins inverted, blackening present.
21. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on back of lower part of left thigh margins inverted, blackening present.
22. Abrasion size 3 cm X 2 cm on back of upper part of left leg.
23. Abrasion size 2 cm X 1 cm on left side of wrist at the base of left thumb.
24. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on left side of chest margins everted.
25. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on back at lumber area 14 cm above margin of sacrum margins everted.
26. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back of lower part 1 cm below injury no.25 everted margins.
S C No.01/11 57/139
58
27. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back 3 cm below injury no.26 margins everted.
28. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on right arm margins everted.
65. Further, it was observed that rigor mortis passed in upper parts of the body and were present on the lower parts of the body. The date of death of the deceased was found to be within 24 hours i.e. during the period intervening 1.00 P.M on 03.07.2009 and 1.00 P.M on 04.07.2009. PW86 Dr. Ajit Gairola also deposed that two metallic bullets were recovered, one from abdominal cavity which was lodged in vertebra and second one from left thigh. Further, PW86 Dr. Ajit Gairola deposed that on internal examination of the body of the deceased, it was noticed that Internal examination: The head, neck, skull, membranes, brain and skull base were normal.
In the examination of chest, plura was torn and cavity was full of blood.
Right lung was normal but laceration was present in left lung at S C No.01/11 58/139 59 the lower lobe of the size of 3 cm X 2 cm and 3 cm deep.
Heart was normal and peritoneum was torn at places. Abdominal cavity was full of blood. The stomach was filled with some semi solid digested food about 500 ml.
There was rupture of right lobe of liver size 10 cm X 6 cm and left side 2 cm X 2 cm.
There was a laceration on left kidney size 2 cm X 2 cm. Right kidney was normal.
The cause of death has been given by the doctors as shock and hemorrhage, caused by the injuries to the vital organs as a result of fire arms.
66. It has been argued on behalf of accused persons that postmortem on the body was suggesting that encounter was genuine and is based on the deposition of PW86 to the effect that kind of injury no.13 is possible only in a situation when the subject is moving and the injury of joint, no.9 would be caused only when the arm is stretched. Defence is drawing the conclusion that manner of receiving injury no.9 and 13 clearly suggest that deceased Ranbir Singh was moving and was having his arms stretched forward for firing at the police S C No.01/11 59/139 60 team. No one has deposed as regard the manner in which the injuries were received by the deceased and once, it is proved from the uncontroverted circumstances that deceased Ranbir Singh had been apprehended by the police from Mohini Road, no inference can be drawn from the kind of injuries, being injury no.9 and 13, received by the deceased. Further, defence has relied upon deposition of PW81 Bimla Gunjial, Addl.SP of CBCID, Dehradun by whom the investigation was conducted initially that in site plan Ex.PW81/L, Point1 was written, after she had made the observation to the effect that there were marks of bullets on a teak tree and defense has argued that such mark on tree is possible, only in cross fire. No such inference can be drawn, in the circumstances of the case. It was also argued on behalf of accused persons, that it was only a ClassIV employee who had conducted the postmortem instead of doctors and it is only because PW86 in his cross examination stated that it was the attendant, who told him that track of projectile could not be found or that incision was given by the ClassIV employee, but it has been deposed by PW92, that same was being done as per the directions of S C No.01/11 60/139 61 the doctors. It was also argued on behalf of the accused persons that there had been a random numbering of the injuries done by the doctors, which might have resulted in counting of an injury again and again, thus showing large number of injuries on the body of deceased. It was also argued that there were about 8 injuries mentioned in the sketch Ex.PW38/A prepared on the spot after PW38 D.M. Unial, the Tehsildar and Magistrate, reached there, whereas 28 injuries were shown in the postmortem report Ex.PW92/A. Certain other discrepancies have been pointed out as regard the number of holes in the clothes which were not matching the injuries on the body of the deceased. It was also argued, as admitted by PW86 in cross examination, that body tissues and skin surrounding the wound was not taken, the residue surrounding the injury was not preserved for chemical examination and that the blackening which was residue deposit, could not be seen by naked eye and instead is sent to lab after scrapping the same, which was not done. On behalf of defense, it was also argued that PW86 Dr. Ajit Gairola also admitted in his cross examination that a medical expert is a competent person to find S C No.01/11 61/139 62 the track and not a ballistic expert and that only a medical doctor can tell the impact or influx of foreign substance like gun shots, splinters, any other projectile and also stated in cross examination that he cannot tell if the bullet recovered, were from rifled one or of smooth bore. It was also argued on behalf of defense that PW86 Dr. Ajit Gairola stated that he was not aware if black powder was used for smooth barrel weapon and in rifled weapon, smokeless powder was used, and was also not in a position to comment on a suggestion that in case of close range, carboxyhaemoglobin in the soft tissues in and around the wound of entrance is suggestive and was also not able to tell if any carboxyhemoglobin in the soft tissue was found. It was also argued that it was a false report prepared by the doctors without examining the body and there was also lack of competence and skill in the doctors performing the postmortem. It was also argued that despite directions by PW38 Dinesh Mohan Unial, the Tehsildar, who had reached the spot, vide memo Ex.PW38/A, no video recording at the time of postmortem was done. As per Ex.PW38/A, PW38 D.M.Unial had only sought the permission from the doctors S C No.01/11 62/139 63 conducting the postmortem, to allow videography, while the postmortem was conducted by the doctors. No arrangements were made by the administration or the local police to get the postmortem videographed and same is clear from the deposition of PW77 Ct. Gopal Gyansu. PW77 Ct. Gopal Gyansu had gone to Chander Nagar mortuary for maintaining law and order as postmortem of deceased Ranbir Singh was being conducted there and he was asked by CO, Sh. Girish Chand Tamta, as deposed by him, to perform the job of video recording. PW77 deposed that he was able to record the postmortem a little bit, and he was forced to leave the place as the persons who had gathered there, had entered the postmortem room. As per the injuries noticed by PW38 D.M.Unial, recorded vide sketch Ex.PW38/D, there were two injuries on the left chest and five injuries on left leg apart from some abrasions on right arm. It was argued on behalf of accused persons that despite glaring discrepancies in the number of injuries, as per sketch Ex.PW38/D, where 8 injuries were mentioned and postmortem report Ex.PW92/A where 28 injuries were noticed by the doctors, neither IO was contacted S C No.01/11 63/139 64 nor crime scene was visited by the doctors, conducting the postmortem. Merely because the panch witnesses being PW33 Dinesh Kaemwal, PW34 Akash Kumar Bhaskar, PW35 Vipin Dabaral, PW36 Kapil Vohra, PW37 Rajesh Kumar apart from PW38 Dinesh Mohan Unial, have deposed as to the correctness of Panchnama Ex.PW33/A written by PW73, SI Kushal Pal Singh on the dictation of PW38 D.M.Unial, there is no reason to question the postmortem report Ex.PW92/A, as same had to be considered in the light of charged situation, on 03.07.2009. PW38 has deposed that he had reached the place of incident in Ladpur forest after receiving a call from his ADM at about 4.00 P.M. on 03.07.09 . Press Reporter and villagers were there. There was a crowd. It was a forest area. There is nothing on the record to suggest that someone, after the Panchnama had been prepared and the body sealed as per the instructions of PW38 D.M.Unial, had caused additional injuries on the body of the deceased and there is no reason for that. CBI was no where in the picture by then and even investigation was not entrusted to CBCID. It was with PS Raipur, till the time postmortem was conducted S C No.01/11 64/139 65 on 04.07.2009.
67. Even otherwise, postmortem is relevant only to the extent, that a large number of injuries and the nature of injuries shows that it was a case of indiscriminate firing on the deceased resulting in large number of injuries. It is not in dispute that deceased Rajbir Singh died and was killed because of being shot, repeatedly. It was only a piece of corroborative evidence and by itself, cannot be conclusive proof whether or not, it was a genuine encounter.
68. It was argued on behalf of accused persons that no TIP was conducted in the matter to identify the police officials who had gone at Mohini road spot near Gurudwara, Dehradun to prove the fact that a boy was brought by them from there and also to identify the police personnels who had gone to Jain Dharamshala. Not holding of the TIP in the case cannot be held to be fatal to the case of prosecution, as identity of the accused persons, is established from other facts and evidence on record.
69. Prosecution has also relied upon the Call Details Records relating to the mobile numbers of the accused persons, which showed their locations at different times on 03.07.09. S C No.01/11 65/139
66 PW18 Ranjeet Kumar has proved the chart Ex. PW18/A, in regard to the location of four spot namely Mohini Road spot, PS Dalanwala spot, Jain Dharamshala spot and Ladpur encounter spot, which was downloaded by him from Google earth. The witness has testified that each place as per the chart, is covered by major signals of which tower of BSNL, deposing that tower is divided into three sectors, which are either named as 1,2 and 3 or A B and C. PW21 Dinesh Kumar Sahay of BSNL, Indira Nagar, Dehradun, has deposed as regard the Call Details Records of 17 mobile numbers, which were certified by SDE Neeraj Gautam, and had been handed over to CBI vide covering letter dated 27.09.09, signed by SDE Neeraj Gautam. Witness has proved the forwarding letter Ex. PW21/A. SDE Neeraj Gautam, himself was also examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW119. Another witness examined is PW85 Rajeev Singh, Chief Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, Lucknow, U.P, who has testified as regard the attested hard copies of several mobile numbers and Consumer Application Form, which were sent to CBI vide letter dated 17.12.2009 Ex. PW85/A, and has proved the same as Ex. PW85/B1 to Ex. S C No.01/11 66/139
67 PW85/B121. It was argued on behalf of the accused persons that PW119, Neeraj Gautam, Jr. SDE at BSNL at the relevant time, has deposed that server was in Chandigarh, and he had the access to the Tracia system in his official capacity, admitting that it was possible that certain informations were not there in the Call Details Records. It is argued that PW119, was not exclusive custodian of the data and others were also having access to the said data, and so, the authenticity of CDR Ex. PW21/B1 to Ex. PW21/B30, was doubtful. It was also argued on behalf of the accused persons that there was no Certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and reliance in this case was placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State 1V(2009) DLT (CRL) 353 DB, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the Call Details Records could not have been proved by any of the modes prescribed under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. It was further held by Hon'ble High Court that admittedly, no Certificate in terms of Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act has been issued in the present case. It was also held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in S C No.01/11 67/139 68 the said case that irrespective of the compliance of requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, there was no bar to adduce secondary evidence under the provisions of Evidence Act, namely Sections 63 and 65. In the present proceedings also, the call records have not been proved in terms of Section 63 or Section 65B (2) or Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and as such, it is held that prosecution has not been able to prove the call records. Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act provides the conditions for making a document being paper print out of electronic records stored in an optical or magnetic media produced by a computer and reads as under:
"(2) The conditions referred to in subsection(1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following namely:
(a) The computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the used of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in S C No.01/11 68/139 69 respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities".
Subsection (5) of Section 65B provides that informations shall be taken to be supplied to a computer by means of an appropriate equipment, in the course of normal activities intending to store or process it in the course of activities and a computer output is produced, be it whether directly or by means of appropriate equipment. It was also held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar's case(supra) that Subsection (4) of Section 65B provides for an alternative method to prove electronic record. Subsection (4) allows the proof of the conditions set out in Subsection (2) by means of a certificate, issued by the person described in Subsection (4) and certifying contents in the manner set out in the Sub section. It was further held that the subsection makes admissible an electronic record when certified that the contents of a computer print out are generated by a computer satisfying S C No.01/11 69/139 70 the conditions of Subsection (1), the certificate being signed by the person described therein.
70. Similar is the position as regard the Global Positioning System evidence recording which has been produced on behalf of the prosecution on the basis of location of the vehicles used by the accused persons on 03.07.09. First witness is PW17 Ashwani Raturi, who was posted at City Control Room, Dehradun, and was an employee of HCL. PW17 Ashwani Raturi has deposed that he was maintaining the Global Positioning System installed in police vehicles and Voice Logger System installed in the City Control Room. The witness has proved the seizure memo dated 02.08.09 through which the documents were seized by CBI. Vehicle history of vehicle T5(A1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S.Dalanwala), has been proved by the witness as Ex. PW17/B, identifying signature of one witness Mr. Martulaya. Similarly, vehicle history of vehicle T6( relating to P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun) on 03.07.09, identifying signature of Mr. Martulaya, has been proved as Ex. PW17/D. Similarly, vehicle history in respect of vehicle T5 has been proved by the witness(running into 124 S C No.01/11 70/139 71 sheets) Ex. PW17/F and Ex. PW17/G, and that in respect of vehicle T6 as Ex. PW17/E, running into 6 sheets. Call details of all telephone operators on 03.07.09 from 12.00 noon to 6.00 PM, has also been proved by the witness as Ex. PW17/H, bearing signature of Mr. Martulaya, identified by PW17, and other call details as having been signed by Yashpal Singh Rawat, has been proved as Ex. PW17/G. In cross examination, PW17 Ashwani Raturi admitted that Ex. PW17/G collectively were not generated by him. Ex. PW17/G(running into 124 pages) and Ex. PW17/C, were not having any certificate as required under Section 65B of Evidence Act. PW17 Ashwani Raturi, also in cross examination stated that he was not aware of how the printout of Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C, Ex. PW17/G and Ex. PW17/E, were taken as same were taken out by the company person, deposing only to the extent that the same were taken in his presence. The evidence as regard the Global Positioning System being Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C, Ex. PW17/G or Ex. PW17/E, is thus not admissible in evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the same, as per the S C No.01/11 71/139 72 requirement of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
71. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the case property, being weapons seized by CBI, were tampered with by prosecution with the sole motive to implicate the accused persons falsely in the present case, and that was for the reason that case property seized vide memo Ex. PW62/A, were not sealed by the CBI in the presence of the witnesses, in order to facilitate further tampering and manipulation to suit the case of the prosecution. Ex. PW62/A has been proved by PW62 Khilanand Tiwari, who was, on 01.08.09 working in BSNL at Cross Road, Dehradun, and was called to CBI office, for handing over of documents/articles to Akhil Kaushik, Inspector of Police, CBI, Dehradun by Insp. I.D. Joshi of CBCID, Dehradun.
72. Another witness is PW68 Rajender Singh Negi, who was the Head Armour at Police Line, Dehradun, who had deposed as regards the issuance of a rifle .303 alongwith 60 cartridges to Ct 91 Karunesh by the Ct. Armour Anurag, vide entry Ex. PW68/A dated 04.11.2008. PW68 also deposed as regard the Fard dated 11.07.09 and deposed that a pistol given S C No.01/11 72/139 73 to SOG, SI Nitin Chauhan(A5) on 30.07.07 was deposited by him in Armory, Police Line, Dehradun on 09.07.09, which was received by Insp. I.D. Joshi of CBCID vide memo Ex. PW68/E, and then handed over back to Head Armour Dharmanand Pokharyal, under superdari.
73. PW98 Akhil Kaushik has also testified as regards the seizure memo Ex. PW62/A, relating to seizure of exhibits including weapons from Insp. I.D. Joshi of CBCID, and he has deposed that the articles mentioned in Ex. PW62/A were in unsealed condition. Accused persons have also relied upon the deposition of PW113 Insp. Chakradhar Anthwal, who had deposed that on 08.07.09, Smt. Bimla Gunjiyal, Addl. SP, CB CID, had come to Police Line, Dehradun, and had brought arms and ammunitions, seized in the case, which were first sealed and put in a steel trunk, and then the trunk was placed in double lock room vide memo Ex. PW68/D. PW113 in his crossexamination admitted that box was once taken in their possession by CBCID, led by Smt. Bimla Gunjiyal on 31.07.09, was returned back on the same evening, and deposited in double lock room on 31.07.09, and on 01.08.09, it S C No.01/11 73/139 74 was again taken back by Insp. I.D. Joshi from police line from the double lock room. It was argued on behalf of the accused persons that PW113 has admitted in his crossexamination that the documents as well as the case property in total, had been received from CBCID by CBI team on 31.07.09.
74. The admitted case is that deceased Ranbir Singh was killed in firing and the dispute is only as regards the circumstances in which he was killed, and it was the accused persons, who had used the service weapons, having been issued to them, and so, there is no issue as regard the tampering of the weapons, as, what is to be determined by the examination of the forensic experts, is only for the purpose of corroboration to show and prove the circumstances of killing of deceased Ranbir Singh. It is not that the weapon could be changed by any manipulation, as all weapons are having serial number and the record, as regards the accused persons, to whom those had been issued.
75. PW64 Gopal Singh Negi has deposed that on 03.07.09 at 9.00/9.15 AM, he had given one revolver and 12 cartridges to A1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S. Dalanwala, also S C No.01/11 74/139 75 gave one AK47 and 30 cartridges to A12, Ct. Nagender Rathi. Again, on 03.07.09 at 1.30 PM, one revolver and 12 cartridges were given to A4, SI Neeraj Kumar. Again, on same day at 2.15 PM, he gave one pistol and 12 cartridges to A2 SI G.D. Bhatt. PW64, Gopal Singh Negi, who was posted as Incharge, Malkhana on 03.07.09 also deposed that A10, SI Chander Pal Singh, had already been given one pistol and 12 cartridges. PW64 again deposed that on 03.07.09 itself, at 8.00 PM, A4 SI Neeraj Kumar and A9 Ct. Sunil Saini, came to PS and A4 SI Neeraj Kumar told him that in the incident, he had used 2 cartridges for firing and 10 cartridges and revolver was returned by him. PW64 Gopal Singh Negi also deposed that A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A10 Chander Pal and A8 Ct. Satbir also came to him. A2 G.D. Bhatt and A10 Chander Pal told that they had used 6 cartridges each in the encounter, telling that empty cartridges had been deposited in P.S. Raipur, and they told that they were having their pistols and 6 cartridges each, with them. PW64 Gopal Singh Negi also deposed that thereafter Insp. S.K. Jaiswal(A1) came to P.S. Dalanwala at about 2.30/3.00 A.M( during night) on S C No.01/11 75/139 76 04.07.09, told that he had used 2 cartridges in the encounter, empty cartridges deposited in P.S. Raipur. A1, S.K. Jaiswal handed over to PW64 Gopal Singh Negi, one revolver and 10 cartridges. PW64 also deposed that A12 Ct. Nagender Rathi and A7 Ajit Singh had also come to PS alongwith A1, S.K. Jaiswal, A12 Nagender Rathi telling that he had used 2 cartridges in the encounter, empty cartridges deposited in PS Raipur and A12 Nagender Rathi had handed over one AK47 and 21 cartridges, for keeping the same in Malkhana. The weapons were seized on 08.07.09 from P.S. Dalanwala by PW81 Bimla Gunjiyal, vide memo Ex. PW81/J.
76. It has been argued on behalf of accused persons that report by the forensic experts is not reliable as articles which were sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, were moving in CFSL, CBI, articles having been with two Divisions at the same time. PW82, Dr. B.K.Mahapatra has deposed that on 12.08.2009, he had received 46 sealed parcels and one unsealed parcel in the case and one sealed parcel was received by him on 28.08.2009 from SP, CBI, SPE, Dehradun and seals on the parcels were found to be intact, when he tallied with the S C No.01/11 76/139 77 specimen seals provided by the forwarding authority. Related exhibits were examined by PW82 B.K.Mahapatra in Biology Division and submitted his report dated 21.10.2009 Ex.PW82/A (colly.). PW82 deposed that after receiving the parcels, he had given the marking as S1 to S30, S30a and S30b and X1 to X11 and parcels 42 to 48, 48a and 48b. The parcels were sent to the concerned Divisions of CFSL for their examination, some in sealed condition as received and some after the examination required to be done in Biology Division. PW82 B.K.Mahapatra has deposed that samples were sent to different Divisions on different dates.
Parcels related to Physics Division were sent on 09.09.2009 (29 parcels).
Parcels related to Ballistic Division were sent on 06.10.2009 (26 parcels) Parcels related to Fingerprint Division were sent on 20.08.2009 (4 in number) One parcel was sent to Computer Forensic Division on 20.08.2009.
Mobile phone which was received unsealed and which was S C No.01/11 77/139 78 forwarded in the same condition.
The witness further deposed that report from Serology Division was received on 15.10.09.
Report from Fingerprint Division was received on 15.09.2009. Report from Physics Division was received on 14.10.2009 and report from Ballistic Division was received on 20.10.2009.
77. S.No. S13(a) to (e) were clothes of the deceased and as per the deposition of PW82, Dr. B.K.Mahapatra, had been sent to Ballistic Division on 06.10.2009 and were received back on 20.10.2009. Examination was conducted by PW79, A.R.Arora, who gave his report Ex.PW79/C after examination of the same. Again, articles S13(a) to (e) (clothes of the deceased) were received in the Physics Division on 11.09.2009 vide letter dated 07.09.2009 and were returned by the Physics Division on 19.10.2009. Articles were examined by PW90, Rajinder Singh in the Physics Division, who has proved his report as Ex.PW90/B. Thus, articles S13(a) to (e) (clothes of the deceased), as per the deposition of PW79, A.R.Arora and PW90, Rajinder Singh, were both with S C No.01/11 78/139 79 the Ballistic Division as well as Physics Division from 06.10.2009 to 19.10.2009. It was serious discrepancy in the case of the prosecution, which prosecution has not been able to explain.
Apart from this, in his report Ex.PW79/C, PW79 A.R.Arora has opined that firing was from a close range. Further, PW79 had given a clarification vide Ex.PW79/X2 to the effect that the maximum distance from which the firing was done, was 3 ft. PW79 has not testified as regard any test conducted by him to give his opinion that firing was made from a distance of maximum 3 ft. Reliance in this regard has been placed on behalf of accused persons on a case decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court titled as Gopal Singh Gorkha Vs State of UP 1991 Crl.L.J 1235, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that any opinion of the Ballistic Expert without any reason to arrive at any conclusion, cannot be relied upon. It was further held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that an expert should give up his habit of producing his bald opinion and the expert should, if he expects his opinion to be accepted by the Court, should put before the Court, all the S C No.01/11 79/139 80 materials which induced him to come to his conclusion and thus, bald opinions are of no use to the Court. Since, the opinion given by PW79, A.R.Arora was without disclosing the basis or the reasons for the same, and the fact that articles, which were being examined simultaneously in the Ballistic Division as well as in the Physics Division, reliance cannot be placed on the report Ex.PW79/C as regards the opinion of PW79 that fire was from a close range and also as regards the other issue relating to the bullets having been fired from a particular weapon, which were received by the Ballistic Division for examination. Report Ex.PW79/C as such, cannot be relied upon. As per the report of PW82 B.K.Mahapatra, Ex.PW82/A, blood was detected on exhibits S1 (sky blue colour cap), S9 (loose and lumps of earth described as 'soil sample with blood'), S3(3 hairs1,2 and 3 were found to be of human in origin), then DNA profile generated as regards the identity of the deceased and same is not disputed. There was no serious issue with the report of PW82, B.K.Mahapatra Ex.PW82/A.
78. PW80, Suresh Kumar Singla, Sr. Scientific S C No.01/11 80/139 81 Officer, GradeI, Serology Division, CFSL, New Delhi, has deposed that in the year 2009, he had received 21 exhibits on 07.09.2009 from Biology Division for serological examination and after examination, he gave his report Ex.PW80/A and the details of the report were forwarded by PW82, Dr. B.K.Mahapatra, alongwith his report Ex.PW82/A.
79. PW91 is A.D.Shah, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade I, Fingerprint Expert, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, who had proved his report Ex.PW91/A to the effect that no fingerprint could be developed from the lock, 9MM pistol as well as country made pistol, which were received by him on 21.10.2009 in the Fingerprint Division of CFSL through Biology Division vide letter dated 11.08.2009 alongwith 3 chance prints lifted. The articles were those claimed to have been recovered from deceased Ranbir Singh. There is no issue as regard the report of the expert, except as regard the exhibits having been received in sealed or unsealed condition.
80. PW90 is Dr. Rajinder Singh, Principal Scientific Officer and deposed that in year 2009, he was working as head of Physics Division in office of CFSL, New Delhi and on S C No.01/11 81/139 82 11.09.2009, had received 29 parcels from Biology Division of CFSL, out of which 7 were sealed with the seal of forwarding authority i.e. SP, CBI, Dehradun, one parcel was sealed with the seal of Fingerprint Division of CFSL and rest of the parcels were sealed with the seal of Biology Division of CFSL. After examination of the articles received, the witness had given his report Ex.PW90/A. The report Ex.PW90/B is not of much significance to the present case, and it was only to the examination of the soil samples marked S9, S10 and S25, S26, S27 and S28 to the effect that they were similar to each other in respect of colour, density gradient, distribution of particles, ingredient material and other physical characteristics and were brown coloured soil samples as per S9 and S10 and again brown coloured soil samples as per S25, S26, S27 and S28, which were the samples of soil, taken from the spot in Ladpur forest.
81. PW111, M.Bhaskar, Sr. Scientific Officer, GradeII, CFSL, has done the examination as regards the passing of vehicle through Sahastradhara Crossing Chowk on 03.07.2009 and has proved his report Ex.PW111/A. PW111, S C No.01/11 82/139 83 M.Bhaskar deposed that on 25.08.2009, he had received exhibits from SP, CBI, Dehradun at CFSL, Chandigarh and he recommended to return the case alongwith 6 sealed parcels, as the blank hard disk had not been submitted. Again, the witness deposed that he alongwith letter dated 28.08.2009, received 6 sealed exhibits alongwith 3 blank hard disks from SP, CBI, Dehradun, which were received at CFSL, Chandigarh on 31.08.2009. The case was assigned to the witness and he started his examination on 02.03.2010 after opening the exhibits. The exhibits were found to contain 4 hard disks and 2 CDs and the witness examined the same with 'Encase Version 6 of M/s Guidance Software INC, USA'. The witness prepared the image of the exhibits, resealed the original exhibits and did the examination with the imaged hard disk and had worked on the image of hard disk given number as H4 by him. The witness deposed that image of H1, H2 and H3 were not accessible to the forensic computer and had given his report to the effect that he had identified a vehicle resembling with the photograph of UA07K5163 which passed Sahastradhara Crossing on 03.07.2009 at 2.17.11.031 P.M and the witness S C No.01/11 83/139 84 identified another vehicle No.UA08B9981 passing through Sahastradhara Crossing at 2.26.45.015 P.M. These were the vehicles belonging to T5 and T6 being SHO, P.S Dalanwala and SO, PS Nehru Colony. The witness has deposed that he had received 9 photographs, 4 photographs of vehicle No.UA08B9981 and 5 photographs of vehicle No.UA07K5163. The report given by PW111, M.Bhaskar was not proved in the manner required to be proved U/S 65B of Evidence Act and no certificate U/S 65B of Evidence Act was given by the witness. Hence, this report also cannot be taken into consideration, as the same has not been proved according to law.
82. The sanction to prosecute the accused persons has been proved by PW104 Anup Wadhawan, who was working as Principal Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand on 31.03.2010, and was also having the charge of Ministry of Home Affiaris, Government of Uttarakhand. Sanction has been proved as Ex.PW104/A and it has been deposed by PW104 Anup Wadhawan that after the approval by the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, he had issued the sanction order for S C No.01/11 84/139 85 prosecution of all the accused persons. PW104 has deposed that request for granting sanction for prosecution was received from CBI, which was processed by the witness and it is deposed that after discussions with the Law Department of Government of Uttarakhand and after examination of all the documents and attending circumstances, he had forwarded the case for grant of sanction for prosecution of accused persons to the competent authority, being the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand in the case.
83. The submissions on behalf of defence as discussed hereinbefore, were in relation to A1 to A9, A12, A16, A17 and A18.
84. The remaining accused being A10, A11, A13, A14 and A15 have taken an altogether different stand.
85. As regard the existence of criminal conspiracy, same has been defined under Section 120A I.P.C, which reads as under:
"120A.Definition of criminal conspiracy. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:S C No.01/11 85/139
86 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof".
86. It has been argued by Sh. R.M. Tufail, Ld. Counsel appearing for A1 to A9, A12, A16, A17 and A18 that to establish the existence of criminal conspiracy, it is necessary that there is an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act and reliance in this regard has been placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Vijay Rajan Vs. State of Kerala in Crl. Appeal no. 1059, decided on 16.02.99, a copy of which has been placed on record. On behalf of A1 to A9, A12, A16, A17 and A18, reliance is also placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Satbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1993 SCR (1)1072, as regards the circumstantial evidence required to draw the conclusion of the guilt on the basis of the circumstances which need to be fully established and should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and should be such as to exclude every other hypothesis, but the one sought to be proved. Reliance on the point has also been placed on other S C No.01/11 86/139 87 cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Mushir Khan Vs. State of M.P 2010 (2) SCC 748 and Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P 1999(1) SCR.
87. In the present case, there is a complete chain of circumstances and the circumstances are fully established to the effect that it was deceased Ranbir Singh, who was apprehended by the police personnels from Mohini Road near Gurudwara on 03.07.09, sometime around 1.00 PM, and was brought to the police station Dalanwala as held hereinbefore. It has also been established from the situation that story of Ct. Karunesh having been introduced by the officials of Cheetah VI by A8 Ct. Satbir and Ct. Jitender Joshi, was introduced only in order to avoid arresting deceased Ranbir Singh in case Crime No. 143/09 under Section 394 etc., P.S. Dalanwala. For that, false entry in the General Diary of P.S. Dalanwala, was made at 1.10 PM, Ex. PW64/E3 and again at 1.20 PM Ex. PW64/E4 by A18 Manoj Kumar, who was working as GD Writer at P.S. Dalanwala on 03.07.09. Entry Ex. PW64/E3 is that a person matching the description of miscreant had been brought to P.S. and entry Ex. PW64/E4 is to the effect that S C No.01/11 87/139 88 the person brought was found to be Ct. Karunesh. This was despite the fact that information was given by T5 (A1 S.K. Jaiswal) to the City Control Room at 1.12 PM on 03.07.09 that the said boy, who was in scuffle with A2 SI G.D. Bhatt on 03.07.09 had been brought to police station having 'Tamancha'. It would have been quite recognizable by the police officials, the difference between a Tamancha and a service revolver. All this had been done pursuant to the conspiracy, wherein deceased Ranbir Singh was not to be shown as arrested in case Crime No. 143/09, P.S. Dalanwala and the conspiracy to abduct him, knowing that he is likely to be killed and to kill him, was clear. Thus, the conspiracy to abduct deceased Ranbir Singh knowing that he may be killed and to kill him in fact, was clear and it is the only hypothesis which could be established, from the circumstances and none other.
88. Ex. PW36/A is the Recovery Memo relating to a pistol, one countrymade tamancha, one bag containing clothes etc, one motorcycle, which were recovered from the spot in Ladpur forest on 03.07.09, and was prepared by PW73 SI Kushal Pal on the dictation of PW38 D.M. Unial, Magistrate S C No.01/11 88/139 89 cumTehsildar, and it bears the signature of A1, S.K. Jaiswal, A2 G.D. Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat, A7 Ajit Singh, A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautial, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni and A14 Sanjay Rawat, which has been signed by A1 to A14 as witnesses. Similarly, Ex. PW38/G, which is a Memo as regards the recovery of empty cartridges bears signatures of A1 to A14, as witnesses, and so, the Memo for control earth as well as blood stained earth, vide Memo Ex. PW38/H. Except for A10 Chander Pal Singh, A11 Saurabh Nautial, A13 Vikas Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, others have not disputed their signatures on the Memos Ex. PW36/A, Ex. PW38/G and Ex. PW38/H. That they are party to the conspiracy, can be inferred and only point towards that A13 Vikas Baluni has examined himself in his defence under Section 315 CrPC, and has taken the stand that on 03.07.09, he was not with A3 Rajesh Bisht, who was then working as SO, PS Nehru Colony, claiming that he was detailed for a VVIP duty at GTC Helipad, Dehradun, because of the visit of the S C No.01/11 89/139 90 President of India to Dehradun City on that day, and has placed reliance on the call details records, particularly those of his being in conversation with A3 Rajesh Bisht and has tried to prove that as per the Call Details Records, he was at a place different from A3 Rajesh Bisht on that day till the time of encounter. A13 Vikas Baluni has claimed that he was called to Pullia no.6 by A3 Rajesh Bisht on 03.07.09 at around 2.00 PM, when he was present at his house, who had asked him to also intimate A14 Sanjay Rawat to come along, and from there, he was told by A16 Inderbhan Singh, being a driver on the vehicle of A3 Rajesh Bisht, to come to the area of Ladpur forest, Dehradun, where they found a person lying on the ground. A13 Vikas Baluni has claimed that he was forced by A3 Rajesh Bisht and other senior officers, present on the spot, to sign the documents. In a way, he is claiming that he was not present at the time of alleged encounter. This was also the stand taken by A13 Vikas Baluni in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. However, in his deposition under Section 315 CrPC, he had gone a step ahead and claimed that when the matter was entrusted to CBI for investigation, a news item was S C No.01/11 90/139 91 published in newspapers including Indian Express to the effect that some constables of PS Nehru Colony, Dehradun, were willing to be Approver in the matter. A13 Vikas Baluni claimed that he received a call from A3 Rajesh Bisht sometime in August 2009, who asked him to see CO Ajay Singh. When A13 Vikas Baluni went to CO Dalanwala, Ajay Singh, at his house, he asked him to accompany him to SSP, inquiring what was being published in newspapers. A13 Vikas Baluni has claimed that he had gone to house of CO Dalanwala Ajay Singh, alongwith A14 Sanjay Rawat, and both of them were taken to the Police HQ, where the then SSP Amit Sinha, showed them the copy of Indian Express Newspaper, inquiring how the item had been published. A13 Vikas Baluni claimed that SSP Amit Sinha assured him and A14 Sanjay Rawat that it was a case of genuine encounter and they need not worry. A13 also examined DW30 Rajiv Aggarwal, a Sr. Executive with Indian Express, New Delhi, who had proved the copy of newspaper 'Indian Express Newsline' dated 10.08.09, wherein one news item under the title 'four accused cops turn approvers in Dehradun fake encounter case', was published on page no.2, S C No.01/11 91/139 92 and same was proved as Ex. DW30/A. The entire reading of the news item in totality, gives the impression that four cops, who were involved in the said encounter, were willing to turn Approvers.
89. It was argued by Sh. Anupam Sharma, Counsel for A13 that A13 Vikas Baluni was not in any position to prove the correctness or otherwise of the news item and the same has been proved by him, only to show that there were persons, who were not involved in the incident and they had conveyed this fact to the CBI officers, investigating the case, and the information might have been published at the instance of CBI. When a witness is examined on behalf of accused or any party, not only the document which is proved, but it is also proved that the person bringing the kind of evidence believes and is proving the contents of the document also. When, A13 Vikas Baluni is proving the news item published in Indian Express Newsline dated 10.08.09, being Ex. DW30/A through DW30 Rajiv Aggarwal, it implies that CBI was considering to get him and others, as approvers on the condition that they shall be disclosing the true and full facts. In fact, the news S C No.01/11 92/139 93 item states " fours constables were part of the encounter. They had witnessed the whole incident. With their turning witnesses, the case would move in a positive direction", which was attributed to a source information, given by a CBI official. Another witness examined on behalf of A13 Vikas Baluni is DW1 Anil Bisht, who had deposed as regard A13 staying at his house in the morning hours on 03.07.09, bringing household articles required by her mother. Another witness examined on behalf of A13 as well as A14 Sanjay Rawat, is DW9 SI Satyanand Badoni, who was called for proving the directions given at the time of visit of Dehradun/Masoorie by the President of India from 03.07.09 to 05.07.09, but only the photocopy was produced. In his defence A13, Vikas Baluni has also examined his mother DW13 Smt. Sumitra Baluni, who has also testified that A13, Vikas Baluni was on rest in the morning hours of 03.07.09 and had gone for duty at around 2.15/2.30 PM. Another witness examined on behalf of A13 Vikas Baluni is DW14 Sh. M.L. Sharma, Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Patel Nagar Telephone Exchange, who has proved the fact that mobile phone no. 9412323055, was issued in the name S C No.01/11 93/139 94 of Vikas Chander S/o Ramesh Chander. Similarly, DW24 M. L. Sharma, Divisional Engineer, BSNL,Patel Nagar Telephone Exchange, has been examined by A13 in his defence, who has proved the chart relating to towers location in the City of Dehradun and proved the same as Ex. DW24/A. DW26 Navneet Singh is SP City, Dehradun, who was also summoned on behalf of A13 Vikas Baluni and A14 Sanjay Rawat, to prove the fact that both of them were detailed for VVIP duties from 03.07.09 to 05.07.09, same could not be proved, as original document was not available.
90. Call Detail Records by themselves proves nothing as same could not be proved, even on behalf of the prosecution, as opined earlier. It was argued on behalf of A13 Vikas Baluni that these are the documents placed on record on behalf of the prosecution, and so, can be relied upon by the accused persons. Even, A13 Vikas Baluni while deposing under Section 315 CrPC as well as in his statement recorded u/S 313 CrPC claimed that after he and A14 Sanjay Rawat had reached Ladpur forest, both of them were sent to Kanak Chowk, Dehradun, to bring eatables from a restaurant ' S C No.01/11 94/139 95 Countdown'. Deposition of A13 Vikas Baluni as well as of other witnesses, mostly interested one, being a friend or the mother cannot be relied upon to hold that A13 Vikas Baluni was not there alongwith A3 Rajesh Bisht on 03.07.09 on the basis of conversation on mobile phone since, he himself is claiming that he was once sent to Kanak Chowk for bringing eatables. He himself is also proving the fact that some of the police officials, were willing to be approver in the case. It is also unreasonable to believe that they were sent to Kanak Chowk for bringing meals and other eatables, as it is not disputed that many people had gathered there, media was in attendance, there were several senior police officers present, a person is lying dead and then, someone would like to bring eatables on the spot. It is not that, it was late night, the timing for sending A13 and A14 to bring eatables, if at all true, must be around 5.00 PM, not a meal time. The story put up by A13 Vikas Baluni, is something, which a reasonable person would not believe in the circumstances.
91. Similar is the case as regard A14 Sanjay Rawat, who on his behalf has examined one witness DW2 Kuldeep S C No.01/11 95/139 96 Rawat in addition to the common witnesses examined for him and A13 Vikas Baluni. A14 Sanjay Rawat is claiming that on 03.07.09, he was living in a rented accommodation in H. No. 225, Nehru Colony in the house of one H.S. Bisht, and had come to reside there in April/ May 2009. A14 Sanjay Rawat used to visit DW2's house to get cold water as he was not having fridge in his house and deposed that A14 had come to his house on 03.07.09 to get cold water around 11.30/12.00 noon. DW2 deposed that he had gone to house of A14 Sanjay Rawat in the evening around 9.30/10.00 PM, to make inquiries for a driving licence, and on being questioned, it was told by A14 Sanjay Rawat that he was not involved in the encounter, and had reached the place of encounter only later on. Another witness examined on behalf of A14 Sanjay Rawat, is DW5 Ms. Preeti Rawat, his wife, who had also deposed that on 03.07.09, her husband A14 Sanjay Rawat had left the place at about 2.15/2.30 PM telling her that his SO Rajesh Bisht(A3) had called him through Vikas Baluni(A13) to Pullia no.6. DW5 also deposed that he was told by her husband A14 Sanjay Rawat that he was forced to sign the S C No.01/11 96/139 97 documents under pressure by senior officers despite the fact that he had reached the place of incident later on, after being called by SO Rajesh Bisht(A3). Not much reliance can be placed on the deposition of DW2 and DW5, examined by A14 Sanjay Rawat in his defence because apart from being the interested witnesses, it has not been the case of A14 Sanjay Rawat or A13 Vikas Baluni, till their statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded that they had in any way been forced to sign the documents.
92. A10 Chadner Pal and A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, have taken the stand that they were present in the SOG office throughout the day on 03.07.09, had not accompanied A5 Nitin Chauhan, Incharge, SOG, Dehradun, and were forced to sign the documents Ex. PW36/A, Ex. PW38/G and Ex. PW38/H at P.S. Raipur by the senior officers.
93. On behalf of A10 Chander Pal, one witness DW3 Ram Krishan a relative of A10, was examined, who had deposed that on 03.07.09, he had taken his cousin Deepa Kashyap to Dehradun for treatment by Dr. Shashendra Saxena of Rahat Clinic, Dehradun, as the doctor was known to A10, S C No.01/11 97/139 98 Chander Pal. His cousin Deepa Kashyap was suffering from some neuro problem. The witness has deposed that A10 Chander Pal had reached at Subhash Road, Dehradun where Rahat Clinic was situated, at 12.00 noon, when they reached there. From Subhash Road, they had accompanied Chander Pal to Rahat Clinic. However, Chander Pal had to leave as the doctor was late in reaching Rahat Clinic. Another witness is DW4 Mangat Ram, also a relative, who has also deposed that he had taken the treatment for some neuro problem from Dr. Shashendra Saxena of Rahat Clinic, Dehradun, and had recommended the cousin of DW3, to be taken to Dr. Sashendra Saxena for treatment. Another witness examined on behalf of A10 Chander Pal is DW10 Prashant Sharma, who was an Assistant of Dr. Shashendra Saxena, and has deposed that Chander Pal had come to their clinic on 03.07.09 for treatment of Ms. Deepa Kashyap around noon. Another witness examined on behalf of A10 Chander Pal is DW15 Pawan Kashyap, who is a brother of Ms. Deepa Kashyap, who was taken to Rahat Clinic of Dr. Shashendra Saxena on 03.07.09, and has also deposed that A10 Chander Pal had S C No.01/11 98/139 99 accompanied them to the clinic. DW18 is Dr. Alka Ahuja, who had proved the report Ex. DW18/A in regard to the MRI of Ms. Deepa Kashyap on 03.07.09 at their lab. DW20 is Dr. Shashendra Saxena, himself, who has testified that he had given the prescription to Ms. Deepa on 03.07.09, after he was told by his Assistant that Chander pal had reached. No fees was charged by the doctor and there was no document as regard the treatment of Ms. Deepa Kashyap from Rahat Clinic on 03.07.09. The witness examined on behalf of A10 Chander Pal, proves nothing as A10 Chander Pal, was not there in the clinic when DW20 Dr. Shashendra Saxena had examined her. No document as regard the treatment or any prescription given by DW20 Dr. Shashendra Saxena on 03.07.09 has been produced. It cannot be held on that basis that he was not there with A5 Nitin Chauhan, the incident relates to around 1.00 PM, at Mohini Road and around 3.00/3.30 PM in Ladpur forest, Dehradun.
94. A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, had examined himself in his defence under Section 315 CrPC as DW27. A11, Saurabh Nautiyal has also relied upon the Call Detail Records placed on S C No.01/11 99/139 100 record on behalf of the prosecution to prove his conversation with SI Nitin Chauhan(A5) being Incharge of SOG group on 03.07.09. A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, has claimed that on 03.07.09, he had reached SOG office around 10.00 AM, was present in the office throughout the day, and left SOG office around 8.00/8.30 PM. A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, has also claimed that it was around 9.00 PM, he got a missed call from A5 Nitin Chauhan on his mobile, and when he called back, he had asked him to reach PS Raipur, telling that he had to sign the seizure memo as certain articles had been recovered in an encounter in the area of Ladpur forest, and when he told that it was late night and he was not present at the place, he was told by SI Nitin Chauhan( A5) that those were the directions of the senior officers and he had to sign the documents, and on 04.07.09, he had gone to PS Raipur to sign the documents, which were with Munshi Ct. of P.S. Raipur. A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, has claimed that after the chargesheet was filed and he was arrayed as an accused, he had gone to SSP, Dehradun that his name was included falsely, and SSP had assured him that no harm shall visit him, since it was a genuine encounter. S C No.01/11 100/139
101 In his defence, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, has examined DW6 Mrs. Neha Nautiyal, his wife, who has deposed that on 03.07.09, she had gone to SOG office in the lunch time around 2.00/2.30 PM, and both, her husband and A10 Chander Pal were present in the SOG office. She also deposed that it was after persistent questioning that her husband Saurabh Nautiyal(A11) after his return to house disclosed that he was being pressurized by his seniors to sign the documents relating to a police encounter, wherein a person had been killed and he was not there at the time of said encounter. DW17 is Radhey Shyam Shukla, examined on behalf of A11 Saurabh Nautiyal as well as A10 Chander Pal, and has only proved as the mobile phone numbers issued to them, and has proved the Customer Application Form Ex. DW17/A, regarding mobile phone of A10 Chander Pal, and another Customer Application Form Ex. DW17/C, regarding mobile phone of A11 Saurabh Nautiyal. No conclusion can be drawn from the deposition of DW6 Mrs. Neha Nautiyal, as she being an interested witness, wife of A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, and is only deposing that at a particular time, she had visited SOG office, when he (A11) S C No.01/11 101/139 102 and A10 Chander Pal were present. The witness examined in their defence and evidence adduced is not sufficient to conclude that they were not there at the time of alleged encounter, which was stated to be around 3.00 P.M. It was not a genuine encounter, and so, their being a party to the conspiracy, is clearly discernible from the circumstances.
95. A15 Mohan Singh Rana, was a driver on the vehicle of A1 S.K. Jaiswal on 03.07.09 being no. UA08B9981 TATA SUMO, but he has taken the stand that he was driving the vehicle on 03.07.09, as per the directions of SHO, P.S. Dalanwala, and had taken the vehicle to Mohini Road, Near Gurudawara, when a message was received from City Control Room that two boys were fighting with a policeman there. A15 Mohan Singh Rana also claimed that he was not familiar with the internal roads of the colonies and by the time, they reached at Mohini Road, they saw a crowd. A1 S.K. Jaiswal asked him to stop the vehicle, who got down and returned after sometime telling that senior officers were calling him. He returned to PS alongwith A1 S.K. Jaiswal, and found senior officers reaching PS, and there was a crowd. After the S C No.01/11 102/139 103 senior officers had left, he was asked by A1 S.K. Jaiswal, to bring the vehicle which he brought to the gate of SHO, and then A1 S.K. Jaiswal, A4 Neeraj Kumar, SI Bhuvan Chand Joshi, SI Arjun Singh Parmar and A9 Sunil Saini, sat in the vehicle, taken to places as per the directions of SHO being A1 S.K. Jaiswal, and ultimately they reached Kashmira Petrol Pump. SI Bhuvan Chand Joashi and SI Arjun Singh Parmar, were dropped on way. In short, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, is claiming that he had not seen anything. He was asked to stop the vehicle near Kacha path in Ladpur forest, where he continued sitting in the vehicle. After a while, he heard the sound of firing in jungle and senior police officers were passing by that road. The defence being taken by A15 is too good to be believed, he being the official driving the vehicle carrying other accused persons, and claiming ignorance 'whether it was a case of encounter or killing'.
96. A16 Inderbhan Singh, has not disputed the fact that he was driving the vehicle of A3 Rajesh Bisht, SO, PS Nehru Colony, being no. UA07A3846, and had claimed that A13 Vikas Baluni and A14 Sanjay Rawat were also with S C No.01/11 103/139 104 him. So, there is enough ground to believe that A16 Inder Bhan Singh was also a party to the conspiracy, to abduct and to kill deceased Ranbir Singh ultimately.
97. As per seizure memo Ex.PW79/A, after the place of incident in Ladpur forest in Dehradun was inspected by CBI team on 02.08.2009, 11 fired bullets were recovered by CFSL team after digging the upper layer of soil about 7" 8" in depth. It has been deposed by PW79, Dr. A.R.Arora, who was a member of the CBI CFSL team and had accompanied the CBI team to Ladpur forest on 02.08.2009 that A1, S.K.Jaiswal, A2 G.D.Bhatt and other members of FSL team were instructed to leave the place, after the spot was identified. It is difficult to understand why they were asked to leave, as it would have led more credence to the case of CBI as regards the recovery of fired bullets after digging the place in case the members of FSL team and A1 and A2 were allowed to remain present there. There is also an issue raised on behalf of defense as regards the preparation of the seizure memo Ex.PW79/A itself, as there is no evidence on record to prove that the computer or the printer for preparing Ex.PW79/A was S C No.01/11 104/139 105 with CBI team at the spot in Ladpur forest and there is also issue as regard the signing of memo by S.K.Pandey, Sub Inspector CBI, SPE, Dehradun, as the name of all other witnesses are computer typed, but his name has been added later on by writing the same by hand. Circumstances had made the recovery of fired bullets from the soil and digging etc. doubtful, and it is not clearly established by whom the digging was done and from where the instruments for digging were brought.
98. There is no issue as regards the identification of the deceased, as the blood samples were taken by PW109, Dr. Anupama Raina, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi and same were sent to Biology Division, CFSL on 28.08.2009. The DNA profile were generated by PW82, B.K.Mahapatra and the identity of the deceased, being the son of complainant and his wife, has been proved by him vide his report Ex.PW82/A.
99. Issue was also raised on behalf of defence that the form prescribed by National Human Rights Commission was not used for conducting the postmortem of the deceased, which S C No.01/11 105/139 106 as per the guidelines of National Human Rights Commission, needed to be followed in the cases of custodial death. The present proceedings are not related to any custodial death, as deceased Ranbir Singh was never shown to be in the custody of the police officials, and he was not shown to have been arrested in case Crime No.143/09 of P.S Dalanwala. Even otherwise, merely because the postmortem report has not been prepared, as per the guidelines of National Human Rights Commission, that in any way, does not dispute the correctness or genuineness of the postmortem report Ex.PW92/A.
100. It was also argued on behalf of A1 to A9, A12, A16, A17 and A18 by Sh. R.M.Tufail, Advocate that three crucial witnesses in the case have not been examined on behalf of prosecution. First is SP City (Panther) in whose name the entry at Pt. Q4 in Ex.PW16/B was inserted later on, as per the case of the prosecution and it is argued that SP City would have been the right person to explain whether or not such information was given by him to the City Control Room, which was recorded by A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain. It is difficult to say at this stage, whether the deposition by SP City, S C No.01/11 106/139 107 Dehradun, would have made the case of prosecution in any way strong or weak, unless the same was supported by some record, where the information, which are given by SP City to City Control Room, are recorded. Otherwise, it was just the statement of one witness and the case would remain as it is now, even after the deposition by SP City, Dehradun in one way or another. Similarly, it is argued that Ct. Karunesh was also not examined on behalf of prosecution and he was the person, who would have made the things clear, whether or not he was apprehended on 03.07.2009 from Mohini Road near Gurudwara, Dehradun by Cheeta6 officials, being A8, Satbir Singh and Ct. Jitender Joshi. Similarly, it is also argued that Ct. Jitender Joshi has also not been examined on behalf of prosecution. Be that, as it may, it was open for the accused persons also, to summon and examine SP City, Dehradun, Ct. Karunesh as well as Ct. Jitender Joshi in their defense, in case they were of the opinion, that their deposition was in any way beneficial for them, to prove their defense.
101. Sh. R.M.Tufail, Advocate has also argued that the accused persons had acted in self defence and it is clear from S C No.01/11 107/139 108 the fact that deceased Ranbir Singh had snatched the service pistol of a police official on duty, it was a case of sudden provocation, when the police team, which was chasing Ranbir Singh in Ladpur forest, had warned him to stop, he by sudden firing, provoked the police party to fire at him in self defence, as same is mentioned in the log book of City Control Room at 2.50 P.M, vide memo Ex.DW16/B. Since, it has already been concluded that it was not a case of genuine encounter, deceased Ranbir Singh already in custody of the police officials and the custody being illegal, as he was not shown to have been arrested in case Crime No.143/09 P.S Dalanwala, there is no question of firing by police officials in self defence.
102. The allegations proved against A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain are that he made a false entry at 1.15 P.M on 03.07.2009 in the log book of City Control Room being Q4 in Ex.PW16/B and the entry was inserted later on. So, there is no evidence of A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, being a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh and it is only proved to the extent that the questionable entry was made by A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, only to protect the other S C No.01/11 108/139 109 accused persons involved in the case from legal punishment and it was a false entry made by him as a public servant. Accordingly, A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain cannot be held liable for an offence punishable Under Section 120B r/w Section 364/302/201/218 IPC, for which he has been charged alongwith other accused persons in the case.
103. Secondly, A1 to A7 have been charged for offence punishable Under Section 302 I.P.C and they have been charged with the allegations of killing deceased Ranbir Singh in a fake encounter by firing 29 bullets from a close range in furtherance of the conspiracy to kill him. Though, the allegations of conspiracy are proved against all the accused except A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, but others have not been charged for offence punishable Under Section 302 I.P.C, the substantive offence for which A1 to A7 have been charged. In a similar way only A1 to A7 have been charged for substantive offence punishable Under Section 364 I.P.C of abduction in the circumstances that deceased Ranbir Singh, who was abducted may be killed, which was in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. Charge for substantive offence S C No.01/11 109/139 110 punishable under Section 364 I.P.C has not been framed against A8 to A18.
104. Section 364 I.P.C reads as under:
364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The allegations proved are that deceased Ranbir Singh was apprehended by police officials of P.S Dalanwala from Mohini Road near Gurudwara, was taken to P.S, but he was not shown to have been arrested in case Crime No.143/09, P.S Dalanwala, U/S 394 I.P.C etc., which was registered in regard to the incident involving A2, G.D.Bhatt wherein his service pistol was robbed and he was disposed of to be put in danger of being murdered and so, ingredients of the offence punishable Under Section 364 I.P.C r/w Section 120 I.P.C are made out against accused A1 to A7.
105. As per the deposition of PW64, Gopal Singh Negi, PW49 Ct. Parmod Singh and PW53, SI Mahipal Singh Rawat, 30 number of bullets were used in the alleged S C No.01/11 110/139 111 encounter by A1 to A7. Murder has been defined in Section 300 I.P.C which reads as under:
300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly If the person committing the act knows that is is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Thus, from the circumstances it is clear that death of deceased Ranbir Singh, was caused with the intention of causing his death by the indiscriminate filing by A1 to A7 and the offence of murder is made out against A1 to A7 as defined under section 300 firstly I.P.C. The cause of death as opined by doctors, as per report Ex. PW92/A, was shock and hemorrhage caused by the injuries to the vital organs as a result of fire arms.
S C No.01/11 111/139
112
106. Then, A1 to A14 have been charged for offences punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C and 302 I.P.C. Section 201 I.P.C reads as under:
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
So, what is punishable is that a person knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, cause evidence of commission of that offence disappear. The facts, as per the charge Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w section 364 I.P.C and 302 I.P.C against A1 to A14 is that in furtherance of said conspiracy, knowing that offences of abduction and murder had been committed, they prepared a false Fard showing that deceased Ranbir Singh had been killed in an encounter and same was done by them with the intention of screening themselves from legal S C No.01/11 112/139 113 punishment. There is no evidence that A1 to A14 have caused any evidence of the commission of the offence disappear. It is only a case of their defence, which has been found to be incorrect. They have not caused any evidence to disappear. The commission of offence itself, as killing of deceased Ranbir Singh, was duly reported. No effort was made to dispose of the body or to remove any other evidence, which could have been found by investigation. So, ingredients of offence punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C or Section 302 I.P.C are not made out against any of the accused being A1 to A14.
107. Further, A1 to A14 have been charged for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C that being public servant, they framed false Fard in case Crime No.98/09 U/S 307 I.P.C, P.S Raipur, Dehradun knowing the same to be false. Section 218 I.P.C reads as under:
218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or S C No.01/11 113/139 114 writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Thus, the ingredients of offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C are(i) that person is a public servant, (ii) he is charged with preparation of any record or writings, (iii) he frames that record or writings in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, (iv) he does the same with intent to cause that he will thereby save any person from legal punishment. Thus, A1 to A14 were not charged for the preparation of any record or other writings. They had simply given their statement making a complaint to the police officials of P.S Raipur, Dehradun, and in the situation, it is the police officials of P.S Raipur, Dehradun, who were charged for the preparation of record and other writings, being recording of FIR in the case and so, offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C, is not made out against A1 to A14.
S C No.01/11 114/139
115
107. Then, A8, Satbir Singh, is charged for offence punishable Under Section 201 r/w Section 364 and 201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C with the facts that he had brought Ct. Karunesh and a false GD entry to that effect was made by A18 Manoj Kumar, who was the GD Munshi at P.S Dalanwala on 03.07.2009 and same has been done by A8, Satbir Singh to screen accused persons from legal punishment of abduction and murder of deceased Ranbir Singh. As discussed earlier, it is only a case of preparation of false defence and in no way, can be termed as causing of the disappearance of the evidence of the offence. Ingredients of offence punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364 and Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C are not made out against A8, Satbir Singh.
108. A18, Manoj Kumar, is charged for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. He was working as a GD Munshi at P.S Dalanwala on 03.07.2009 and at 1.10 P.M, he made a false entry to the effect that a person was brought to the P.S by Cheeta6, Ct. Satbir (A8) and Ct. Jitender Joshi with revolver, being the entry Ex.PW64/E3 and again another entry at 1.20 P.M Ex.PW64/E4 to the effect that the person S C No.01/11 115/139 116 brought was Ct. Karunesh, gunner of MLA, having his service revolver. It has already been held that both the entries, Ex.PW64/E3 and Ex.PW64/E4 were false entries. Same have been made by A18, Manoj Kumar acting as a public servant, entrusted with making entries in GD register and the entries were written by him with the intent that thereby, he will save other accused from legal punishment. So, the ingredients of offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C are made out against A18, Manoj Kumar.
109. A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, has been charged for the offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. The allegations proved against him are that he made a fake entry in the City Control Room log book at 1.15 P.M on 03.07.2009 to the effect that Panther (SP City) has given the information of three miscreants running towards Nehru Colony on a motorcycle No. HR06G9093 and that checking was to continue. He was a public servant on 03.07.2009, posted as Head Operator (Constable) in City Control Room, Dehradun and was charged for the preparation of the record/writings in the log book of City Control Room and a false entry was made S C No.01/11 116/139 117 by him with intent to save the accused persons in the case from legal punishment. Thus, ingredients of offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C are made out against A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain.
110. A15, Mohan Singh Rana, has also been charged for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. He was a driver of vehicle No.UA08B9981 TATA SUMO, P.S Dalanwala on 03.07.2009 and was a public servant and was charged for preparing the record/writings of the log book of the vehicle and making false entry not showing the actual places visited by him alongwith A1 S.K.Jaiswal on 03.07.2009. As has been held earlier, that the prosecution has not been able to prove the movement of the vehicle through the admissible evidence relating to the Global Positioning System Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C, Ex.PW17/G or Ex. PW17/E and the CCTV footage at Sahastradhara crossing vide report Ex. PW111/A. So, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. Is not made out against him.
111. Lastly, A16, Inderbhan Singh has also been charged for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. He S C No.01/11 117/139 118 was a driver on vehicle No.UA07A3846 Gypsy of P.S Nehru Colony, Dehradun on 03.07.2009 and was charged for preparing the record/writings of the log book of the vehicle and the allegations are that he made false entry in the log book of the vehicle. As already held, the prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that he had taken the vehicle at the places other than what was recorded in the log book as the information as per Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C, Ex. PW17/G or Ex. PW17/E of Global Positioning System and CCTV footage at Sahastradhara crossing vide report Ex. PW111/A could not be proved through legally admissible evidence, so offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C is not made out against A16, Inderbhan Singh.
112. In view of above discussions, it is held that prosecution has been able to prove the charge for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C against A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain. Prosecution has also been able to prove the charge for offence punishable Under Section 120B I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C, 364 I.P.C against A1 to A16 and A18. Prosecution has also been able to prove the charge for offence punishable S C No.01/11 118/139 119 Under Section 302 I.P.C r/w Section 120B I.P.C as well as Under Section 364 I.P.C r/w Section 120B I.P.C against A1 to A7. Further, prosecution has been able to prove the charge for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C against A18, Manoj Kumar.
113. Prosecution has not been able to prove the charge for offence punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C and Section 302 I.P.C as well as for substantive offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C against A1 to A14. Prosecution has also not been able to prove the charge for offence punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364 and 201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C against A8, Satbir Singh. Prosecution has also not been able to prove the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 120B I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C, 364 I.P.C, 201 I.P.C and Section 218 I.P.C against A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain. Prosecution has also not been able to prove the charge for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C against A16, Inderbhan Singh and A15, Mohan Singh Rana .
114. Accordingly, A17, Jaspal Singh Gosain is held S C No.01/11 119/139 120 guilty and convicted for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C, but he is acquitted of charge for offence punishable Under Section 120B I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C, 302 I.P.C, 201 I.P.C and 218 I.P.C.
115. A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh and A18 Manoj Kumar, are held guilty and convicted for offence punishable Under Section 120B I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C and 302 I.P.C.
116. Further, A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, are held guilty and convicted for substantive offence punishable Under Section 302 I.P.C r/w Section 120B I.P.C and for substantive offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C r/w Section 120B I.P.C.
S C No.01/11 120/139
121
117. A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni and A14 Sanjay Rawat are acquitted of charge Under Section 201 of I.P.C r/w Sections 302/364 I.P.C and substantive offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C.
118. A8, Satbir Singh is acquitted of charge Under Section 201 r/w Section 364 and Charge under Section 201 r/w Section 302 I.P.C.
119. A18, Manoj Kumar is held guilty and convicted for substantive offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C.
120. A15, Mohan Singh Rana and A16, Inderbhan Singh are acquitted of charge for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C.
Announced in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 06.06. 2014 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC Act)
DELHI
S C No.01/11 121/139
122
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE CBI03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI Sessions Case No.01/11 RC Number : 6(S)/2009 CBI/SCB/Lucknow CBI Vs (1) Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, S/o Sh. Jagdish Bahadur Singh R/o. Civil Lines, Kutub Khana Road,Opp. Telephone Exchange, PS Kotwali, Barreilly.
(2) Sh. Gopal Dutt Bhatt S/o Sh. Puran Chandra Bhatt R/o Village Matola, PS Jageshwar, Tehsil Bhanauti, Distt.: Almora, Uttrakhand.
(3) Sh. Rajesh Bisht
S/o Sh. Jhoon Singh
R/o House no. 7, Type III,
PS Raipur, Dehradun.
(4) Sh. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o. TypeIII, Near PS Raipur,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
(5) Sh. Nitin Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh Chauhan
R/o. H.No. 19, Vivek Vihar,
PocketII,GMS Road, Dehradun.
(6) Sh. Chander Mohan Singh Rawat
S/o Late Sh.Shobha Singh Rawat,
S C No.01/11 122/139
123
R/o Deepnagar, Near Water Tank,
Ajabnpur, Kalan, Dehradun.
(7) Sh. Ajeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Om Pal Singh
R/o Village Gadarjudda,
Post Manglore, Haridwar.
(8) Sh.Satbir Singh
S/o Shri Rakam Singh
R/o. 5, Cement Road, Kanranpur,
PS Dalanwala, Dehradun.
(9) Sunil Saini
S/o Shri Kadam Singh
R/o Village Kurdi, PS Manglore,
Haridwar.
(10) Chander Pal
S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram
R/o Village Kankhal Barakothi,
Pahari Bazar, Haridwar.
(11) Saurabh Nautiyal
S/o Shri Hiramani Nautiuyal ,
R/o Village Kairada, Post Nagraja
Dhar, Distt. Tehri Garhwal.
(12) Nagendra Rathi
S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh ,
R/o. Village Narsangh Kalan,
PS Manglar, Haridwar.
(13) Vikas Chandra Baluni
S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Baluni,
R/o Village Baluni Banek,
PO Banek, Distt.:Pauri,Garhwal.
S C No.01/11 123/139
124
(14) Sanjay Rawat
S/o Shri Sain Singh Rawat ,
R/o. Village Kundali, PS Satbuli,
Ekeshwar Block,Tehri Garhwal.
(15) Mohan Singh Rana
S/o Shri Pratap Singh Rana
R/o. Village Reni , PS Joshimath,
Chamoli.
(16) Inder Bhan Singh
S/o Shri Janmadeo Singh
R/o.Village Saga Rai, PS Darauli,
District Seewan (Bihar).
(17) Jaspal Singh Gosain
S/o Late Shri Manbar Singh Gosain ,
R/o. Village Kamoldi, Post Kwalli,
Tehsil Agast Muni,Rudraprayag.
(18) Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri Tej Pal Singh
R/o. Village & Post Chunsa,
APS Bhorakalan, Mujjafar Nagar.
Under Section: 120B r/w 364, 302 & 201 IPC and substantive offences u/s 364, 302 & 201 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Arguments were heard on the quantum of sentence to convicts A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, S C No.01/11 124/139 125 A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh, A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A18 Manoj Kumar.
2. A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, A8 Satbir Singh, A9 Sunil Saini, A10 Chander Pal, A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A12 Nagender Rathi, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A14 Sanjay Rawat, A15 Mohan Singh Rana, A16 Inderbhan Singh and A18 Manoj Kumar, have been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 302 and Section 364 IPC.
3. Further, A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, have been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. S C No.01/11 125/139
126
4. Also, A1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A3 Rajesh Bisht, A4 Neeraj Kumar, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A7 Ajit Singh, have been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 364 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC.
5. A18 Manoj Kumar, in addition has been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 218 IPC.
6. A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain, has been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 218 IPC.
7. On behalf of prosecution, submissions were made by Sh. Brajesh Shukla, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh. A.T. Rao, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
8. Sh. R.M. Tufail, Ld. Defence Counsel for A1 to A9, A12, A14, A16 to A18, made the submissions.
9. Sh. Anupam Sharma, Ld. Counsel for A10, A11, A13, A14 and A15, made the submissions.
10. It has been urged on behalf of the prosecution/complainant that the case qualifies to be put in the category of 'Rarest of rare cases' since, life of an innocent young boy has been terminated by the policemen, who had S C No.01/11 126/139 127 been entrusted with the duty to protect the society and innocent lives.
11. On behalf of prosecution, reference has been made to a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Prakash Kadam & etc. Vs. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr., wherein in para 19 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
" 19. This is a very serious case and cannot be treated like an ordinary case. The accused who are policemen are supposed to uphold the law, but allegation against them is that they functioned as contract killers. Their version that Ramnarayan Gupta was shot in a police encounter has been found to be false during investigation..................................."
12. The bail granted to the accused persons in Prakash Kadam's case (supra) had been cancelled by Hon'ble High Court and the order was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. On behalf of prosecution, reliance has also been placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Mehboob Batcha and others Vs. State (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases( Cri) 70, which was a case of custodial death wherein policemen wrongfully detained the deceased and beating him death, but charge of murder was not framed. In S C No.01/11 127/139 128 para 12 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
" 12. We are surprised that the accused were not charged under Section 302 IPC and instead the Courts below treated the death of Nandgopal as suicide. In fact, they should have charged under that provision and awarded death sentence, as murder by policemen in police custody is in our opinion falls in the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving death sentence...................".
14. On behalf of accused also, attention has been drawn to several cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court setting out the guidelines for awarding death penalty or imprisonment when the choice is between the two, notably Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab(1980) 2 Suprem Court Cases 684, Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar and Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases ( Cri) 409. In Rajendra Singh's case(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to another case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, being Ram Naresh's case SCC pages 28477, wherein in Para 77 Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded, after referring to Bachan Singh's case (supra) and Machi Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 SCC (Cri) 681:
S C No.01/11 128/139
129 "77. While determining the questions relatable to sentencing policy, the Court has to follow certain principles and those principles are the loadster besides the above considerations in imposition or otherwise of the death sentence Principles (1) The Court has to apply the test to determine, it was the 'Rarest of rare' case for imposition of a death sentence.
(2) In the opinion of the Court, imposition of any other punishment, i.e., life imprisonment would be completely inadequate and would not meet the ends to justice.
(3) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.
(4) The option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of crime and all relevant circumstances.
(5) The method(planned or otherwise) and the manner( Extent of Brutality and inhumanity etc), in which the crime was committed and the circumstances leading to commission of such heinous crime.
15. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, and the case law referred to on behalf of prosecution and the accused, I am of the opinion that the case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and it is for the reasons:
(1) The case is based on the circumstantial evidence.
(2) Conviction is based on conspiracy between the S C No.01/11 129/139 130 convicts.
(3) Policemen of P.S Dalanwala, P.S. Nehru Colony and Special Operation Group, all of Dehradun City, were involved. A3 Rajesh Bisht, A16 Inderbhan Singh, A13 Vikas Chander Baluni and A14 Sanjay Rawat, were of P.S. Nehru Colony, A5 Nitin Chauhan, A10 Chander Pal and A11 Saurabh Nautiyal, were of Special Operation Group, and rest of P.S. Dalanwala, what was the common thread between the three, has not been revealed.
(4) Do not think they would be a menace to the society (5) Many of the convicts particularly the subordinates staff, i.e., constables, are of young age and were not armed at the time of incident.
(6) The place of incident in Ladpur forest is within the jurisdiction of P.S. Raipur, Dehradun. Dehradun is a small city compared to Metro cities. The President of India, is visiting the city on 03.07.09. The city is on high alert, but policemen of P.S. Raipur are nowhere.S C No.01/11 130/139
131
16. The convicts are sentenced as under:
(1) A1 S.K. Jaiswal ,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one month in case of default in payment of fine. (2) A2 G.D. Bhatt
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine. S C No.01/11 131/139
132
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one month in case of default in payment of fine.
(3) A3 Rajesh Bisht,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence punishable under Section S C No.01/11 132/139 133 364 r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one month in case of default in payment of fine.
(4) A4 Neeraj Kumar,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one month in case of default in payment of fine.
(5) A5 Nitin Chauhan
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B S C No.01/11 133/139 134 IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one month in case of default in payment of fine.
(6) A6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine. S C No.01/11 134/139
135
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one month in case of default in payment of fine.
(7) A7 Ajit Singh,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine
of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one month in case of default in payment of fine.
(8) A8 Satbir Singh,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
S C No.01/11 135/139
136
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(9) A9 Sunil Saini,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(10) A10 Chander Pal, is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(11) A11 Saurabh Nautial is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
S C No.01/11 136/139
137 (12) A12 Nagender Rathi, is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(13) A13 Vikas Chander Baluni, is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(14) A14 Sanjay Rawat, is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
S C No.01/11 137/139
138 (15) A15 Mohan Singh Rana, is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(16) A16 Inder Bhan Singh, is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(17) A17 Jaspal Singh Gosain, is sentenced to SI for two years for offence punishable under Section 218 IPC. He shall have the benefit of provisions of Section 428 CrPC.
(18) A18 Manoj Kumar,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under Section 120B S C No.01/11 138/139 139 IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) Further, he is sentenced to SI for two years for offence punishable under Section 218 IPC. He shall have the benefit of provisions of Section 428 CrPC.
17. The entire amount of the fine recovered shall be given to the complainant, Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the father of the deceased, as compensation under Section 357 CrPC. I also feel that the compensation awarded to the complainant under Section 357 CrPC, the recovered fine amount shall not be adequate or required for their rehabilitation, the case is also referred to Delhi Legal Services Authority under Section 357A(1) CrPC. and recommended for compensation.
18. Copy of Judgment and Order on sentence be given to the convicts free of cost. Custody warrants be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.
Announced in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 09.06. 2014 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC Act)
DELHI
S C No.01/11 139/139