Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cra-S No.982-Sb Of 2013 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 13 January, 2014
CRM No.19277 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CRM No.19277 of 2013 In
CRA-S No.982-SB of 2013
Preetpal Singh Virk
...Applicants
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Respondent
2. CRM No.20805 of 2013 In
CRA-S No.1099-SB of 2013
Shamsher Singh and others
....Applicants.
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
....Respondents.
Present: Mr. K.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate
for the appellant - applicant
(in CRM No.19277 of 2013 in
CRA-S No. 982-SB of 2013).
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Daljit Singh and Vineet Kaushal, Advocates
for the appellants-applicants
(in CRM No. 20805 of 2013 in
CRA-S No. 1099-SB of 2013).
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the CBI.
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
Kumar Suresh By this common order, CRM No.19277 of 2013 filed by 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19277 of 2013 2 Preetpal Singh Virk then posted as Superintendent of Police (Detective), Sangrur and CRM No.20805 of 2013 arising out of criminal appeal filed by other three accused, namely, Shamsher Singh Inspector, CIA Staff, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, H.C. Avtar Singh and C II Balbir Singh are being decided together.
2. Police was after Tejinder Singh @ Billu son of Budh Singh suspected to be a terrorist. Defence plea set up by the applicant- appellants was that Jagdeep Singh @ Pilli brother of Tejinder Singh was associated with terrorist activities. Jagdeep Singh was an active member of Khalisthan Liberation Force (KLF). FIR No. 198 dated 27.8.1990, Police Station Sunam was registered against Jagdeep Singh @ Pilli under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and TADA Act. Police used to raid the house of Jagdeep @ Pilli in order to search him and, therefore, the entire family was inimical towards the police.
3. The facts of the case as emerged during the course of trial are that initially Tejinder Singh @ Billu was abducted on 14.5.1993 and illegally detained by appellant Preetpal Singh Virk and other members of police force. He was released from illegal detention on 8.6.1993. Tejinder Singh, then went to Kolkata to reside with his brother Jagrup Singh, to avoid harassment of police. Applicant-appellant Preetpal Singh Virk left Sangrur on 5.7.1993 on secret duty and arrived in Kolkata on 8.7.1993 in Maruti Van No.CHK
933. Balbir Singh, C-II was driver of the Van. Tejinder Singh was picked up by them on 13.7.1993 from near his house in Hawrah, Kumar Suresh Kolkata. Father of the victim saw his son Tejinder Singh having 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19277 of 2013 3 alighted from the jeep on 15.7.1993 while he was under illegal detention. Despite efforts, his family was unable to get his release. The police in fact was not providing any clue of Tejinder Singh.
4. Budh Singh filed writ petition before this Court in the year 1994 and a judicial enquiry was marked to the District & Sessions Judge, Vigilance, Haryana who submitted report on 30.1.1995 that there was all probability that Tejinder Singh was either eliminated by Preetpal Singh Virk with the help of other police officials or he was still detained by them illegally. This Court then entrusted the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
5. The CBI registered Case No. RC 5 (5) 95-SIU dated 23.8.1995 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 342/343/346/364 IPC at Police Station CBI, SICI, New Delhi. All the four appellants were convicted of the charge under Section 364 etc. of the IPC and maximum sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment was awarded. They were also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.
6. Learned counsel for the CBI placed on record custody certificates of all the four appellants-applicants. They have undergone approximately 8 months of actual imprisonment so far. Learned counsel for the CBI, therefore, vehemently opposed the applications on the ground that thorough investigation was conducted and there was complete evidence in the case and, thus, it is too early for the appellants-applicants to claim suspension of sentence. Kumar Suresh
7. After hearing Learned counsel for the appellants- 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19277 of 2013 4 applicants and counsel for the CBI, I find no ground to suspend sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants at this stage.
8. Perusal of impugned judgment shows that there is evidence in abundance on record showing that Pritpal Singh Virk- appellant was desperately after the life Tejinder Singh victim. Evidence was also led that a huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was demanded from the family to release of Tejinder Singh from police custody. Not only the parents of the victim testified about this aspect before the trial Court but there are witnesses from Kolkata who identified this appellant-applicant in the Court, stating that Tejinder Singh was taken away by the police party headed by Preetpal Singh Virk from Kolkata on 13.7.1993.
9. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution itself relied upon the TA/DA Bills of appellant which would establish that Preetpal Singh Virk had returned to Sangrur on 12.7.1993 and joined duty on 14.7.1993. It is thus contended that the entire story that Tejinder Singh was picked up from Kolkata on 13.7.1993 is falsified.
10. Learned counsel for CBI rightly contended that appellant- applicant could manipulate the dates in the TA/DA bills to save his skin. But there is overwhelming evidence on record incriminating the appellant-applicant for the heinous crime.
11. Learned counsel for other appellants submitted that Shamesher Singh was deputed to apprehend one Ajaib Singh under the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. They left Sangrur for Kolkata on 5.7.1993 by making entry in DDR register as warrants Kumar Suresh were to be returned by 3.8.1993. They travelled by official vehicle as 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19277 of 2013 5 well as railways, details of which are mentioned in the TA bills. It was pleaded before the trial Court that due to unnatural calamities they could not return by 3.8.1993. They started back from Kolkata on 4.8.1993 and reached Sangrur on 7.8.1993. Therefore, their involvement was not possible in the disappearance of Tejinder Singh which happened approximately in the middle of July, 1993. It was contended that their visit to Kolkata has been unnecessarily coincided with the visit of Preetpal Singh Virk to Kolkata.
12. The above contentions would not carry much importance in view of the evidence on record. Learned trial Court has observed in para Nos. 106 and 109 as under:-
"106 .....As in this case the prosecution has proved that accused Preetpal Singh Virk was using Maruti Van bearing registration No. CHK 933 at Calcutta. All the prosecution witnesses have deposed that accused Preetpal Singh Virk came to Calcutta in a Maruti Van alongwith some other police officials. As per TA Bill Ex. PW9/H Inspector Shamsher Singh had gone to Calcutta with the police party headed by SP(D) Sangrur and further as per TA bill Ex. PW9/H accused Shamsher Singh was very much present at Calcutta from 8.7.1993 to 4.8.1993. Further, as per TA bill Ex. PW9/K accused Balbir No 242 had proceeded for Calcutta on 5.7.1993 and returned to Sangrur on 14.7.1993 and at that time he was driving of Maruti Van No CHK 933 and was on duty Kumar Suresh with Inspector Shamsher Singh being a driver. Further as 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19277 of 2013 6 per TA bill Ex.PW9/J, accused Avtar Singh was also present from 5.7.1993 to 3.8.1993 at Calcutta. It is pertinent to mention here that all the TA bills of these persons were duly forwarded by accused Preetpal Singh Virk the then SP(D) Sangrur. Further as per letter Ex.PW16/4 Maruti Van No CHK 933 was being driven by accused Preetpal Singh Virk or his gunman during the period from May to July 1993.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
109. It is worthwhile to mention here that even accused Shamsher Singh, Avtar Singh and Balbir Singh have taken their defence plea by admitting their visit to Calcutta but they have denied the fact that they were members of police party headed by accused Preetpal Singh Virk. But this fact qua connection of accused Shamsher Singh, Avtar Singh and Balbir Singh during the period when they stayed at Calcutta with accused Preetpal Singh Virk, is proved by the prosecution with the help of TA bill Ex.PW9/H in which accused Shamsher Singh has categorically stated that from 5.7.1993 to 4.8.1993 he had gone to Calcutta with the police party headed by SP(D) Sangrur in connection with some confidential inquiry and investigation. This fact is further corroborated with the help of TA bill Ex.PW9/J, of accused Avtar Singh, in which he has admitted his Kumar Suresh presence from 5.7.1993 to 7.8.1993 at Calcutta, where 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19277 of 2013 7 he went by a private Maruti car in connection with duty assigned by SP(D) Sangrur in investigation of confidential matter. Further case of the prosecution is further corroborated by TA bill Ex.PW9/K in which CII Balbir Singh No. 242 admitted that he was on duty with Inspector Shamsher Singh as driver and was driving private Maruti car No CHK 933. This fact is not disputed that even accused Preetpal Singh Virk went to Calcutta as well as other accused only on the direction and permission of SP(D) Sangrur."
13. Tejinder Singh was not seen or traceable after 15.7.1993. It would be quite relevant to refer to the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another, 2003(7) SCC 749:
"Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues and the present case is an apt illustration as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter.
The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of Kumar Suresh 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19277 of 2013 8 crimes in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilized society."
14. It was also contended for the appellants that there was huge delay in initiating action, by Budh Singh father of the victim. It is contended that the incident was of the year 1993 but petition before this Court was filed in the year 1994 and ultimately FIR was registered in the year 1995. That was the most turbulent and dark period in the State of Punjab and any amount of delay in such a case could not by itself be fatal particularly when the complainant had to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance.
15. No merit in the instant criminal miscellaneous applications for suspension of sentence of appellants-applicants at this stage.
16. Dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(R.P. Nagrath) 13.01.2014 Judge sk Kumar Suresh 2014.01.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh