Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Satyapal Singh And Ors. Page 1 / on 24 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM CHAUDHARY
ASJ (CENTRAL01) : DELHI
SC No. 68/09
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
VERSUS
1. Satya Pal Singh
S/o Madan Pal Singh
Sub. Inspector
Station Officer
PS. Sector 20, Noida
Disst. Ghaziabad. R/o
R/o Village Gwalara
PO Sahashram,
Aligarh
2. Sh. Raja Vats (Deceased)
S/o Sh. Munshi Singh
Sub. Inspector, PS Kavi
Nagar Ghaziabad, R/o Village
Dharar,
PO Barran Disst. Hardoi.
3. Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Harihar Singh
Sector Officer
CB CID , Meerut
R/o Vill. Faridabad
PO Balwarganj
Ajaunpur UP
4. Sh. Sukhpal Singh
SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 1 /
Constable No. 300 CP
PS Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad
R/o Vill. Kheda Mastan
PO Phugana, Bulandshahar
5. Sh. Satyavir Singh
Constable NO. 1179 CP
S/o Sh. Bighna Singh
PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad
R/O Vill. Kalarhedi
PS Gangoh, Sharnpur
6. Smt. Duija Yadav
D/o Sh. Ram Prasad
Lady Head Constable No. 206
CP PS Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad
R/o Vill. Ajmali,
PS Baharganj, Gorakhpur
7. Ms. Promila J. Masih
D/o Sh. Jhangir Mesih
Lady Constable No. 673 CP
Mahila Cell, O/O Sr. Supdt.
Of Police, Ghaziabad
R/o Misson Compound,
Khatauli, Muzaffar Nagar
8. Smt. Geeta Ahuja
D/o Khem Raj Ahuja
R/o 2/68, Raj Nagar
Ghaziabad (Pvt.)
9. Sh. Khem Raj Ahuja (Deceased)
SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 2 /
S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal Ahuja
R/o 2/68,Raj Nagar
Ghaziabad (Pvt.)
Arguments heard on : 20.05.2010
Judgments reserved for : 24.05.2010
Judgments announced on : 24.05.2010
J U D G M E N T
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 12.08.94 at Raj Nagar Ghaziabad accused Satyapal Singh, Raja Vats (since deceased), Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy with K. R. Ahuja (deceased) and other persons to wrongfully confine, at Kavi Nagar Police Station and physically torture complainant Raj Pal Dhall, Sanjay Dhall, Deepak Malik , and Smt. Anu Dhall to extort confession /information from them about Geeta Ahuja (coaccused) and Atul Dhall (complainant's son) and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120 B r/w section 348/330 IPC.
2. It is also the case of prosecution that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy all the above named accused wrongfully confined at Kavi Nagar police station complainant and his family members named above and physically tortured them to extort confession/information from them about Geeta Ahuja and Atul Dhall and thereby committed offence punishable u/s348/330 IPC.
3. The case of prosecution is also that on 13.08.94 at Raj Nagar Ghaziabad PS Kavi Nagar all accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to fabricate false evidence against complainant Raj Pal Dhall and his family members with the intention to use that evidence against them in the case pertaining to FIR no. 408/94 SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 3 / u/s 363/366/376 IPC PS Kavi Nagar got registered accused Khem Raj Ahuja (deceased) and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC read with section 195 IPC .
4. It is also the case of prosecution that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy accused Satya Pal Singh, Raja Vats (deceased), Sukhpal Singh, Satyvir Singh, Duija Yadav, Promila J. Masih and Geeta Ahuja prepared a false recovery memo dated 13.08.94 showing recovery of Geeta Ahuja from the custody of Rajpal and his family members including Atul Dhall from Ghaziabad Railway station on 13.08.94 for being used in the aforesaid case FIR no. 408/94 PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad fro securing their conviction in that case and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable u/s 195 IPC .
5. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the all accused for the offences under section 342,218,323,330,352, 193 and 195 r/w 120B IPC in the designated court of Ld. Sessions Judge Dehradun. Thereafter in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.01.98 case was transferred to the courts of Ld. District and Sessions Judge Delhi.
6. During the pendency of the case accused Raja Vats and K. R. Ahuja expired and proceedings against them stood abated.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Spl. PP CBI that case was registered on 19.11.94 under the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 7.11.94. It is further submitted by Ld. Spl. PP CBI Sh. Anil Tanwar that as per the case of prosecution accused Geeta Ahuja was living in the neighbourhood of PW 2 complainant, Rajpal Dhal in Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad at the time of incident. It is further the case of prosecution that accused Geeta Ahuja fell in love with Atul Dhall son of complainant and they wanted to get married but parents of Geeta were against their marriage. Hence on 12.08.94 accused Geeta Ahuja and Atul Dhal came to SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 4 / Delhi without informing their families and got married on 12.08.94. It is further the case of prosecution that K. R. Ahuja father of Geeta Ahuja on coming to know that his daughter had gone with Atul Dhall on 12.08.94 called the police. Complainant Raj Pal Dhall and his family members were arrested and tortured badly by the police officials at PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad to extract information/confession from them about the whereabouts of Geeta Ahuja.
8. It is further the case of prosecution that in the morning of 13.08.94 accused Geeta Ahuja and Atul Dhall came to the PS Kavi Nagar and informed the police official that they had got married. However, the police instead of leaving complainant Raj Pal Dhal and his family members arrested Atul Dhall and his family members in case FIR no. 408/94, registered at PS Kavi Nagar on 12.08.94 u/s 363/366 IPC on the complaint of accused Khem Raj Ahuja (deceased) father of accused Geeta Ahuja. The complainant and his family members were produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody and they were released on bail on 19.08.94. Thereafter on 20.08.94 complainant Rajpal lodged a complaint with District Magistrate Ghaziabad that he and his family members were brutally tortured by the police officials of PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 and requested for taking action against erring police official. However, as no action was taken on the complaint, Atul Dhall filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for getting matter investigated by CBI. In the said writ petition Hon'ble Supreme court of India ordered investigation of allegations of torture of petitioner and his family by CBI. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also ordered that further investigation of case FIR no. 408/94 u/s 363/366 IPC registered at PS Kavi Nagar would remain stayed. CBI then registered the present case vide FIR no. RC28(5) 94DAD and investigated the matter and after completion of the investigation filed chargesheet against 7 police officials namely SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 5 / SI Satyapal Singh, SI Raja Vats, (deceased) Circle officer Ajay Kumar Singh, Ct. Sukhpal Singh, Ct. Satyavir Singh, HC Duija Yadav and Ct. Promila J. Meshih as well as Geeta Ahuja and Khem Raj Ahuja for the offence punishable u/s 342/218/323/330/352/193/195 r/w 120 B IPC.
9. Charge was framed against accused Satypal Singh, Raja Vats (deceased), Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Satyavir Singh for the offence u/s 120 B r/w 348/330 IPC and section 330/348 IPC and against accused Satya Pal Singh, Raja Vats (deceased), Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh, Duija Yadav, Promila Messieh and Geeta Ahuja for the offence u/s 120 B IPC r/w section 195 IPC and 195 IPC.
10. CBI examined 25 witnesses in support of its case.
11. PW 1 Atul Dhall deposed that he had love affair with accused Geeta Ahuja and she offered to marry him. He also stated that parents of Geeta Ahuja were opposed to their marriage. He further deposed that in pursuance of the offer made by accused Geeta he and Geeta came to Delhi by taxi and got married at Arya Samaj Mandir Jungpura on 12.08.94. He proved the documents of marriage i.e. application submitted by him at the temple Ex. PW 1/A. He stated that accused Geeta also gave consent to marry him vide application Ex. PW 1/B. He further stated that receipt Mark B was given by Arya Samaj Mandir in token of having received of Rs. 250/ from him and Geeta Ahuja for performance of their marriage. He also deposed that he submitted an affidavit Ex. PW 1/C in the Arya Samaj Mandir which bears his signatures at point A, B and affidavit of Geeta was Ex. PW 1/D executed in his presence and given in Arya Samaj Mandir. He also stated that photocopy of the register maintained by Arya Samaj Mandir was mark D, photographs of marriage were mark C1 to C 7. He further stated that his marriage was attended by his friends PW 11 Aman Anand and PW 12 Anil Walia. SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 6 / He further stated that after their marriage he had hired a room in MD International Inn New Delhi and they stayed there over night.
12. PW 1 further stated that on 13.08.94 he rang up at his house and talked to his aunt Mami Manorama Malik who informed him that his brother Sanjay , his father Rajpal Dhall, bhabhi Anil Dhall, Mamaji Deepak Malik had been arrested by police official of PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad. On hearing the same he called a taxi at 6.30 AM and he along with Geeta reached PS Kavi Nagar at about 8.00 PM. He further stated that Geeta informed the police officials that she had married him out of her own will but her father and police officials did not listen to her plea. He further deposed that at about 3.00 PM the police official arrested him, his father, his brother Sanjay , his bhabhi Anu and his mamaji Deepak Malik in a case FIR no. 408/94 u/s 363/366/376 IPC and produced them before the Magistrate and they were remanded to JC. He further stated that they were released on bail on 19.09.94. He further testified that after coming out of jail a complaint was made by his father to SSP and District Magistrate about false case having been registered against them but no action was taken on their complaint hence they moved the Hon'ble Supreme court and in pursuance of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme court investigation handed over to CBI. He further stated that Geeta Ahuja filed a suit for declaration of their marriage as null and void in the court at Delhi.
13. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta he stated that on the night of 12.08.94 he had made entry in the register of MD International Inn, New Delhi regarding their stay in room no. 301 of the said Inn. He further stated that entry in the register Ex. PW 1/DA was in his handwriting and bears his signature. He further stated that he had mentioned his name as Rajinder Kothari resident of 5, Khaitan House Villey Parley, West Bombay which was the address of his friend. SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 7 / He further stated that he had given his name as Rajinder Kothari as he apprehended arrest.
14. PW 1 further stated that he and Geeta reached PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad in the morning of 13.08.94 Geeta asked the police personnel to release him and his family members and Geeta even fought with her father K. R. Ahuja regarding detention of his family member in PS and requested her father to get them released. He also stated that police official of PS Kavi Nagar obtained their signatures on many papers but he could not tell the number of papers on which his signatures were obtained. He also stated that recovery memo Ex. PW 1/DB bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that he did not remember whether it was blank or written when he was made to sign it. He also stated that it was signed by his family members as well as Geeta.
15. PW 1 further testified that he did not get himself medically examined neither his family members got themselves medically examined after being released from jail. He further deposed that neither he nor his family member were medically examined in jail and they had approached jail doctor for medical examination but he asked for a bribe of Rs. 300/ for medical examination of each of them. He further stated that he could not tell the name of the doctor. He also stated that they did not make any complaint of the doctor to the jail superintendent neither to any higher authority after their release from jail.
16. PW 1 further stated that all of them were produced before the Magistrate together. Thereafter he stated that all of them were outside the court and were not produced before the Magistrate, the police persons went inside and obtained their judicial remand. He also stated that they had engaged a counsel on the day when they were produced before the Magistrate but the lawyer did not meet them and his impression was that as he may have been influenced by K. R. Ahuja. He also SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 8 / stated that he did not remember the name of the advocate.
17. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Sh. B. S. Sharma is that at the time of surrender by PW 1 Atul Dhall at PS Kavi Nagar he had not told the then SO PS Kavi Nagar accused Satyapal Singh that he and Geeta had married. However in his regard it is pertinent to mention that PW 1 had stated in his examination in chief that Geeta had told the police official of PS Kavi Nagar that she had married Atul of her own will, his testimony in this regard had gone unchallenged. It was further contended on behalf of accused police official that PW 1 admitted in his cross examination that in his statement Ex. PW 1/D 1 was not mentioned that he told the SO his marriage with Geeta. It was contended by Ld. counsel for accused Sh. B.S. Sharma that PW 1 had also stated in his cross examination that he did not have the marriage certificate when he surrendered in PS and in his statement Ex. PW 1/D1 it was not mentioned that he told the Station Officer that he had married Geeta as such when no certificate was shown to Station Officer and Atul did not show any proof marriage with Geeta, the then SO PS Kavi Nagar was justified in taking action as per law as he was duty bound to investigate the case FIR no. 408/94 registered on the complaint of father of Geeta regarding a cognizable offence. It was submitted that the complainant and his family members had levelled false allegations against them merely to create defence against their arrest and against the criminal case registered against them vide crime no. 408/94. Ld. Spl. PP CBI Sh. Anil Tanwar contended that no arrest could have been made because it was lawful to do so and the accused police official i.e. Station Officer and Circle Officer and other staff were bound to investigate to find out whether the complaint was genuine and bonafide before arresting the complainant and his family members.
18. It was also submitted on behalf of accused police officials that PW 1 SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 9 / further stated in his cross examination that he could not recollect whether he mentioned in the writ petition Ex. PW 1/D 2 that their signatures were obtained on blank papers by police in PS but after going through the writ petition he stated that it was not mentioned therein that their signatures were obtained on blank papers. However this contention of Ld. counsel for accused was without merits as it was mentioned in the writ petition that they were framed. It was also argued on behalf of accused police official that PW 1 also confronted with his statement PW 1/D 1 wherein it was not recorded that PW 1/DB was a forged document neither it was mentioned in the writ petition that police obtained their signatures of some papers. However in this regard it would be pertinent to note that PW1 had stated in his cross examination that police official obtained their signatures on some papers and he signed Ex. PW 1/DB without knowing the contents of the same. The copy of Ex. PW 1/DB was obtained by him after being released from jail.
19. However Ld. Spl. PP CBI had contended that Atul Dhall had mentioned in his statement Ex. PW1/D 1 that police obtained their signatures on some papers, hence the version of PW1 that their signatures were obtained on Ex. PW1/DB does not suffer from any infirmity and the version of PW 1 that Geeta had told the police official that she had married him went unchallenged.
20. The complainant PW2 Raj Pal stated that his son PW 1 Atul and accused Geeta were residing in front of their house at the relevant time. He also stated that he knew the father of the accused Geeta, accused Khem Raj Ahuja since 1966 and their relations were cordial. He further stated that in the year 1994, accused Gita requested him to negotiate for her marriage with his son Atul, accordingly he disclosed to accused Khem Raj Ahuja the intention of his daughter to marry Atul but accused Mr. Ahuja did not give any reply. He also stated that accused Geeta was kept under the house arrest by her parents.
SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 10 /
21. He stated that on 12/08/94, he had gone at his in laws house on the Tehrvi of the motherinlaw where his wife told him that Gita and Atul had gone to Delhi to get married. He further stated that brotherinlaw told him to inform Mr. Ahuja about the same, accordingly he went to the house of K.R. Ahuja and inform him of the same where Peeus son of K.R. Ahuja, came and told his father, to call Kaka Kohli a friend and business partner of K.R.Ahuja and ask him to bring the police as Kaka Kholi and Mr. Ahuja were giving lacs of Rupees to the police. Kaka Kohli and K.R. Ahuja being a liquor king of Ghaziabad. He further stated that Kaka Kohli arrived alongwith police official i.e. Station Officer Satyapal Singh, Satyavir Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Raja Vats (deceased) , all of whom were correctly identified by PW 2. Accused Satyapal Singh caught hold him and brought him out of the house of Mr. Ahuja and slapped him. He further stated that when accused Raja Vats (since deceased) was going to hit him with his fist but was stopped by accused Satyapal Singh and accused Satyapal Singh also asked, Ct. Satyavir Singh and Sukhpal Singh not to hit him. He further stated that accused Satyapal Singh escorted him to the road out of the house of K.R.Ahuja when he was being manhandled in the house of K.R.Ahuja.
22. He further stated that thereafter he was brought to Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in a Car alongwith police officials and Peus son of K. R. Ahuja whereas Kaka Kohli, Ahuja came in another car. He further deposed that Ct. Sukhpal and Ct. Satyavir Singh slapped him on the way to Delhi. On reaching Tis Hazari Court, Kaka Kohli, Khem Raj Ahuja and Raja Vats (deceased) checked the court register where marriages were performed but the names of Geeta and Atul were not found in the register. He further stated that he was also asked to enquire about the whereabouts of Geeta and Atul from his relative on telephone. Accordingly, he called his relatives on telephone and asked about whereabouts of Geeta and Atul SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 11 / but they had no news. They then returned to Ghaziabad and on the way they stopped at the house of some of his some relatives but even they had no information of Geeta and Atul.
23. PW 2 further deposed that thereafter police officials took him, his brother inlaw Deepak and Sanjay into custody and brought them to PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad on 12.08.94 at 3:30 PM. He further stated that on 12.08.94 at about 5.00 PM Anil brought the marriage certificate of Atul and Gita and gave the same to his brother in law Ashok Malik at Ghaziabad, the certificate was then sent to the house of accused K.R.Ahuja. He stated that they were again brought back their house as police officials expected his son Atul to contact his family but no call was received. He further stated that thereafter Kaka Kohli went to the bed room of his daughter inlaw Annu followed by Raja Vats (deceased), at that time Annu was feeding her child who was ill, Kaka Kohli and Raja Vats threatened Annu and asked her to get up. Sanjay pleaded with them to leave Annu as her child was ill but they did not listen. Thereafter, he Annu, Sanjay and Deepak were brought to the PS Kavi Nagar and made to sit in the room adjoining the room of Station Officer. He further deposed that one electric machine was lying on a table in the room and with the said electric machine SI Rana Singh and SI H. K. Singh gave electric shock to Sanjay by making him hold the wire as a result of which Sanjay started shivering as he could not hold the wire. He also stated that SI H. K. Singh put the wires in the ears of the Sanjay as a result of which blood started coming out from the ears of Sanjay and he fell down. He further stated that SI H. K. Singh also made Anu touch the electric wire when Anu objected to the electric shocks given to Sanjay and said that " tu zyada bolti hai". Anu started crying on being given electric shocks. He also stated that SI H. K. Singh also gave electric shock to Deepak while SI Rana kept rotating the electric machine due to which current was SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 12 / being produced and Deepak fell down due to the electric shock given to him. He further stated that thereafter he was also asked to touch the wire but in the meantime one constable came and informed that CO had come referring to A. K. Singh. He further deposed that he received only mild current, thereafter SI H. K. Singh and SI Rana Singh left the machine and went out of the room whereas they were taken to the room of SO where Kaka Kohli and A. K. Singh were present. He further stated that A. K. Singh inquired from them about the whereabouts of the gild and boy. Thereafter A. K. Singh gave beatings to the Sanjay and Deepak with the baint (wooden stick). He further stated that A. K. Singh told PW 2 that girl and boy should return home by morning and left while Kaka Kohli remained in the PS. He further stated that Kaka Kohli gave wooden stick to accused Ct. Satyavir Singh and asked him to beat him and Ct. Satyavir Singh who was smelling of alcohol and he gave beatings to him. Thereafter Satyavir Singh went out of the room and Ct. Sukhpal Singh came and gave beatings to him with the wooden stick. After sometime Sukhpal Singh and Satyavir Singh left with Kaka Kohli while Sheela Chaudhary remained in the PS besides one or two constables and Kaka Kohli asked Sheela Chaudhary to give beatings to them on which Sheela Chaudhary gave beatings to Anu.
24. He further stated that in the morning at about 7.30 AM Atul and Geeta reached the PS Kavi Nagar and K. R. Ahuja was telephonically informed whereupon he reached the PS with his relatives. K. R. Ahuja and his sisters asked Geeta to return home but Geeta told them she and Atul Dhal had got married however Ahuja's sisters forcibly took her out of the PS and slapped her and K.R.Ahuja and his relatives left the PS. He further stated that thereafter accused K.R Ahuja came back to the PS at about 1.30 at that time Satyapal Singh was present K.R.Ahuja had some talks with Satyapal Singh, thereafter he, Sanjay, SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 13 / Deepak Annu and Atul were put in the lockup and were they were sent to jail. He also stated that on 20.08.94 he wrote a letter to the District Magistrate Ghaziabad.
25. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta Ahuja he stated that on 13.08.94 Geeta and Atul reached PS Kavi Nagar by taxi Geeta and Geeta asked the police official in the PS to release them and she fought with her father and bua to get them released.
26. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyvir, Promil J. Mesih and Duija Yadav he stated that after being released on bail he sent the complaint to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad by ordinary post. He further stated that he kept the copy of the same. He also stated that he endorsed a copy of complaint to the SO Kavi Nagar and also gave a complaint at PS Kavi Nagar against receipt but he had not given the receipt of same to CBI. He further stated that no action was taken on that complaint. He further stated that he did not approach to the District Magistrate to enquire about the action taken on the complaint but sent a reminder to the District Magistrate and he had filed the copy of the reminder with the writ petition. He also stated that he had not filed a copy of complainant with the writ petition as it was stolen.
27. He further stated that he knew the names and ranks of the police official but int the complaint to the District Magistrate he did not mention the name of the police official and in the said complaint also did not mention the names of the police official who gave the beatings or electric shock to them in the PS.
28. He further stated when Geeta and Atul came to the PS they did not have marriage certificate so there was no question of producing the same before the SHO on 13.08.94. Nothing could be elucidated in the cross examination of PW 2 which would create doubt regarding complainant made to District Magistrate being a forged document.
SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 14 /
29. He further stated that h is statement was recorded by Inspector P. K. Chaudhary of CBI but he could not remember whether he was asked to sign the statement. He also stated that he had not told the IO that he knew Ahuja since 1966 and that they were engaged in the same business, he denied the suggestion that he did not state so to the IO as it was a false statement. He further stated that he had not mentioned in his statement to the CBI that when he came to the his house in April 1994 he found Geeta sitting in his house and Geeta gave him her Janmpatri as well of Atul and requested him to negotiate her marriage with Atul with her parents. He denied that he deposed falsely in court about the said facts and he denied that he did not state the same before CBI as it was false.
30. He further stated that he had mentioned in his statement to CBI that his wife told him that Geeta and Atul had gone to Delhi to get married and he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB wherein it was not so recorded. He was also confronted with the statement Ex. PW 2/DB where it was not recorded that his brother in law asked him to inform K. R. Ahuja. He also testified that he informed the parents of Geeta that Atul and Geeta had gone to Delhi to get married and after hearing the news Peus the son of K. R. Ahuja, asked his father to ask Kaka Kohli who was a business parter of K.R.Ahuja and both were liquor kings of Ghaziabad to call the police as Ahuja was giving lacs of rupees to the police. Thereafter Kaka Kohli, SO Satyapal Singh. Ct. Satyavir Singh, Sukhpal Singh and SI Raja Vats arrived. Accused Satyapal Singh slapped him. He further stated that on the way to Delhi he was slapped by SI Raja Vats, Ct. Satyavir Singh and Ct.Sukhpal Singh. He further stated that he did not remember if he had told the police that Piyush told his father K.R.Ahuja that when would police be of any help to them as K.R.Ahuja was giving lacs of rupees to police. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB wherein lacs of rupees was not mentioned but the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 15 / confrontation in my view is not a material omission as it was mentioned in his statement that accused K.R. Ahuja used to give lot of money to the police monthly. He also stated that he did not remember whether he told CBI that Kaka Kohli was a liquor king of Ghaziabad and was sharing business with K. R. Ahuja. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB wherein it was not so recorded,. However this is not a material contradictions.
31. PW 2 further stated that in his statement Ex. PW 2/DB it had not been stated that Satyapal Singh had slapped him. He denied that the made false statement on oath in the court that Satyapal Singh slapped him whereas in fact he had not slapped and that is why it was not mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW 2/DA . He also stated that complaint Ex. PW 2/DA was in his handwriting which was reproduced by CBI on the backside of FIR. He further stated that hand written complaint was not on judicial file and it was in English. He also stated in his complaint Ex. PW 2/DA names of police official had not been mentioned. He also stated that in his complainant Ex. PW 2/DA to District Magistrate he had not stated that police official had beaten them at his house. It was submitted by Ld. counsel for accused Sh. B.S. Sharma that PW 2 admitted that none of the accused in this case had given electric shock to them. He also stated that Satyapal Singh escorted him till road when he was being manhandled by Geeta's Nana. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB where the names of Ct. Sukhbir and Sukhpal had not been mentioned but it was mentioned that 2 constables had beaten him therefore the contradiction are not material.
32. It was further submitted on behalf of the accused police official that PW 2 stated that he had not told CBI that on 12.08.94 at 5.00 PM Anil had brought the marriage certificate of Atul and Geeta and gave it to his brotherinlaw Ashok Mailk who sent it to the house and K. R. Ahuja came to his house and told him SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 16 / that " Main dekhta hoon sare hindustan me tujhe kain bachata hai". PW 2 had stated that he could not remember whether he told the police that Kaka Kohli came to his house and entered the bed room of his daughter in law Anu and Raja Vats followed him and at that time Anu was feeding her child and Raja Vats and Kaka Kohli threatened her, his son Sanjay pleaded with them not to insult Anu as her child was ill. It was submitted that PW 2 had taken the plea of not recollecting as nothing of this sort happened.
33. It was further submitted on behalf of accused police officials that PW 2 had admitted that Rana and H. K. Singh had not been arrayed as accused and he came to know about it in 1996. He further stated that he did not remember if CBI had investigated the allegations made against SI Rana and H. K. Singh and he did not have grievances against Rana and H. K. Singh. Ld. Spl. PP had submitted that PW 2 denied that entire complaint was false that is why he did not approach higher authority to take action against CBI for not making Rana and H. K. Singh as accused. It was also submitted on behalf of all accused police officials that PW 2 had stated that Sheela Chaudhary who was Sub Inspector had also not been arrayed as accused and he did not take any action against CBI for not making her a party. It was also submitted on behalf of accused police official that PW 2 had take the plea of not remembering of certain material facts as no such thing happened as alleged by prosecution..
34. It was also argued on behalf of accused police officials that PW 2 further stated that Kaka Kohli was also not an accused in this case and he had not taken any action against CBI for not making him as an accused. It was also argued by all accused police officials that PW 2 contradicted his version and stated that he did not recollect if he told IO that K. R. Ahuja came to PS and had a talk with Satyapal Singh and thereafter he, Sanjay, Deepak, Annu and Atul were put in the lockup. SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 17 / He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB wherein it was not so recorded and it was a material contradiction. He further stated that he did not remember whether FIR was registered regarding the theft of his complaint dated 20.08.94 from his house. He also deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 apart from Kaka Kohli there were no other public person in the PS. He also testified that when they were released from jail their external injuries on their body were visible but he did not visit any doctor. He denied that as there were no injury on his person therefore he did not go to the doctor. He also denied that no injuries were inflicted on him and his family by accused in the PS. He denied that on 13.08.94 he, his family members and Geeta were arrested by the police from Railway station Ghaziabad in FIR no. 408/94 PS Kavi Nagar which is still pending but stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He denied that on complaint dated 20.08.94 made to District Magistrate was false and made only to build up defence to the FIR No. 408/94 at PS Kavi Nagar. He also stated that police official had not handcuffed them when they were taken to PS Kavi Nagar at 3.30 PM on 12.08.94.
35. In his cross examination on behalf of accused A. K. Singh he stated that at 12 mid night one constable came and informed that CO A. K. Singh had come. He further stated that he could give the name and description of constable as he had not seen him and he had only heard the voice of constable as he was being given shock at that time. He further stated that he could not recollect if he told the CBI that one constable had came and informed that CO Sahab had came referring to A. K. Singh. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 2/DB where the said fact that one constable came with the information has not been mentioned. However this is only a minor contradictions as PW 2 had stated in Ex. PW 2/DB regarding arrival of A.K. Singh in PS. Statement Ex. PW 2/DB was read over to the witness SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 18 / wherein it has not been recorded in his manner and it has been recorded that SO had called all the persons to his room. He also stated that they remained in the room for about half an hour. He also stated that besides them A.K. Singh, Kaka Kohli, Raja Vats, Sukhpal and Sukhbir were present there. He further stated that H. K. Singh and Rana were not called to that room. He further stated that he did not remember he told IO in his statement that A. K. Singh told them that he was a strict officer and he told them to ensure that girl and boy returned to their homes. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB wherein it was not so recorded. He also stated that A. K. Singh was standing with Kaka Kohli. He further stated that Deepak and Sanjay had sustained injuries on their feet which were visible. He further stated that they were not produced before the Magistrate. He also stated that neither he was produced before the Magistrate nor he was sent for medical examination before being sent to Jail. He also stated that A.K. Singh left the PS before 1.00 AM and A. K. Singh was substituting for the CO of PS Kavi Nagar on that day. He further stated that he could not recollect when he came to know that A. K. Singh was substituting for CO of PS Kavi Nagar.
36. He further stated that he had gone with his son Atul when writ petition was filed and he narrated all the facts about A. K. Singh to the lawyer who prepared the writ petition. He further stated that he did not know whether lawyer had impleaded A. K. Singh as a party or not. He also stated that he did not recollect if their lawyer had mentioned in writ petition about the beating to Sanjay and Deepak by A. K. Singh. He also stated that he did not know A. K. Singh. PW2 was further cross examined in pursuance of the application of accused A.K. Singh being allowed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. , he stated in his cross examination that he had filed an affidavit in a case filed by Atul against Geeta for restitution of conjugal rights the affidavit was Ex.PW 2/DX . He further stated that the affidavit Ex. PW 1/DX SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 19 / in the said petition was filed through a lawyer and pertained to the facts of the said case, it did not contain detailed facts .The contention of Ld. counsel for accused A. K.Singh is that in the affidavit Ex.PW2/DX there were no allegations of beatings given to complainant and his family at PS Kavi Nagar on 12/13.08.94. There were only allegations regarding electric shocks having been given to complainant and his family. It is stated that in view of the said omission it was not proved by prosecution that accused police official had beaten and badly tortured complainant and his family in PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94.
37. PW 3 Sanjay Dhall corroborated the version of the complainant PW 2, 5 and 6.
38. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta he stated that Geeta and Atul came to the PS Kavi Nagar in the morning of 13.08.94 and father of Geeta was also present at the PS at that time and Geeta asked the police official to release them and Geeta also fought with her father for getting them released. He further stated that at about 10 .00 AM Ahuja and Kohli had left the PS after telling the police not to leave them till they came back again and they returned to PS at about 1.00 PM. He further stated that police official of PS Kavi Nagar obtained their signature on some papers but he could not say whether they were blank or written. In his cross examination on behalf of accused police official he stated that electric shock were given for about 15 minutes. He further stated that A. K. Singh came to PS at 12 mid night but did not come to the room where electric shocks being given. He further stated that he could not give the identification of A. K. Singh as he did not know him prior to the incident and he had seen him for the first time in the court after the incident. He further stated that he did not know if CO of PS Kavi Nagar was some Awdesh Kumar Singh and not A. K. Singh. He also stated that A.K. Singh left the PS at about 12.30 AM. He was confronted with SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 20 / his statement Ex. PW 3/A where the names of factory workers who were present in their house when police came were not mentioned. It is contended on behalf Ld. Counsel for accused police officials that they had not beaten complainant and his family and in case they had the CBI ought to have examined the independent witnesses i.e. factory workers of complainant which was not done. He further confronted with his statement Ex.PW 3/DA wherein it was not mentioned that police official abused them at their house while interrogating them about Atul and Geeta and also regarding the fact that police officials wanted to take his bhabhi Anul and he told them she had a small child which was also not so recorded. It was argued by Ld. counsel for accused that PW 3 took the plea of not remembering having told CBI that his bhabhi was feeding the child at that time as nothing of that sort happened. He also stated that no complaint was made to higher authorities for not impleading SI H. K. Singh, SI Rana and Kaka Kholi as accused. He was further confronted with his statement Ex. PW3/DA wherein it was no recorded that Ahuja and Kaka Kohli told the police not to release them and came back to PS and had a talk with SO which was also not mentioned. He denied that they were produced before the Magistrate and their bail application was rejected. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW3/DA where it was so mentioned.
39. PW 4 G. Patnayak Secretary Home, stated that he was posted as Secretary Home Govt. of UP and posted at Lucknow. He further stated that during 199596 he discussed the present case with IO and perused the record, case diary and had approved the sanction to prosecute the accused namely Satyapal Singh, Raja Vats, Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh, Smt. Dueja Yadav and Prmila J Massy. He further stated that he was competent to issue the sanction for prosecution u/s 197 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the government. He proved the sanction order Ex. PW 4/A. SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 21 /
40. In his cross examination he stated that application was moved by CBI for grant of sanction. He also stated that there were orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this matter and also stated that the vide orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were to the effect that CBI was directed to investigate the allegations of torture and illegal confinement. He denied that he accorded the sanction to prosecute against the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
41. He also stated that Governor was the appointing authority of the circle officer, A. K. Singh against whom he had granted sanction. He further stated that he had sent the file to Governor, UP for approval and after approval he granted sanction against A. K. Singh. He also stated that he could not remember when the Governor gave the approval. He denied that he granted sanction against A. K. Singh without any power and mechanically at the behest of CBI.
42. PW 5 Manoj Dhal corroborated the version of the complainant PW 2 and PW 3 regarding marriage of PW 1 Atul with Geeta and the beatings , manhandling of his father, brother Sanjay, mama Deepal Malik by polie official and the police officials taking away his father, brother Sanjay, Mama Deepak. He stated that he had seen the above from the roof of adjoining their house. He also stated that whe he made a phone call to his house Raja Vats attended the same and asked him to return home. He corroborated the version of PW 2, 3, 6 and 7 regarding manhandling and beatings given to them in PS.
43. In his cross examination on behalf of accused A. K. Singh he stated that his statement was recorded by CBI wherein he had not stated that his father was taken to the PS on 12.8.94 . He also stated that he could not recollect if he gave the name of Raja Vats, Sukhbir and Sukhpal in his statement to the CBI. He further stated that immediately after Deepak, Sanjay and his father were taken by the police he had got down form terrace and ran away and went to the house of one Anil SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 22 / Chaudhary how lived behind their house and thereafter to the house of Sunil Sabbarwal from where he learnt that his wife was also taken to the PS.
44. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Sukhbir, Sukhpal, Satbir and Dureja and Promila he stated that there was no other criminal case pending against him except case FIR no. 408/94. He also stated that apart from Raja Vats he did not know the name of other police officials but he read their names on their name plates. He denied that he had not given the name of Satbir and Sukhpal in is statement to the CBI as no such incident took place.
45. PW 6 Anu Dhall corroborated the version of the complainant PW 2, PW3, and PW 5 regarding marriage of PW 1 with Geeta and the illegal confinement, beatings and electric shocks given to her and her family members at PS Kavi Nagar and the version of PW 1 regarding his arrival with Geeta at PS Kavi Nagar on 13.08.94 at around 8.00 AM in a taxi to get them released. She also stated that on 12.08.94 she was at the residence of Ashok mama on the account of tehrvi when at around 9.30 AM she learnt that Atul and Geeta gone to Delhi to get married. She further stated that at about 2.30 she along with her husband Sanjay, Manoj and Deepak mami Manorama Malik reached home and at around 3.00 PM police official came there with her father in law and inquired about the whereabouts of Geeta and Atul and police official Raja Vats, Sukhbir and Satyapal took away Sanjay Deepak and Rajpal Dhal to the PS. Thereafter at arount 7.00 PM police official came to their house along with Sanjay, Deepak and Raj Pal Dhall and inquired about Geeta and Atul and they kept waiting for phone calls.
46. She further stated that at about 10.00 PM when she was feeding her child on her bed room Kaka Kohli accused Satyavir Singh and Sukhpal Singh came inside and told her to accompany them to PS. She correctly identified accused Satyavir Singh, Sukhpal Singh and stated that they abused her and forcibly took SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 23 / her to the PS. She also stated that Sanjay Deepak and her father in law Raj Pal Dhal were also taken to the PS. She further stated that police official kept inquiring about Geeta and Atul. She also stated that police official gave beatings to Sanjay, Deepak and Rajpal Dhal with danda and also give electric shocks to them by making them hold live wire. She also deposed that they also gave electric shocks in the ear of Sanjay whereupon blood started coming out. She also testified that at 12 mid night one police official who was the CO namely A. K. Singh whom she correctly identified, took Deepak Sanjay and her father in law to a room and gave beatings to Sanjay, Deepak with a danda. She also stated that she pleaded with them to let her go as her child was not well but they did not pay any heed to the request made by her. She further stated that at that time Kaka Kohli was also sitting and later in the night one lady Inspector Sheela Chaudhary who was not posted in the PS Kavi Nagar was called and asked to sit with her. She also testified that Sheela Chaudhary had beaten her with danda and asked about the whereabouts of Geeta and Atul. She also stated that she was also asked her to make phone call to her relatives and enquire about the whereabouts of Geeta and Atul. She further deposed that in the morning at about 77.30 AM Aul and Geeta came three in a taxi and at that time relatives of Geeta were also present in the PS and Geeta told to everyone that she had married Atul out of her free will. The relatives of Geeta however took her to one side. Thereafter she, Sanjay, Deepak and her father in law were sent to Meerut Jail in case FIR no. 408/94 and they were released on bail on 19.08.94. She proved the date of birth of her chid Ex. PW 6/A and stated that her child was 2½ years old at that time.
47. She further stated that when police official came to their house there were some relatives present besides their maid as well as some factory workers whose name she also could not remember. She denied that she did not give the names of SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 24 / the workers and maid in her statement to the CBI as such no such persons were present at the time when police official came and no such incident took place. She further stated that she did not know Kaka Kholi prior to the incident.
48. PW 6 also stated that after being released from jail her fatherinlaw lodged a complaint. She also stated that she had grievance against Kaka Kohli as she had pleded before him but she could not state whether the name of Kaka Kohli was mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/DA, she denied that no complaint was made against Kaka Kohli as they had no grievance against him. She also stated that she could not recollect if she had stated before CBI that she was feeding her child in her bed room when Kaka Kohli, Satyavir Singh, Sukhpal Singh came and forcibly took her to the PS in spite of her pleas. She denied that aid facts were is not mentioned in her statement as nothing of this sort happened.
49. She also stated that Inspector H. K. Singh and SI Rana were present inthe room when electric shocks were given. She also stated that she could not remember as to had actually administered the electric shocks. She also stated that she could not remember if she stated before CBI that Inspector H. K. Singh and SI Rana gave electric shock to Deepak and Sanjay with small machine. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW 6/DA wherein it was not so recorded. This confrontation was not a material omission as witness stated she could not remember about the same. She also stated that she did not know if her father in law had lodged any complaint with any higher authority for not impleading SI H. K. Singh and SI Rana as accused but she had not lodged any complaint. She denied that no such complaint was lodged with an higher authority as they had no grievance against them. She also stated that she could not recollect if she stated to CBI that Inspector Sheela Chaudhary gave beatings to her with a danda. She denied that she was deliberately stating that she could not remember the said fact SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 25 / as nothing of this sort happened. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW 6/DA portion B to B where only slaps have been mentioned and no dada has been mentioned. In my view the confrontation was not regarding material omission. She also stated that her family members were beaten in her presence. She denied that Satyavir Singh and Sukhpal did not beat Sanjay Deepak and her father in law in her presence with danda neither they gave any electric shocks to them.
50. She further stated that she had told CBI that Atul and Geeta had come in the taxi. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW 6/DA wherein it was not so recorded. However it this regard it is relevant toe mention that the deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 that Geeta and Atul came on 13.08.94 and Geeta told police officer that she had married Atul had gone unchallenged. She stated that they were not produced before the Magistrate. She denied that they were arrested from Railway Station on 13.08.94.
51. In her cross examination on behalf of accused A. K. Singh he stated that he did not know A. K. Singh prior to the incident. She also stated that she came to know the name of A. K. Singh on the same day as he was being referred to as CO by the staff , and after the incident, saw him in court. Ld. counsel for accused A. K. Singh stated that in the absence of his TIP his identity was not established but I am of the view that non hold of identification parade of accused A. K. Singh is not fatal as he had in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. stated that the went to PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94. She also stated that Deepak, Sanjay were beaten by A. K. Singh for 10 minutes in her presence. She further stated that she and her father in law were present in the room when Deepak and Sanjay were beaten. She further stated that she told CBI in her statement that she had requested A. K. Singh to let her go home as her child was not well but he did not let her go. She was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 6/DA wherein it was SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 26 / not so recorded. The confrontation in this regard does not discredit her version as she proved the birth certificate of her child Ex. PW 6/A and accused A. K. Sinjgh's presence in PS is proved by his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
52. PW 7 Deepak Malik corroborated the versions of PW 2, 3, 6 and correctly identified accused Satyavir Singh, Sukhpal Singh and also corroborated the version of the above witnesses regarding beatings given by A. K.Singh in PSKavi Nagar and enquiry made by him about Geeta and Atul.
53. He further stated that on 13.08.94 Atul and Geeta reached the PS and Geeta told the police officials that she married Atul out of her free will but the family members of Geeta did not listen and took her to home. He further stated that on 13.08.94 at about 1.30 PM K. R. Ahuja reached the PS, thereafter the police official obtained his signatures and signatures of family members of Atul on some papers. He identified his signature on Ex. PW 1/DB. He further stated that thereafter they were sent to Meerut jail in case FIR no. 408/94.
54. In his cross examination PW 7 stated that he could not recollect if any neighbours were coming and going at the time when police came to the house of PW 2 and he did not know if any worker of factory of PW2 was present at the house of PW 2 when police came. He also stated that after being released from Meerut jail his brother in law PW 2 moved Hon'ble Supreme court. He also stated that he had seen accused A. K. Singh once in the PS and thereafter in court. He further stated that he had told CBI in his statement that A. K. Singh slapped him. He was confronted with his statement Ex PW 7/DA where slaps had not been mentioned but beatings with danda has been mentioned. In view thereof in my opinion the omission does not discredit his version. He also stated that none of the accused police official of this case gave electric shocks to them. He denied that his signature on Ex. PW 1/DB were not taken at Railway Station . He also stated that SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 27 / they were not taken inside court room. He also stated that they had not engaged any lawyer. He was also confronted with his previous statement regarding some omissions which were not material.
55. PW 8 Satya Prakash Shastri was a priest of Arya Samaj Mandir Bhogal Jungpura Delhi. He proved the documents of marriage of Atul Dhal and Geeta. He further deposed that the marriage of Atul Dhal and Geeta was performed out of free will of the parties. He proved the application of marriage given in the temple by bride and groom on 12.08.94 Ex. PW 1/A and PW 1/B . He further stated that the affidavit were given by parties i.e. Atul Dhal and Geeta which are Ex. PW 1/C and PW 1/D and receipt of Rs. 250/ was Ex. PW 8/A and bears his signature. The high school certificate of Geeta regarding proof of her age was submitted which was mark X and the photo state was accepted by the temple. He further stated that he solemnized their marriage thereafter entries were made in the marriage register which is Ex. PW 8/B and bears the signatures of Atul and Geeta. He also proved the marriage certificate Ex. PW 8/D issued by him. He further stated that the above documents were handed over to CBI on 29.01.95 and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 8/E.
56. In his cross examination on behalf of Geeta he stated that marriage were performed in the temple between 1111.30 AM to 66.30 PM . He also stated that Atul and Geeta came to the temple for marriage at about 1112 Noon along with 5 6 persons and they had brought the necessary documents for the performance of the marriage. He further stated that they did not ask the bride and groom to call their parents. He also deposed that the contents of the applications Ex. PW 1/A and PW1/B were not filled in his presence. He also stated that he himself performed the marriage of Geeta and Atul. He also stated that he did not know who performed the kanyadan ceremony he further stated that friend of bride and SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 28 / groom gave Rs. 250. He further stated that he could not read the contents of Ex. PW 1/C and PW 1/D which were the affidavits brought by the parties and were not prepared in the temple. He further stated that affidavits bear the signature and stamp of Sh. K. S. Meena Executive Magistrate Tis Hazari court Delhi but date was not mentioned under the signature of Executive Magistrate and the affidavits were dated 4.08.94. The contention of Ld,. Counsel for accused Geeta that affidavits were dated 4.08.94 and Geeta and Atul had got married on 4.08.94 as per the affidavits is without merits in view of the testimony of PW 8, PW 11 and PW 12. He denied that there were no photograph on the affidavit when the same were submitted to them. He stated that marriage certificate does not bear the seal of temple or temple management. He further stated that two copies of marriage certificate were got prepared and Ex. PW 8/D was the photocopy of the marriage certificate. The original of the same was given to Atul and no copy was given to Geeta and certificate was given on the date of marriage at about 3.004.00 PM, however in register Ex. PW 8/C, entry no. at 1022 it was not mentioned that the copy of marriage certificate was given to anyone. He denied that he issued the certificate under the pressure of parties of Atul and CBI. He also denied that he had not performed the marriage and the marriage records have been manipulated a the instance of parents of Atul and CBI.
57. PW 9 Dr. Usha Jain deposed that on 13.08.94 she had examined accused Geeta and prepared the report which is Ex. PW 9/A. . She also stated that two slides of vaginal smear were sent through forwarding letter Ex. PW 9/B which bears her signature at point A and RTI of Geeta. She also stated that the supplementary report prepared by her on pathological report and Xray report was Ex. PW 9/C which bears her signature at point A. In her cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta she stated that Geeta was in the custody of police when SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 29 / she came to her for medical examination.
58. PW 10 Smt. Shaifali did not support the case of the prosecution. She stated that she did not know whether her statement was recorded or not by CBI. She stated that she had not made statement Mark PW 10/A to CBI.
59. PW 11 Aman Anand was a friend of PW 1 Atul and corroborated the testimony of PW 1 in so far as PW 1 stated that he and Geeta were his childhood friend and they had a love affair and they got married in August 1994. He further stated that he attended their marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir Delhi and took photographs. He also stated that he and his another friend Anil Walia accompanied Atul and Geeta to Delhi in a Maruti car Taxi. He further stated that Geeta was wearing college uniform at that time. He further stated that marriage was performed at the Arya Samaj Mandir between Ashram and Nijamuddin New Delhi. He further stated that Geeta and Atul were happy after marriage and he and Anil Walia returned to Ghaziabad whereas Geeta and Atul stayed at Delhi. He further stated that he got the the photographs developed from Surya Colour Lab at Ghaziabad. He further stated that he had taken the photographs in his camera and the roll was with him, the negatives and photographs were handed over by him to some relative of Atul. He further stated that he had signed as a witness on Ex. PW 1/A. He also stated that photographs on record were taken by him. Photographs were proved as PW 11/1 to 8 and negatives of the same were Ex. PW 11/9 Collectively.
60. In his cross examination he denied that photographs Ex. PW 11/ 7 and 11/8 were not taken at the temple. He also stated that some photographs were taken before the marriage and some during marriage ceremony. He further stated that he had not signed any other document apart from Ex. PW 1/A. He also stated that he did not remember the name of the relative of Atul to whom he handed over the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 30 / photographs. He further stated that he could not tell if Geeta's father was aware about her whereabouts on the date of marriage and he had not enquire from Geeta and Atul about their parents consent to their marriage. He denied that he was not a witness to the marriage neither he signed the Ex. PW 1/A. He denied that he had not taken photograph a the spot.
61. PW 12 Anil Walia also corroborated the version of PW 11 and stated that he had signed the the Ex.PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B. He also stated that Ex. PW 1/A and PW 1/B were written in his presence. Ex.PW 1/A was written by Atul and PW 1/B was written by Geeta and his signature appears on Ex. PW 1/B at point C.
62. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta, he stated that Atul told him about his love affair with Geeta . He further stated that on the intervening night of 11/12.08.94 Atul had stayed at his house and they had reached the college of Geeta at 7.00 AM on 12.08.94 . He also stated that Taxi was called at his house by him.
63. PW 13 Manorama Malik mami (aunt) of PW 1 Atul stated that on 12.08.94 she had gone to Lohiya Nagar to attend the tehri of her mother in law. She also stated that Atul had not gone to attend tehrvi ceremony of his Nani Maternal grand mother. She further stated that at about 910.00 AM on 12.08.94 AM she came to know that Atul and Geeta had left to get married and she knew that they had love affair . Thereafter Rajpal Dhall went to the house of Geeta to inform father of Geeta . However after some time father of Geeta came along with police official Inspector Raja Vats (deceased), Satyavir and Sukhpal in search of Geeta. She correctly identified accused Satyavir and Sukhpal. She also stated that PW 2 Rajpal Dhall also joined the police to search for Geeta and Atul. She further stated that at 2.30 PM police official Satbir, Sukhpal and Raja Vats reached the house of Rajpal Dhal and made enquries about the whereabout of Geeta and Atul and SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 31 / harassed them and one of the police official had slapped Sanjay Dhall.
64. She further stated that at about 3.00 PM the above said police offical took away her husband Deepak, Rajpal Dhall and his son Sanjay Dhall to PS. She also stated that Manoj Dhall being afraid of police official ran away. She also stated that the family of Geeta including her parents were standing outside the house of Rajpal Dhall. She further testified that at about 7.00 PM police official brought back Rajpal Dhall, Sanjay and Deepak Mailk to the house as they thought they Atul may contacted his parents. She further stated that she requested police official to leave her husband as he was merely a guest and had came to attend the tehrvi of his mother but police official did not listen her. She further stated that till
11. 00 PM police official stayed in the house to see if Atul contacted his parents but Atul did not contact his parents. Thereafter police official took away Raj Pal Dhall, Deepak Malik, Sanjay Dhall and Anu Dhall despite their request not to take Anu Dhall as she had a small child of 2 ½ years and there was no one to look after the child. She further stated that during whole night she received phone calls from Annu Dhal informing her that police official were torturing them and giving electric shock.
65. She further stated that at about 6.00 am she received a phone call from Atul and she apprised him of the entire incident and requested him to contact his mother at Lohia Nagar, he accordingly contacted his mother and Aul and Geeta returned to Ghaziabad.
66. In her cross examination she stated that her husband was arrested in the said case and was kept in the Meerut jail for 4 days. She also stated that her husband had not complained about the torture and wrongful confinement by police. She also stated that she went to meet her husband at Meerut Jail she fainted on seeing his condition as he was badly beaten up. She further stated that her SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 32 / husband had taken the treatment from a doctor but she did not remember the name of the doctor. She further stated that she had not told CBI that she had fainted on seeing the condition of her husband at jail orthat he had taken the treatment from the doctor. She denied that nothing of this sort happened that is why she had not stated the said fact to CBI. She further stated that she did not remember whether she told CBI that she requested police official not to take away her husband as he was a guest. She was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 13/DA wherein it was not so recorded. She also stated that she did not know from which phone Anu Dhall called her and whether the call was made from PS or outside the PS. She further stated that she told CBI that Anu Dhall told her that police official were torturing them and were giving electric shocks. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW 13/DA wherein it was not so recorded but it was recorded that police pareshan kar rahi hai. Therefore the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused that there were no averments regarding harassment cannot be accepted and confrontation was not very material. She further stated that the distance between Lohia Nagar and Raj Nagar was about 15 minutes by car. She also stated that Geeta Dhall wife of Raj Pal Dhall also knew the entire episode. She denied that no such incident occurred and had it occurred Geeta Dhall would have reached her house immediately.
67. PW 14 Sh. Vinod Kumar is the owner of photo studio where the photographs were developed. He stated that Ex. PW 11/9 were developed in his lab. He identified the photographs by the sticker of Surya colour Lab bearing no. 1784. In his cross examination he stated that he used to purchase the sticker which started from serial no. 1 to 5000. He also stated that stickers were taken out from the roll as per the serial number and affixed on the negatives which came for developing. He further stated that he did not remember if CBI recorded his SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 33 / statement. He further denied that he had handed over the negatives Ex. PW 11/9 to CBI.
68. PW 15 Sukhbir Singh was a tea vendor of Ghaziabad Railway station. He did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. The contention of Ld. Spl. PP for CBI is that PW 15 had deposed under the pressure of local police. In his cross examination by Ld. Spl. PP for CBI he stated that he did not have any licence to run a tea shop. He denied that he was running a tea shop without licence under the protection of police.
69. PW 16 Navin Kumar booking clerk posted at New Ghaziabad Railway Station stated that on 13.08.94 he was on duty at the booking office from 6.00 am to 2.00 PM at New Ghaziabd Railway Station. He further stated that as per his knowledge no arrest was made by the local police on 13.08.94 from New Ghaziabad Railway Station nor such incident came to his knowledge. In his cross examination on behalf of accused he stated that three were 2 booking clerk at New Ghazibad Railway station in the year 1994 and they used to sit in two shifts. He also stated that there was no written order as to who would work in the first shirt and who would perform duty in the second shift and it was decided among the officials themselves.
70. PW 17 Chhotey Lal Verma deposed that he was posted as station incharge at New Ghaziabd Railway Station on 13.08.94 and his duty hours were from 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM. He further stated that to his knowledge Ghaziabad police had not arrested any person from New Ghaziabd Railway Station and had such incident occurred it would come to his knowledge as during 1994 New Ghaziabd Railway Station was small having 2 platforms i.e. platform no. 1 and 2 .He further stated that on platform no. 1 the trains coming from Delhi to Meerut and from platform no. 2 trains coming from Meerut to Delhi.
SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 34 /
71. PW 18 Vijay Sherwat stated that PW 1 Atul Dhall was know to him through common friend Virender Rana. He further stated that on 11.08.94 he came to know from Virender Rana that Atul and Geeta wanted to get married on 12.08.94 after running away. He further stated that at the request of Atul and Geeta he arranged the accommodation at MD International Hauz Khas. He also stated that in his presence PW 1 Atul took the room for himself and Geeta and filled up the register in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Kothari as both of them were afraid of Geeta's father. He further stated that Geeta appeared to be happy with the marriage. He correctly identified the entry made by Atul in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Kothari inthe register of the hotel. He also stated that on 13.08.94 they came to know that father of Geeta had got Atul's father lifted from his house by local police and on hearing the same Atul and Geeta returned to Ghaziabad.
72. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta he stated that he told CBI that he met Virender, Atul and Geeta Bristo at Restaurant in Hauz Khas. Confronted with the statement Ex. PW 18/A where the name of the restaurant Bristo was not mentioned. He further stated that he did not have any acquaintance at MD International hotel but it was the nearest hotel so they went there. He also stated that all the friends who were present decided that Atul would mention false name in the register. He further stated that he did not remember if he told CBI that Geeta was appearing to be happy after marriage with Atul. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 18/DA where the exact word appearing to be happy is not mentioned but it is mentioned that Geeta went with Atul to a hotel but her own will. He also stated that he had not mentioned the name of Mr. and Mrs. Kothari in his statement Ex.PW 18/DA.
73. PW 19 Sh. C. M. Duggal stated that in the year 1994 Deepak Malik was residing in his neighbourhood and on 12.08.94 Deepak Malik and his famly had SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 35 / gone to Lohia Nagar to attend the tehrvi of his mother . He also stated that house of Deepak Malik was locked on 12th and 13th August 1994. He further stated that on 12.8.94 at about 10.30 PM he received a call from Mrs. Malik from Ghaziabad requesting him to intimated at her office that she would not attend the office on 13.08.94 as some police case had been registered at Ghaziabad.
74. PW 20 Om Prakash is the taxi driver who drove the taxi no. DEV 1807 from Hauz Khas to Ghaziabad. He stated that he used to ply taxi no. DEV 1807 at Hauz Khas taxi stand with M/s Satnam Taxi Service. He also stated that in August 1994 he was called at MD International Hauz Khas, New Delhi and asked to take passenger i.e. one boy and one girl to Ghaziabad . He further stated that it was early morning and he dropped the two persons at the gate of PS Ghaziabad. He further stated that he could not recollect if he dropped any other two persons at Ghaziabad in the year 1994. He further stated that he informed MD International that he had dropped the passengers in front of gate of PS Ghaziabad. He also stated that he could not identify the passengers.
75. As witness was resiling from his previous statement the request of Ld. APP to cross examine him was allowed. In his cross examination by Ld. APP he stated that he was called by CBI official at Dehradun and they showed him the photographs buthe could not identify the persons due to lapse of time.
76. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta he stated that Satnam Texi belongs to the his elder brother . He also stated that no record was maintained at the taxi stand regarding booking and sending of taxi outside Delhi. He also stated that Taxi no. DEV 1807 was a private car and not a taxi.
77. PW 21 Inspector Tara Chand stated that he was a Radio Maintenance officer at Ghaziabad UP and used to record message received from wireless set. He further stated that log book of City Control Room, Ghaziabad was seized by SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 36 / CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW 21/A which bears his signature at point A and relevant page of log book were Ex. PW 21/B1 to B2 which also bears his signature at point A. He proved the entries in the log book relating to the position of Alpha 5 which was with the circle officer (City1) Ghaziabad and as per the log book at 12.20 mid night the position of Alpha 5 was shown at Kavi Nagar and at 1.12 AM the position of Alpha 5 was shown at D Block Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad.
78. In his cross examination on behalf of accused A. K. Singh he stated that accused Ajay Kumar Singh was the CO of City 1 at that time and PS Kotwali and PS Vijay Nagar were under him. He also stated that Awdesh Kumar Singh was the CO of PS Kavi Nagar. He also stated that the in the log book position of Alpha 5 was not shown as PS Kavi Nagar. He further stated that A.K Singh was not the supervisory officer of PS Kavi Nagaron the relevant date. He further stated that A. K.Singh was residing at Police Line Harsaun at that time and while going from Kotwali to Harsaun one had to cross Kavi Nagar and it office is at PS log book would reflect it as Thana/ PS.
79. PW 22 Sh. K. S. Meena stated that affidavit Ex. PW 1/B and PW 1/C were attested by him and bear his signature. He also stated that at the time of attestation of the affidavit photograph of the depodents were not affixed on the same or were not attested by him.
80. IO PW 23 P. K. Chaudhary DSP stated that on 19.11.94 case RC No. 88(S)/94 Dehradun was registered CBI Dehradun branch. He proved the FIR Ex. PW 2/DA registered on the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, passed in writ petition no. 317 of 1994. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of witnesses and collected documents from the concerned departments vide seizure memo Ex. PW 23/A, PW 8/E, PW 23/B, PW 23/C, PW 23/D, PW 23/E, PW 23/F and PW 23/G, PW 23/G1, PW 23/G2, PW 23/G3. He further SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 37 / deposed that the statement of accused A. K. Singh was got recorded by ACJM Ghaziabad under section 164 Cr.P.C. and he obtained a copy of same Ex PW 23/ H. He further stated that during investigation GD of PS Kavi Nagar at relevant dates along with case diary of case no. 408/94 were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/ G 1 to G3 and the document GD entries are Ex. PW 23/J. He further stated that he seized the arrest memo Ex. PW 1/DB prepared by A. K. Singh. He also stated that he also seized the photocopy of statement of accused Geeta recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 23/K by ACJM Ghaziabad, ( the mode of proof of the same was objected to.) He further testified that he prepared the inspection memo of House no. 1116 D, Dilshad Garden Ex. PW 23/L. He also stated that he seized five documents i.e. age certificate of Atul, the birth certificate of Geeta, copy of voter list , School transfer certificate of Geet and Atul Ex. PW 23 F1 F5, the mode of proof of same was objected to. He also stated that thereafter he sought sanction for prosecution against police official namely Satyapal Singh. Raja Vats (deceased), Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh, HC Duija Yadav and Ct. Promila . He recorded the statement of witnesses.
81. In his cross examination on behalf of accused A. K. Singh he stated that He also stated that he collected the copy of writ petition Ex. PW 1/D 2 and further stated that A. K. Singh was not a party. He further stated that he had not seized the the log books pertaining to the official vehicle of CO City II, CO City I and SHO PS Kavi Nagar He also stated that without seeing the police file he could not state whether he recorded the statement of Magistrate of Ghaziabad court or any of his staff to the effect that on13.08.94 the complainant and witnesses Anu, Sanjay Deepak who were accused in case FIR no. 408/94 were not produced before the Magistrate. He also stated that without seeing the police file he could not state whether he seized the copy of judicial remand application of accused in case FIR SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 38 / no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar. He also stated that he did not record the statement of constable who escorted the accused at the time of their judicial remand. He further stated that without seeing the police file he could not state whether he sought a copy of his bail application moved by accused in case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar. He denied the suggestion that he did not seized the copy of bail application as there were no allegations of torture made therein. He further stated that he had no knowledge if Awdesh Singh was the CO (City 2) at that time. He also stated that he did not get the TIP of accused A. K. Singh conducted. He also stated that he recorded the statement of accused A. K. Singh u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as a witness and not an accused. He further stated that if a person is sent to JC in injured condition he is not permitted entry in the jail without first getting him medically examined.
82. He also stated that as there was no evidence against Kaka Kohli he was not made an accused in the present case. He also stated that Kaka Kohli was also not cited as a witness in the present case. He denied that accused A. K. Singh was made an accused in the present case as he did not depose against the police official/accused whle making his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
83. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta he stated before starting of investigation he had read the order dated 7.11.94 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide the said order Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed CBI to investigate the allegations of torture. He also stated that had seen the order of Hon'ble Supreme court dated22.07.96 which was passed after completion of investigation and filing the charge sheet. He stated that vide order dated 22.07.96 Hon'ble Supreme court had directed CBI to make investigation into the allegation of torture. He also stated that in the order dated 22.07.96 Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the question of granting sanction for perjury alleged to have SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 39 / been committed by some of the police official would be taken into consideration at a later stage. He further stated that arrest cum recovery memo Ex. PW 1/DB was signed by Atul, Rajpal Dhall, Sanjay Dhall, Deepak Malik and Anu and accused police official except accused A. K. Singh. He also stated that Ex. PW1/DB was not prepared by accused A. K. Singh as deposed by him in his examination in chief. He also stated that it could not be ascertained during investigation as to when this memo was actually prepared and whether it was written at one time or at intervals. It could also could not be ascertained as to whether all the signatories to the memo had signed it at one time or at intervals. On being question as to why only Geeta and K. R. Ahuja were made accused for signing the memo Ex. PW 1/DB although complainant and his sons Atul and three other persons namely Deepak Malik, Sanjay and Anu who had also signed the memo to which he replied that he found evidence against Geeta that she had arrived at PS Kavi Nagar in a Taxi from Delhi to Ghaziabad and it was within the knowledge of Geeta and Geeta's father that this memo was not prepared at the New Ghaziabad Railway Station and Atul and his family members were not arrested at New Ghaziabad Railway Station. He further stated that in this connection, taxi driver Om Prakash deposed that Geeta and Atul came from Delhi in his taxi and he dropped them outside the PS.
84. He further stated that during investigation he came to know that Atul made false entry in the register of MD International Hotel in Delhi but he did not take any action against him. He further stated that he could not state whether he interrogated and recorded the statement of Rajinder Batra and Khairati Lal who stated they had seen Atul taking away Geeta on 12.08.94.
85. On being questioned that although Hon'ble Supreme Court directed CBI to investigate into the allegations of torture,. CBI investigate other matters including SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 40 / perjury which was not the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, he stated that complete investigation was brought to the knowledge of Hon'ble Supreme Court through various interim reports and final report. He denied that he falsely implicated Geeta in connivance with the family member of Atul.
86. In his cross examination on behalf of other accused police official, he stated on being asked as to whether investigation was conducted to find out who gave the electric shocks to the complainant PW 2 and his family members, that investigation reveled that electric shocks were given to family member of Atul by SI H. K. Singh, SI Rana and SI Sheela Chaudhary. He denied that he filed the charge sheet against the accused contrary to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court . He was further asked whether he informed Hon'ble Supreme Court about the obtaining of sanction for prosecution of accused persons in reply be stated that it was mentioned in the final report submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also stated that final report was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the then Joint Director Sh. B. R. Lal. He further stated that he was not present when Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order 'Mark B' dated 22.07.96 and he did not have any document to show that final report was submitted before 'order Mark B' was passed.
87. He further stated that police official is duty bound to register an FIR if an complaint is made in respect of commission of a cognizable offence. He also stated that he had checked the number of staff posted at PS Kavi Nagar at the relevant time. He also stated that he checked the persons in lock up on the relevant date but did not prepare a list of such persons. He further stated that he tried to find some independent witness but could not get any one. He also stated that he asked witnesses about the document showing injury on their persons but they stated that they had not gone for medical examination. He also stated that he did SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 41 / not have practical knowledge how electric shocks were given. He further stated that he could not recover any item from PS Kavi Nagar used for giving electric shock. He also stated that FIR no. 408/94 was pending but he was not aware if investigation of the same had been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme court. He further stated that SI . H. K. Singh, SI Rana and SI Sheela Chaudhary against whom allegations of giving electric shocks were made by the witness had not been made an accused in this case. He denied that he did not investigate the case as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
88. PW 24 Sh. B. C. Saxena deposed that on 12.10.94 he was posted as ACJM III Ghaziabad and on that day he recorded the statement of Geeta under section 164 Cr.P.C. on application moved by IO on 15.10.94. He proved the application Ex. PW 24/A and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 24/1.
89. PW 25 Sh. Gajendera Kumar stated that on 10.05.95 he was as Special Judicial Magistrate CBI Dehradun UP and on that Inspector P. K. Chaudhary moved an application Ex. PW 25/A before CJM Dehradun for getting the statement of A. K. Singh recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and he recorded the statement of A. K. Singh u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW 25/A1.
90. The statements of all accused were thereafter recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused denied the allegations of prosecution witnesses and stated that they are innocent and had been falsely implicated.
91. In their defence accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhapal Singh, Satyavir Singh , A. K.Singh, Duija Yadav and Promila Mesih examined two witnesses.
92. DW 1 SI Noor Mohammad stated that on 13.08.94 he was posted at PS Kavi Nagar as Head Constable and his duty was from 8 AM to 8 PM and GD No. 15 Ex. PW DW 1/A dated 13.08.94 was written by Ct. Ravinder Singh at about 7.25 AM and he could identify his writing as he was working with him. He also SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 42 / stated that it relate to departure of SI Satyapal Singh SO from PS. He further stated that DD no. 21 dated 13.08.94 was recorded by him at 9.20 AM and it related to arrival of SI Satyapal Singh SO and the same was Ex. PW 23/J. He denied that DD no. 21 was antedated.
93. DW 2 Ram Charan stated that on 13.08.94 he had a tailoring shop near New Ghaziabad Railway Station and his working hours were from 7.308.00 AM to 7.00 PM and on that day he saw a police jeep at about 8.15 am and some police officers got down and went towards railway station they returned after about half an hour having apprehended four males and two females. He also stated that he came to know from the public persons there that a boy and girl were eloping and were apprehended.
94. In his cross examination he denied that he made any statement Mark A Ex.
DW 2/A to CBI. He also stated that he not seen or heard any police officers arresting 34 males and female from New Ghaziabad Railway Station. He also denied that whatever was recorded by CBI in his statement portion Mark A to A was correct.
95. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record.
96. In order to prove offence u/s 120B IPC, It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that all the accused entered into criminal conspiracy to wrongfully confine and physically torture complainant Raj Pal Dhall ,Sanjay Dhall, Deepak Malik and Anu Dhall to extort confession/ information from them about Geeta and Atul and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 120 B r/w section 348/330 IPC. Secondly in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy all accused wrongfully confined at Kavi Nagar police station aforesaid persons and physically tortured them to extort confession/information from them about Geeta Ahuja and Atul Dhall and thereby committed offence punishable u/s348/330 IPC. SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 43 /
97. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that on 13.08.94 all accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to fabricate false evidence against complainant Raj Pal Dhall and his family members with the intention to use that evidence against them in the case pertaining to FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC read with section 195 IPC and in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy all the accused prepared a false recovery memo dated 13.08.94 showing recovery of Geeta Ahuja from the custody of Rajpal and his family members including Atul Dhall from New Ghaziabad Railway station on 13.08.94 for being used in case FIR no. 408/94 PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 195 IPC .
98. The basic principle which underlines section 120 B IPC is theory of agency, every conspirator is an agent of his associates in carrying out the object of conspiracy. To bring home the charge of conspiracy the evidence led by the prosecution should be of such compelling nature as must necessarily lead to a finding of guilt. The evidence must show common concerted plans so as to exclude a reasonable possibility of the act of the conspirators having been done separately or connected only by coincidence. The knowledge of indulgence in illegal act or legal acts by illegal means has to be established.
99. In this regard it has been held in AIR 1981 SC 1062 Md. Usman Mohammad Hussain Mainiyar and anr.
Vs. The State of Maharastra as follows:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860). S. 120 B Offence under - SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 44 / Evidence and proof. For and offence under section 120 B the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the accused person were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid license for a pretty long time leads to he inference that they agreed to do and /or cause to be done the said illegal act, for , without such an agreement the act could not have been done for such a long time."
100. The offence of criminal conspiracy is complete as soon as an agreement to commit an offence is made between the conspirators. But section 120 B does not limit its operation to only those who are parties to the agreement at the time of its formation but also applies to those who continue to be parties during the entire period during which conspiracy continued.
101. Person who joins the conspiracy while it is on and even the person who back out of the conspiracy would be liable for the conspiracy. The agreement between two or more persons in order to constitute a criminal conspiracy must be to to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means.
102. Mere evidence of association is not sufficient to infer conspiracy. In order to permit a reasonable inference of conspiracy there must be proof not only of association but also of something suspicious in such association. A conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only be proved from inference drawn from the acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirator in pursuance of common design. SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 45 / Criminal conspiracy attracts section 10 of the Evidence act which provides as follows:
Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiracy, as well for the purpose or proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
103. Thus every conspirator is a agent of his associates in carrying out the object of conspiracy. As held in 2000 (6) SCC 269 State of Maharahtra Vs. Samu S/o Gopinath Shinde and ors.
where in it has been held as follows:
"Evidence Act., 1872 S. 10 Condition for applicability of Provision based on principle of agency When on the basis of confession made by one of the four accused there appear reasonable grounds to believe that all the accused persons had conspired together to commit the alleged offence, then whatever the coaccused said and id in reference to their SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 46 / common intention, as stated in the confessional statement, would be relevant under section 10 as against the co accused also."
104. Ld. Counsel for accused Geeta submitted that as far as accused Geeta is concerned, she has been charged with the offence u/s 120 B IPC r/w 195 IPC and also 195 IPC for having signed the recovery memo Ex. PW1/DB . But for prosecution for offence u/s 195 IPC criminal intention is an essential ingredients. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused of Geeta that section 195(1)(b) IPC prohibits the taking of cognizance except on complaint of an offence committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court. It was submitted that as as there was no complaint by the court, therefore bar of section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. was applicable. He further submitted that Geeta was not charged for making false statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. . However I of the view that the bar of section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. is not applicable as the recoverycum arrest memo was not prepared in or in relation to any proceedings of court, thus Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. did not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance of offence without a complaint of court as the offence was not committed in or in relation to any proceedings of court. In this regard Ld.Spl. PP placed reliance upon 1994 AIR SC 1549 Mahadev Bapuji Vs. State of Maharastra wherein it has been held as follows:
"Criminal Code 1973. Section 195(1)(b) Forgery of document committed before starting proceedings before the Revenue SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 47 / Court - In that case complaint by the revenue court before which document was produced is not necessary. The contention that the absent of a complaint by the Revenue Court was a bar for taking cognizance by the criminal court in respect of their offence which were committed before the Revenue court not accepted. "
105. In the present case cognizance of the offence was taken by Ld.Spl. Judge Dehradun. I am of the view that as there was no complaint by the court regarding the false statement made by Geeta and the offence was committed in or in relation to any proceeding in the court, the prohibition of section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is applicable but as far as the recovery memo Ex. PW 1/DB was concerned the bar of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. was not applicable.
106. It was also alleged Ld. Counsel for the accused Geeta that no malafide intention could be attributed to Geeta for signing recovery memo Ex.PW 1/DB as she signed it at the instance of police officials as stated by her in her statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. In her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Geeta stated that she was made to signed the memo Ex. PW 1/DB by the police officials and the memo was also signed Atul Dhall and his family members. She also stated that she was also not allowed to read it nor it was read over to her. She further stated that she was in state of shock and could not state what paper were prepared by whom and where.
107. I am of the view that conspiracy of Geeta with the other accused police officials to fabricate the document could not be established beyond doubt as like other offences criminal conspiracy may be proved direct or circumstantial evidence. In the present case antecedents and subsequent conduct of Geeta and surrounding circumstances show that she was not in conspiracy with the accused police officials to fabricate the recovery memo Ex. PW 1/DB. It is pertinent to SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 48 / mention that PW 1 Atul Dhall and PW 2 Rajpal Dhall, PW3 Sanjay Dhall, PW6 Annu and PW 7 Deepak Malik had all stated that when Geeta came to P.S. Kavi Nagar with Atul on 13.08.94 from Delhi, she asked police officials to release family members of Atul and even fought with her father. It is thus evident that there were no conspiracy between Geeta and accused police officials to fabricate the recovery memo Ex. PW 1/D 3. Thus the complicity of Geeta in the offence of conspiracy to fabricate Ex. PW1/DB could not be established beyond reasonable doubt.
108. On behalf of A.K. Singh it was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court had vide order dated 7.11.94 directed CBI to investigate the allegation of torture to the complainant PW 2 and his family members by police of PS Kavi Nagar. It was also alleged that proceedings of case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar had been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme court and were not quashed as such expression of any such opinion on Ex. PW 1/DB would amount to expressing opinion on the merits of the case of FIR no. 408/94 which is pending and may prejudice either side as investigation of same was still pending. It is also alleged that by filing challan u/s 193/195 IPC against the police official, IO indirectly helped the accused persons of case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar. It is also contended that sanction order is illegal and same was given mechanically by PW 4 without applying his mind. Is is submitted that sanction order does not mention a single word about the facts of the case FIR no. 408/94.
109. However the said contention of Ld. Counsel for accused A. K. Singh is without merits. In this regard it would be pertinent to note that in the sanction order Ex. PW 4/A the facts of case FIR no. 408/94 had been mentioned. It is further alleged that accused A. K. Singh was Gazetted officer against whom governor sanctions was required but the sanction was granted by the secretary SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 49 / without obtaining the approval of the governor. Therefore sanction was illegal. However in this regard it would be pertinent to note that the sanction order Ex. PW 4/A was signed by the Secretary at the direction of Governor. Hence the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused A. K. Singh that there was no sanction by Governor is rejected.
110. It is further alleged that accused A. K. Singh has not been charged u/s 195 Cr.P.C. as for prosecution u/s 195 IPC no court shall take cognizance except on complaint in writing of that court.
111. It is alleged that in the present case there is no complaint by the concerned court regarding fabrication of recovery memo Ex. PW 1/DB and Ex. PW 1/DB was produced before the Ld. MM when the accused of case FIR no. 408/94 were produced before the Ld. MM for judicial remand but the Ld. MM did not make a complaint u/s 195 IPC against the accused. However I do not agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused as neither PW 2 nor his family members knew at the time of the production before Ld. Magistrate that arrest memo mentioned the place of their arrest at New Ghaziabad Railway Station In this regard PW 1 stated that they were made to sign some papers in the PS and in his cross examination he denied that he signed PW 1/DB after knowing the contents mentioned therein. He also stated that he was PW 1/DB after release from jail when he obtained a copy of the same from court through his advocate. PW 7 Deepak Malik corroborated the version of PW 1 and stated that in the PS police officials obtained his signature and as well as signatures of family members of Atul on some papers. He identified his signature on PW 1/DB, In view thereof the Ld. Magistrate at Ghaziabad, had no occasion to consider whether the memo Ex. PW 1/DB was fabricated as no such averment was made before him.
112. It is next contended on behalf of accused A.K. Singh that sanction order SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 50 / was illegal and had from the testimony of PW 4 it is evident that sanction order was given without applying mind. It is further alleged that accused A. K. Singh was Gazetted officer against whom governor's sanction was required but the sanction in the present case was granted by the secretary without obtaining the approval of the governor. Therefore sanction is illegal.
113. It is further contended that on behalf of accused A. K. Singh that according to the case of prosecution A. K.Singh entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons on 13.08.94 at PS Kavi Nagar to fabricate false evidence against Raj Pal Dhall and his family members with intention to use the same against them in case FIR no. 408/94 but he had no role in preparing of the arrest memo Ex. PW 1/DB and GD entries.
114. It was also argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also did not direct the prosecution of accused police official for perjury and Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.07.96 had observed that the question of granting sanction for perjury alleged to have been committed by the police officials would be taken into consideration at a later stage. It was also alleged that there was no evidence on record to show that accused A. K. Singh was in conspiracy with accused to fabricating false evidence. It is further stated that the evidence produced in court that the FIR, DD and Rojnamcha entries seized from the office of CO City II by the IO show that A. K. Singh did not have any supervisory control over PS Kavi Nagar nor he talked with the accused at the time of preparation of arrest memo Ex. PW 1/DB. It was also argued that the sanction order Ex. PW 4/A also did not contain the sanction for the offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w 195 IPC. Sanction was given only for the offence 323/330/342/352/218 /120 B IPC and not for the offence u/s 195 read with section 120 B IPC. It is also alleged that at the relevant time one Awdesh Kumar Singh was the Circle officer of City II of PS SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 51 / Kavi Nagar and accused A. K. Singh had been implicated when CBI could not find evidence against Awdesh Singh and found the position of Alpha V vehicle which was of accused A. K. Singh in Kavi Nagar at 12.20 AM. It was further alleged that A. K. Singh never visited PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 and at the relevant time he was residing at Police lines Harsaon Ghaziabad and his office was at PS Kotwali and while going from Kotwali to Harsawan one had to cross Kavi Nagar colony and Sharstir Nagar. He also stated that PW 21 had in this regard stated that on 12/13.08.94 he was posted as Radio Maintenance officer at Ghaziabad UP and on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 the position of Alpha 5 was at Big Chowk Ghaziabad at 12.20 mid night, this vehicle was with the circle officer City I Ghaziabad and at 1.12 AM the position of Alpha 5 was shown at D Block Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad and had the position of Alfa V been at PS Kavi Nagar at 12.20 AM the log book would have reflect it as Thana Kavi Nagar.
115. On the other hand it is argued by Ld.Spl. PP Sh.Anil Tanwar that section 195 1 (b) Cr.P.C. prohibits taking cognizance of offence alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court except on complaint, only if offence mentioned therein are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court. The prohibition is not absolute prohibition and does not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offence without a complaint if the offence are 'not' alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court. Therefore prohibition does not bar taking cognizance of offence which are committed outside the court.
116. The next contention of Ld. Counsel for accused A.K.Singh is that he was not in conspiracy with the other accused police official to fabricate Ex. PW 1/DB or GD Entries Ex. PW 23/J as he was not the supervisory officer of PS Kavi Nagar and had no occasion to talk with the police officials of P.S. Kavi Nagar at the time SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 52 / of preparing of the memos Ex. PW 1/DB and other GD entries.
117. In order to bring home the charge of conspiracy against accused A. K. Singh it was incumbent upon the prosecution to show that there was an agreement between A. K. Singh and other accused police officials to fabricate false documents. This envisages meeting of mind resulting in decision taken by conspirators regarding commission of offence of fabrication of documents. In such cases it is difficult to get direct evidence of conspiracy but conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances giving rise to conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between the accused to commit an offence. The surrounding circumstance and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material.
118. In this regard it is significant to mention that accused A.K.Singh in his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 25/A1, stated that on the relevant date i.e. intervening night of 12/13.08.94 he was not the circle officer of P.S. Kavi Nagar and as the circle officer of PS Kavi Nagar was out of station or on leave, in his absence he had to look after the administrative work of PS Kavi Nagar being the link as senior officer expected him to look after the daily routine work of the area. He further stated that on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 while he was on patrolling duty and passing from P.S. Kavi Nagar, he saw a crowd and entered into P.S. Kavi Nagar and inquired from the then SO. Satyapal Singh who told him that it was a case of kidnapping of a girl. He further stated that he remained in the P.S. Kavi Nagar for about 45 minutes and gave directions for recovery of the missing girl and on enquiry whether case was registered the SO told him that case had been registered.
119. In my opinion as accused A. K. Singh was not the supervisory officer of PS Kavi Nagar he cannot be said to have control over the P.S. Kavi Nagar at all SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 53 / times and criminal deeds committed by police officials of P.S. Kavi Nagar can not be said to have been deemed to have been committed with his connivance. Thus, as far as accused A.K.Singh is concerned his complicity in the offence of fabrication of false recovery memo and DD entries has not been established beyond doubts.
120. Accused A.K.Singh was thus not actively involved in the fabrication of the said documents as he was not the supervisory officer of P.S. Kavi Nagar as such he was not expected to know all what was happening within the four wall of P.S. Kavi Nagar in relation to investigation of that case FIR no.408/94.PW21 had also stated in his cross examination that Awdesh Kumar Singh was the Circle officer of PS Kavi Nagar at the relevant date. Moreover the recovery memo Ex. PW1/DB also does not bear his signatures.
121. It was also contended by Ld. Counsel Sh.B. S.Sharma on behalf of accused Satyapal Singh, A. K.Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh, Duija Yadav and Promila that under section 195 1(b)Cr.P.C. prohibits taking of cognizance except on a complaint in relation to offence committed under section 195 Cr.P.C. but his argument was already been dealt and is decided against all accused accordingly.
122. Ld. Counsel for accused Satypal, Satbir, Sukhpal, Duija, Promila and A. K. Singh also alleged that the present case was registered against the accused on the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide RC no. 28(S)194 dated 18.11.94. It is further stated that Hon'ble Supreme court passed the order in the above said criminal writ petition filed by PW 1 on 7.11.94 whereby the proceedings of case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar were stayed till decision of the present case. It is alleged that question of granting sanction for perjury alleged to have been committed by some of the police official was to be considered at the later SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 54 / stage as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.11.94. It is submitted that as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is evident that order of Hon'ble Supreme court was only investigate the allegation of torture of the the complainant PW 2 and his family members at the hands of police official PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad and CBI exceeded its jurisdiction by filing charge sheet u/s 120B r/w section 195 IPC and 195 IPC.
123. It was also alleged that investigation was handed over to CBI as allegation were made in the writ petition Ex. PW 1/D2 that of electric shocks given to the complainant PW 2 and his family members when they were illegally confined at PS Kavi Nagar and badly beaten by the police official of PS Kavi Nagar. It was averred in the writ petition that family member of petitioner were subjected to third degree torture including electric shocks inside the PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad on account of marriage of petitioner with daughter of respondent Sh. K. R. Ahuja against the wishes of family members of girl side and the entire family of petitioner including wife of his elder brother of petitioner PW 1 were put to various kind of third degree tortures by the police under the dictates and influence of father of girl who was a liquor baron in the city of Ghaziabad. It was also alleged that police snatched the milk fed boy from Anu wife of elder brother of petitioner PW1 and gave her merciless beatings in the PS and electric shocks were also given to her. In view therof Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dated 7.11.94 order CBI to investigate into the allegation of torture of petitioner and his family members given by police official of PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 at PS Kavi Nagar.
124. Ld. counsel for accused Sh. B.S.Sharma further stated that specific question was put to the IO as to whether in spite of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 7.11.94 CBI to investigate only the allegations of torture of petitioner SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 55 / and his family by police official of PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad, CBI investigated the matter regarding perjury which was not covered by the order of Hon'ble Supreme court. In reply thereto IO stated that it was incorrect and further stated that complete investigation was brought to the knowledge of Hon'ble Supreme Court through various interim reports and final report. Ld. Counsel for accused further alleged that IO had stated in his cross examination that Interim reports and final report had not been filed before this court. Ld. counsel for accused Sh. B.S.Sharma also stated that IO could not show any document to the effect that final report was submitted before order dated 22.07.96 of Hon'ble Supreme court was passed. It is contended by Ld. counsel for accused that CBI exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating the allegation of perjury and filing the charge sheet u/s 193 and 195 r/w 120B IPC.
125. However, I do not agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused. In this regard it is pertinent to mentioned that charge was framed against the accused Satyapal Singh, Raja Vats, A. K. Singh, Satyvir Singh, Sukhpal Singh for the offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w section 348/330 IPC as well for the substantive charge for the offence u/s 330/348 IPC and charge was also framed against all the accused for the offence punishable u/s 120 B r/w 195 IPC as well as for the substantive offence u/s 195 IPC. Accused Satyapal Singh, Raja Vats, A. K. Singh, Sukhpal, Satyvir, Duija Yadav, Promila filed the the criminal revision petition against the order framing charge against them. Revision petition was also filed by the accused A. K. Singh whch was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2007. the other accused did not place any order of Hon'ble High court on record setting aside the order framing of charge against them. Hence there was no infirmity in the order framing of charge against the accused for the offence u/s 120 B r/w 195 IPC and section 195 IPC. Accused had been availed the remedy against framing SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 56 / of charge u/s 120 B r/w 195 IPC and 195 IPC hence they cannot agitate the same now.
126. Moreover Ld. Spl. PP Sh. Anil Tanwar stated that vide order dated 19.04.96 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that pursuant to the directions given by court inquiry had been held by CBI and charge sheet had been filed against number of persons persons. It was further observed that case initiated against them would proceed in accordance with law and it would be open to the parties involved in the said charge sheet to have such action as may be available in law. As such, I agree with the contention of Ld.Spl. PP that as all accused had availed the remedy available to them by filing revision petition against the order on charge they cannot agitate the same before this court.
127. In the present case accused Satypal Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyvir Sngh, Duija Yadav , Promila J. Mesih had signed the arrest cumrecoverymemo dated 13.08.94 which leads to the inference that they had agreed to do the said illegal act and intentionally fabricated the document for being used in the proceedings of case FIR no. 408/94. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal, Satyavir, Duija Yadav, Promila in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the recoverycum arrest memo Ex. PW 1/DB was not a false document, whereas accused Geeta had stated that police official had made her to sign the memo and she was not allowed to read it nor it was read over to her. As a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and direct evidence is seldom available but things done by the conspirators in reference to their common intention after the intention was first entertained is a relevant fact hence there is reasonable ground to believe from the conduct of accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal, Satyavir, Duija Yadav, Promila that they conspired to fabricate Ex. PW 1/DB for been used in case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar at the behest of K.R. Ahuja, the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 57 / liquor baron of Ghaziabad.
128. SHO PS Kavi Nagar Satyapal Singh and other police official had fabricated the GD entry no. 15, 21 and 50 Ex. PW 23/J for being used in case FIR no. 408/94 against the complainant and his family members for the offence punishable u/s 363/366/376 IPC. It was mentioned in GD no. 50 that at 22.50 hrs. on 12.08.94 Sh. K.R. Ahuja came to PS and handed over a written complaint that accused persons had run away with his daughter Geeta after alluring her. On the basis of the complaint FIR was registered against Rajpal Dhal, Atul Dhal, Anu Dhall, Sanjay and Manoj. It was also mentioned that SI Raja Vats was sent from PS in search of the kidnapped girl and accused persons at 10.50 PM whereas at that time the complainant PW 2 and his family members had already been in custody of police of PS Kavi Nagar as PW 2 stated that police official took him, his son and Deepak in custody on 12.08.94 at 3.30 PM and took them to PS. The testimony of the complainant PW 2 in this regard went unchallenged. Hence false entry no. 50 was fabricated by the the then SHO PS Kavi Nagar in connivance with the other police official Raja Vats, Sukhpal, Satyvir, Duija Yadav and Promila to be used in case FIR no. 408/94.
129. GD entry no. 15 Ex. PW 23/J was recorded at 7.25 AM on 13.08.94 according to which police official the then SHO Satyapal Singh and other police official accused departed from PS at 7.25 in search of Geeta and accused. It was recorded therein that SO Satypal Singh had received information that 4 persons and 2 ladies wre standing at New Ghaziabad Railway Station waiting for a train and were alluring a girl, accordingly police party reached Ghaziabad Railway station at 8.30 AM and found that the persons present were wanted in case FIR no. 408/94 and arrested them and also recovered kidnapped girl Geeta.
130. Prosecution also proved that GD entry no. 21 dated 13.08.94 recorded at SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 58 / 9.20 AM Ex. PW 23/J was also fabricated by the police official to be used in the case FIR no. 408/94. GD 21 was regarding arrival of SO with the raiding team a PS Kavi Nagar after arrest of accused i.e. Rajpal Dhall and others.
131. In supports of its case that no arrests were made from New Ghaziabad Railway Station prosecution examined PW 16 Naveen Kumar was posted as booking clerk at New Ghaziabad Railway Station on 13.08.94 and he had stated that he was on duty from 6 am to 2 PM and on the said date no arrest was made by local police on 13.08.94 to his knowledge neither had he heard from any other person that some persons were arrested by local police from New Ghaziabad Railway Station. In his cross examination nothing could be elicited which may cast doubt no his testimony in this regard. Ld. Spl. PP Sh. Anil Tanwar further submitted that PW 17 Chottey Lal Verma had stated that on 13.08.94 he was posted as station incharge at Naya Ghaziabad Railway station and his duty were from 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM and as per his knowledge Ghaziabad police had not arrested any person from New Ghaziabad Railway Station and had any such incident occurred at New Ghaziabad Railway Station it would have came within his knowledge as in the year1994 New Ghazibad Railway Station was very small having only 2 platforms i.e. platform no. 1 and 2. The testimony of PW 17 had gone unchallenged, hence, prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that no arrests were made by local police from Naya Ghaziabad Railway station on 13.08.94 at 8.30 AM and the recoverycumarrest memo Ex. PW 1/DB was fabricated by accused Satyapal Singh the then SO PS Kavi Nagar in conspiracy with K.R. Ahuja, Raja Vats, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh, Duija Yadav and Promila J. Mesih for being used in the proceedings of case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar.
132. Ld.Spl. PP submitted that from the conduct of accused conspiracy to SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 59 / fabricate document and was proved beyond doubt. It has been held in:
AIR 1971 SC 885 as follows:
A conspiracy from its very nature is generally hatched in secret. It is therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offence, criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, in most cases of proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material. In fact because of the difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more person have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by anyone of them in reference to their common intention after the same is entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence, relevant for proving both conspiracy and the offence committed pursuant thereto.
133. Section 10 of the Evidence act provides that anything said, done or written by one of the conspirator in reference to the common intention is a relevant fact not only is against each other but also for proving existence of conspiracy.
134. In the present case there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal, Satyavir, Duija Yadav, Promila conspired to fabricate Ex.PW 1/DB and GD entries 15 and 21 Ex. PW 23/J as inspite of being aware of SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 60 / the fact that Geeta came with Atul to PS on 13.08.94 at 8.00 AM and stated that she had married Atul and prepared a false arrest memo Ex. PW 1/DB for being used in the proceedings of case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar.
135. It was further argued on behalf of accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal, Satybir, Promila Mesih and Duija that in the writ petition filed by the PW 1 it had not mentioned that police official had forcibly obtained the signature of Atul and his family members on the recoverycumarrest memo Ex. PW1/DB neither it was mentioned in the statement of PW 1 to the CBI that their signatures were obtained forcibly on Ex. PW1/DB, hence the deposition of PW 1 is not credible. I am of the view that though it was not mentioned in the writ petition that police official had forcibly obtained the signature of Atul and his family members on the recovery cumarrest memo Ex. PW1/DB. But Atul Dhall and Deepak Malik deposed that police official had obtained their signatures on some papers. The documents were fabricated with the intention to lead the judge hearing the case to form erroneous opinion regarding material facts of the case FIR no. 408/94 u/s 363/366/376 IPC the punishment for which was upto 7 years , 10 years. The Gravity of the offence is to be seen from the fact that it was committed by police officials and who are to protect the rights and liberty of the individual and not implicate them in false cases and violate Human Rights because of indiscriminate arrest and fabrication of false document.
136. Thus it has been proved by satisfactory evidence that there was meeting of mind of the accused persons which resulted the preparation of Ex. PW 1/DB which was an illegal act done in furtherance of the conspiracy entered into between accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal Singh , Satyavir Singh, Duija Yadav, Promila J. Mesih.
137. The said circumstance had not been explained by accused. In the absence SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 61 / of any reasonable explanation by accused the inference from the proved facts and circumstances is that they had entered into the criminal conspiracy to falsely implicated Atul and his family members in the offence of abduction, kidnapping and rape of Geeta. Hence the offence has been duly proved from the illegal acts committed by accused in pursuance of the common design.
138. Ld. Spl. CBI further submitted that Geeta was major at time of his marriage with Atul as per document proved on record i.e. her date of birth certificate Mark X and she had eloped with Atul to get married out of her own will and both of them got married at Arya Samaj Mandir Jungpura New Delhi. PW 8 Sh. Satya Prakash Shastri priest of Arya Samaj Mandir performed their marriage and PW 8 supported the case of prosecution and stated that Atul and Geeta had reached the temple to get married and they had given application Ex. PW 1/A and PW 1/B and their affidavits in the temple for performance of marriage on 12.08.94. He further stated that he had performed their marriage and he had issued them marriage certificate Ex. PW 8/D. He also stated that both parties were willing for the performance of the marriage and there was no pressure on either side. He also stated that family members of either side were not present. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta the testimony of PW 8 regarding her marriage being performed with her consent was not challenged.
139. Therefore CBI had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that Geeta was major a the time of her marriage with Atul and her marriage was solemnized with Atul out of her free will without any pressure from the side of Atul. PW 8 had further deposed that family member of either side were not present. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta PW 8 stated that besides bride and groom 57 persons accompanied them and they had brought necessary documents for performance of the marriage. PW 22 Executive SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 62 / Magistrate stated the affidavits Ex. PW 1/B and PW 1/C were attested by him. PW 11 Aman Chand a friend of Atul Dhall was a witness to marriage stated that he had accompanied Geeta and Atul for performance of their marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhogal Jungpura Delhi and their marriage was performed at the temple and he had taken photographs of the marriage. He also stated that both Geeta and Atul were looking happy with the marriage. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention that in the photographs PW 11/1 to PW 11/8 both Atul and Geeta appear happy with their marriage. He stated that he had given the photographs for development at Surya Colour lab and the photographs and negatives were handed over to some relatives of Atul. He also stated that he had signed as a witness on Ex.PW 1/A which was the application for marriage given by Atul in the temple. He proved the photographs Ex. PW 11/1 to PW 11/8 and 31collectively Ex. PW 11/9. In his cross examination he stated that on 12.08.94 Atul and Geeta persuaded him to join their marriage ceremony although he was recovering from typhoid. Nothing could be elucidated in his cross examination which may create a doubt regarding his being present at the time of the marriage and having taken photographs of the marriage. PW 14 owner of Colour Lab stated that negatives Ex.PW 11/9 were developed in his lab.
140. PW 12 Anil walia corroborated the version of PW 11 and stated that he had accompanied Geeta and Atul to Delhi to the temple for their marriage. He further stated that Ex.PW 1/A and PW 1/B were written in his presence and PW 1/B bears his signature at point B. In his cross examination he stated Atul told him that he had a love affair with Geeta and Geeta used to insist for marriage with him. However he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 12/DA where the insistence of Geeta is stated to have been made on 12.08.94. However I am of the view that this is not a contradiction as PW 12 had mentioned in his statement made SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 63 / to CBI that Geeta had insisted for marriage with Atul.
141. PW 18 Vijay Sherwat stated that he knew PW 1 Atul Dhall through his friend Virender Rana and at the request of Atul and Geeta he arranged for the accommodation at MD International Hotel at Hauz Khas. He also stated that in his presence PW 1 Atul booked the room for himself and Geeta and filled up the register in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Kothari, his testimony in this regard was not challenged. Thus prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that Atul and Geeta stayed at M.D. International hotel on the night of 12/13.08.94.
142. It is further submitted by Ld. Spl. PP for CBI that accused Satypal Singh, Raja Vats (since deceased), Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal and Satvir entered into the criminal conspiracy to wrongfully confine of the complainant PW 2 his family members Sanjay, Deepak and Anu to extract information/confession about whereabouts of Geeta and Atul. In pursuance of the conspiracy all the above persons were wrongfully confined at Kavi Nagar PS and physically tortured to extract information about Geeta and Atul. In this regard it is pertinent to mentioned that PW 2 stated that he had gone to the house of accused K. R. Ahuja to inform him that Atul and Geeta had gone to Delhi to get married, upon which K. R. Ahuja asked him to sit and thereafter K. R. Ahuja's son Peeyush came and asked his father to make a phone call to Kaka Kohli and ask him to bring police and also stated that when would police be of any help them as he was giving lacs of rupees to police. Kaka Kholi was also a liquor baron of Ghaziabad. PW 2 stated that after sometime Kaka Kohli came with police officer. SO Satyapal Singh, Ct. Satyavir Singh and Ct. Sukhpal and Raja Vats and Satypal Singh slapped the the complainant PW 2. Thereafter complainant PW 2 was brought to Tis Hazari courts Dellhi to check the marriage register. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused is that there is no provision to check the register without due procedure and the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 64 / deposition of the complainant PW 2 in this regard cannot be believed. However nothing was elucidated in the cross examination of PW 2 which may create a doubt with regard to his testimony that he was brought to Delhi.
143. PW 9 Dr. Usha Jain proved the medical examination report of accused Geeta Ex. PW 9/A, according to the report there were no injury marks on her private parts, vagina admitted 2 fingers as such the case was registered against Atul for the offence U/s 376 IPC with malafide intention to use frame Atul Dhall and his family members. Moreover, PW 19 stated that he was a neighbour of PW 7 and on 12.08.1994 Deepak and his family had gone to Lohia Nagar Ghaziabad to attend Terhvi of his mother and his house was locked on 12/13.08.1994. IO had proved inspection memo of house no. 116D, Dilshad Garden Ex. PW 23/L according to which allegation of rape against Atul by Geeta in her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. were false, as the house of PW 7 Deepak Malik was locked on the intervening night of 12/13.08.1994 as he had gone for Tehrvi of his mother to Ghaziabad . The version of PW 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13 regarding the fact that the mother of PW 7 and mother in law of complainant had expired and all of the above PWs had gone for Tehrvi on 12.08.94. As such prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Deepak Malik was not at his house on 12/13.08.94 hence the allegation in the statement of Geeta U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is that she was raped at the house of PW 7 were false.
144. Ld. Spl. PP further submitted that PW 1 Atul stated that he had called his house on 13.08.94 and was informed by his aunt Manorama Malik that police official of PS Kavi Nagar had arrested his father, brother Sanjay and Mama Deepak on hearing this news he called a taxi and reached PS Kavi Nagar along with Geeta at about 8 AM and Geeta told the police official that she had married Atul out of her own will but her father and police official did not listen to her. PW SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 65 / 1 further stated that at 3.00 PM the police official arrested him, his father, bhabhi Anu , mama Deepak Malik and brother Sanjay.
145. PW 20 Om Prakash taxi driver corroborated the version of PW 1 regarding the fact that he had dropped a boy and girl at the gate of PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad in August 1994 and he was called at MD International hotel at Hauz Khas and was asked to take two passengers i.e. one boy and one girl to Ghazibad and he dropped the said persons at the gate of Police Station at Ghaziabad . He thereafter informed MD International Hotel that he had dropped the passengers at police station Ghaziabad. He however stated that he could not identify the passengers. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta.
146. The complainant PW 2 corroborated the version of PW 1 and stated that on 13.08.94 at about 7.30 AM Geeta and Atul came in PS Kavi Nagar and Geeta telephonically informed her father K.R.Ahuja upon which he reached PS and Geeta told the police officials and her father that she had got married Atul out of her own will but they did not listen to her. He also stated that thereafter at about 1.30 AM K. Ra. Ahuja came back to PS and at that time SO Satypal Singh was present and there was some talk between K. R. Ahuj and Satypal Singh. Thereafter he as well as Atul, Sanjay, Deepak and Anu were put in the lockup and were sent to JC.
147. The contention of Ld. counsel for all the accused is that marriage certificate was not produced by Atul before the the then SO accused Satyapl Singh as such the submission of Atul Dhal PW 1 and Geeta that they had married were not found satisfactory and the SO was justified in taking action against Atul and his family members.
148. It was next contended on behalf of accused that the marriage of Geeta with Atul was performed against her wishes and accused had abducted her compelled SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 66 / her to marry Atul against her wishes and Atul had forcibly raped her in the house of his maternal uncle Deepak Malik. It is also alleged on behalf of accused persons that Geeta had made statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 24/A1 before PW 24 ADJ Bulandshehar UP and PW 24 had deposed that on 12.10.94 he was posted at ACJM III Ghaziabad and on that day IO moved an application Ex. PW 24/A before ACJM Ghaziabad for recording of the statement of Geeta under section 164 Cr.P.C. and he recorded the statement of Geeta on 15.10.94 after being satisfied that she wanted to give statement voluntarily. He proved the statement of Geeta recorded by him Ex. PW 24/A 1 which bears her signature at point A at 3 places and his signatures at point B. He further stated that be appended the certificate to the same which is A1 to A1. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. accused Geeta had stated that on 12.08.94 at 6.30 AM while she was on the way to college Atul, Manoj Anu, Sanjay, Deepak and Raj Pal came in two Maruti vans and Anu Dhall inquired from her as to where she was going whereupon she told her that she was going to college. Anu Dhall told her that they would drop her at her college and asked her to sit in the van, first she refused but as she was getting late she sat in the van with Atul, Manoj and Anu. Thereafter Anu intoxicated her by putting handkerchief on her face and when she recovered consciousness she found herself in the house of Deepak Malik at Dilshad Garden, Delhi. She stated that Atul and his family members scolded her and they were carrying pistol. She also stated that Atul forcibly married her and took her photographs. Thereafter she was locked in the room and at the instance of all his family members Atul raped her and she was then brought in a van to Ghaziabad Railway station from where police official apprehended them. She also stated that her signatures were taken forcibly on some documents at the time of her marriage.
149. Offence of conspiracy as defined under section 120 A IP as an agreement SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 67 / between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or lawful act by unlawful means. Said document was fabricated with the intention to lead judge hearing the case to from erroneous opinion regarding material facts of the case FIR no.408/94 u/s 363/366/376 IPC the punishment for the offence u/s 363 IPC upto 7 years, u/s 363 IPC upto 10 years and under section 376 the punishment of imprisonment shall not be less than 7 years but which may be for life or for terms which may extend to 10 years.
150. The complainant PW2 further stated that thereafter police took him, Sanjay and Deepak in the custody and took them to PS Kavi Nagar on 12.8.94 at 3.30 PM. The testimony of PW 2 regarding the fact that he, Sanjay and Deepak were taken to PS on 12.08.94 at 3.30 PM had gone unchallenged. Complainant also stated that he and above persons were brought back home as police officials expected Atul to contact his family and thereafter PW 2 as well as Annu, Sanjay and Deepak were brought to the PS Kavi Nagar and made to sit in room adjoining the room of SO. He also stated that one electric machine was lying at the bench on a table in the room where they made to sit and SI Rana and H.K. Singh gave electric shock to Sanjay and also put wires in the ear of Sanjay due to which blood started coming from his ear and when Anu asked them whether they intended to kill Sanjay, Anu was also given 23 electric shocks by SI H.K. Singh while SI Rana kept rotating the electric machine. Electric shocks were also given to the complainant PW 2 and Deepak.
151. It is contended on behalf of CBI that PW 2 and his family members were wrongfully confined at PS Kavi Nagar to extract information/ confession from them about Geeta and Atul and at around 12.20 AM on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 circle officer A. K.Singh reached PS and called the the complainant PW 2 and his family members who were illegally detained in the room of SO and SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 68 / A. K. Singh asked them about the whereabouts of Atul and Geeta and gave beatings to Sanjay, Deepak with wooden stick (baith). A. K. Singh also told them that boy and girl should return home by morning and thereafter left.
152. It is further the case of CBI that accused K. R. Ahuja who was a liquor contractor of Ghaziabad and he had intimacy with accused A. K. Singh and other police officials and he had approached the police after his daughter eloped with Atul to frame them in a false case.
153. A complaint of the incident was given by accused K. R. Ahuja father of Geeta to SHO PS Kavi Nagar on 12.08.94 at 22.30 hrs. but as per the version of PW 2 and his family members they were taken to PS on 12.08.94 at 3.30 PM. The testimony of PW 2 in this regard has gone unchallenged. Therefore it has been proved by the prosecution that PW 2 and his family members had been taken into custody by police of PS Kavi Nagar prior to any complaint having received by police of PS Kavi Nagar and PW 2 was brought to Tis Hazari courts, Delhi and taken to other places in search of Geeta and Atul .
154. It is however contended on behalf of accused A.K. Singh that he was not the circle officer of PS Kavi Nagar at the relevant time and circle officer was one Awdesh Kumar Singh and he had been falsely implicated by CBI as it could not find any evidence against Awdesh Kumar Singh and found the position of Alpha 5 vehicle of accused Ajay Kumar Singh at PS Kavi Nagar at 12.20 mid night.
155. However Ld. Spl. PP for CBI had submitted that accused A. K. Singh was the Kingpin of the conspiracy for wrongful confinement of complainant and his family members at PS Kavi Nagar as would emerge from the evidence on record..
156. On the other hand the contention of Ld. Spl. PP is that complainant and his family members and Atul were arrested in a false case and no investigation was made to find out the bonafide of the complaint of K.R. Ahuja before arresting SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 69 / complainant and his family as all accused police official had conspired with accused K. R. Ahuja who was a liquor baron of Ghaziabad and they did not release the complainant and his family members even after Geeta told them that she had married PW 1 Atul.
157. Ld. Spl. PP also submitted that a person cannot be arrested only because it is lawful to do so by the police and existence of power to arrest is one thing and justification for exercise of the power is another. Hence all the acts done by accused Satypal Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh and A. K. Singh regarding arrests and confinement of complainant and his family can be said to have been done in furtherance of their conspiracy and are relevant fact as against each of them and for proving the existence of conspiracy and that all the accused were party in it.
158. On careful scrutiny of the evidence and documents on record , I find that the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused A. K. Singh that he did not visit PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 stand belied from the testimony of PW 21 who was the radio Maintenance officer at Ghahziabad UP stated that as per relevant pages of log book Ex. PW 21/B1 to B2 the position of Alpha 5 which was with the circle officer City 1 Ghaziabad on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 at 12.20 AM was at Kavi Nagar and at 1.12 AM the position of Alpha 5 was shown at D Block Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad. It is thus proved beyond doubt that the vehicle Alpha 5 was with the CO of City A. K. Singh who was the CO of city 1 at the relevant time and the vehicle Alpha 5 was with him at 12.02 mid night on the intervening night of 1213.08.94 and the position of Alpha 5 was at Kavi Nagar.
159. It was alleged on behalf of accused as such accused A.K. Singh did not conspire with other police official Satypal Singh, Raja Vats (since deceased), Satbir Sing, Sukhbir and Khem Raj Ahuja to wrongfully confine the the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 70 / complainant PW 2 and his family members to extract information or confession from them or torture them as he was not posted at circle officer of PS Kavi Nagar and had no supervisory power over functioning of PS Kavi Nagar and did not have any occasion to meet the police official of PS Kavi Nagar in connection with case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar and he has been implicated as his name was similar to the name of circle officer of PS Kavi Nagar Awdesh Kumar Singh. It was also alleged that the PW 2 and his family members had levelled false allegations against accused A.K. Singh to save themselves from the case of kidnapping got registered by deceased K.R. Ahuja against them. However PW 2, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 7 had stated that they had been called to the room of SHO when A.K. Singh came to the PS Kavi Nagar and he inquired about the whereabouts of boy and girl and gave beatings to Sanjay and Deepak with wooden stick but he did not touch PW 2 and warned them that boy and girl should return home by morning and then left PS.
160. The defence of accused A. K. Singh that he never visited PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 was also found false in view of his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 25/A1. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused A. K. Singh is that he was not the circle officer of PS Kavi Nagar at the relevant date and he was not liable for the deeds of the other accused is without any merits and on close scrutiny of evidence his arguments does not stand the test of reasonableness. In his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, Ex. PW 25/A1, accused A. K. Singh stated that he was looking after the work of PS Kavi Nagar as link of supervisory officer in the absence of circle office of city 1 Ghaziabad who was on leave and while patrolling in the area he saw crowd at PS Kavi Nagar and entered PS Kavi Nagar and on inquiry from SHO PS Kavi Nagar he was told that it was a case of kidnapping of a girl and he stated he remained in the PS for about 45 SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 71 / minutes. I am of the view that being the link of supervisory office of PS Kavi Nagar, he was looking after the work of PS Kavi Nagar in the absence of circle officer city 1 and he visited PS Kavi Nagar where PW 2 and his family members had been detained by the police in case FIR no. 408/94, thus his role in the in the conspiracy of wrongful confinement cannot be ruled out. There is positive evidence about the conspiracy and complicity against A. K. Singh regarding offence of wrongful confinement as the complainant PW 2 and his family members had stated that he had came to PS and had beaten Sanjay and Deepak and also warned all of them that boy and girl should return home by the morning. It was not necessary that A.K. Singh ought to have been physically present all the time during illegal confinement of PW 2 and his family members. Moreover there is no evidence on record that PS Kavi Nagar had large building or that there was lot of business to be transacted there on the basis of which it could be urged that illegal confinement of PW 2 and his family members may have escaped from the notice of accused A. K. Singh when he visited PS Kavi Nagar. Thus, I am of the view that complicity of accused A. K. Singh has been proved beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of section 120 B.
161. The next contention of Ld. counsel for accused A. K. Singh is that none of the witnesses PW 2, 3, 6 and 7 had know him earlier and PW 2, 3 , 6 and 7 had stated in their cross examination that they had seen accused A. K. Singh for the first time in the PS and thereafter in the court. PW 6 had stated that she did not know accused A. K. Singh before the incident. PW 7 also stated in his cross examination that after the incident he had seen the accused A. K. Singh in the court, hence the TIP of accused A. K.Singh ought to have been got conducted to establish his identity as he was not the circle officer of PS Kavi Nagar on the relevant date. It was stated that it is the case of mistaken identity due to the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 72 / similar names of CO PS Kavi Nagar Awdesh Kumar Singh and A.K. Singh at the relevant time. However, I of the opinion that there was no question of any mistaken identity of accused A. K.Singh and TIP of accused A. K. Singh was not necessary in view of his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he was present at PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 1213.08.94 for 45 minutes. Section 164 (2) Cr.P.C. makes the statement of witness recorded by the Magistrate admissible in evidence against the maker of it, if it is voluntarily made. For proving that the statement of A. K. Singh was voluntarily made prosecution relied on the testimony of PW 25 who had recorded the statement of accused A. K. Singh u/s 164 Cr.P.C..
162. Hence, I am of the opinion that complicity of accused A.K. Singh in the offence is established beyond reasonable doubt. He as the link of supervisory officer visited PS Kavi Nagar on the night of 1213.08.94 and the least expected of him was to ensure that the no indiscriminate arrests had been made especially of a woman which violated human rights. Therefore A. K. Singh cannot escape from the liability for wrongful confinement of complainant and his family and is equally liable along with other accused for wrongful confinement of PW 2 and his family members at PS Kavi Nagar for extortion of confession / information from in conspiracy with the other coaccused K. R.Ahuja liquor baron of Ghaziabad (deceased), SHO PS Kavi Nagar Satyapal, Sukhpal and Satyavir Singh.
163. The accused Satyapal Singh the then SHO PS Kavi Nagar was the person incharge of the PS Kavi Nagar and his complicity in the offences stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the version of PW 2, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 7 who had been illegally detained at PS Kavi Nagar. The complicity of accused Sukhpal, Satyavir Singh, also stands proved by the testimony of the complainant PW 2, PW 3 , PW 6 and PW 7. The presence of Satyavir Singh and Sukhbir has not been SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 73 / challenged in the cross examination of PW 2 as well as PWs 3, 6 and 7. Satyapal Singh the Station Officer PS Kavi Nagar was liable and accountable for all that happened in the police station as all acts were deemed to have been committed with his consent and connivance. It was not necessary for him to be present all the time during 12.08.1994 and 13.08.1994 during the illegal confinement of PW 2 and his family members when they were taken to Delhi and other places The complicity of Ct. Sukhbir, Satyvir Singh in the commission of crime stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
164. Although during interrogation police necessarily have to call persons for investigation and take them some places for recovery of incriminating articles but where police official detain persons who are not concerned with any investigation, they are guilty u/s 348 IPC. In the present case as per the version of the complainant PW 2, he and his family members were taken from their house on 12.08.94 at 3.30 PM to PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad and were produced before the Magistrate on 13.08.94. They had no concern with the investigation of the case FIR no. 408/94 but were wrongfully confined in the PS, due to which police official underwent to mental agony and disgrace and instated of releasing them when Geeta came to PS on 13.08.94 with Atul Dhall and told the police official and her father that she had married Atul, they were put in the lockup and sent to judicial custody in a false case of abduction , kidnapping and rape.
165. I find that the testimony of PW 2, 3, 6 and 7 does not suffer from inherent inconsistencies and are cogent regarding their wrongful confinement in PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94 and nothing has been brought on record by accused to discredit their versions regarding the said fact. Hence, I am of the opinion that accused A. K. Singh, Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Satyvir Singh in furtherance of conspiracy entered into criminal conspiracy with accused SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 74 / K.R. Ahuja (deceased) to wrongful confine complainant PW 2 and his family members with a view to extract confession/ information from them about Geeta and Atul.
166. The Ld. Spl. PP further argued that complainant and his family member were tortured, beaten and given electric shocks during illegal detention and all accused thereby committed offence u/s 120 B r/w section 330 IPC and 330 IPC. However the contention of Ld. counsel for accused is that the version of PW 2, 3, 6 and 7 in this regard are highly tainted with interestedness and are biased and there are deliberate exaggeration at every stage in their deposition regarding beatings, torture and electric shocks in order to save them from case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar, the proceedings of which have been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not quashed the said FIR.
167. The contention of Ld. counsel for accused is that PW 2 and his family members who were accused in case FIR no. 408/94 were produced before the Magistrate at the time of obtaining their judicial remand and in case if they had sustained any injuries due to beating by police they would have mentioned the same to the Magistrate or their counsel would have done so. He further alleged that PW 1 had stated in his cross examination that they had engaged a counsel at the time when they were produced before the Magistrate for their judicial remand. Ld. Counsel for accused further alleged that PW 1 stated in his cross examination that in the writ petition Ex. PW 1/D2 it was mentioned that they were not produced before the Magistrate. However he was shown the writ petition and after going through the same he stated that said averments were not mentioned there as such his testimony in this regard be discarded. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that complainant and his other family members as they were produced SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 75 / before the Magistrate and they did not make any complaint regarding injuries sustained by them as in fact no such injuries had been caused to them by the police official.
168. It is further alleged that PW 2 and his family members did not get themselves medically examined after being released from Jail as no injuries were sustained by them. It is further alleged as no allegations were made in the writ petition Ex. PW 1/D2 that they were not examined by the jail doctor regarding the injuries sustained by them as such the allegations made against the jail doctor in the deposition of PW 2 are all false. It is further argued on behalf of accused that IO PW 23 DSP P. K. Chaudhary has also admitted in his cross examination that if a person sent to JC in injured condition he is not permitted entry in the jail without first getting him medically examined.
169. It was further alleged on behalf of accused that the PW 2 complainant had not mentioned the names of police official in the complaint to District Magistrate and neither he had mentioned in the complaint that police official had beaten him at his house. In this regard Ld. Spl. PP for CBI submitted that Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal, Satbir, Promila, Duija Yadav had not challenged their identification by PW 1, PW2, PW 3, PW 4, and PW 7. Thus although in the complaint names of the police official who assaulted the PW 2 and his family members have not been mentioned but FIR is not an encyclopedia of all facts as held:
2009 X AD (SC) 381 "Undoubtedly, in the FIR the appellant names have not been mentioned. The FIR is not the encyclopedia of all the facts relating to crime. The only requirements is that at the time of lodging of FIR, the informant should state all those facts which normally strike to mind and help in assessing SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 76 / the gravity of the crime or identity of the culprit briefly."
170. Ld. Spl. PP further submitted that the PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 7 had fully corroborated the prosecution case regarding the fact that they were taken to the PS by the then SO and other police official Sukhpal, Satyvir Singh, Raja Vats (deceased) to get clue about Geeta and Atul but despite the inhumanly behavior meted out to them no information could be gathered from any of them.
171. Ld,. Counsel for accused on the other hand had further contended that marriage certificate of Geeta and Atul was not produced before the SHO and this fact was also admitted by PW 1 in his cross examination and PW 1 stated that he did not have marriage certificate with him when he surrendered at PS. PW 1 stated that he had given the marriage certificate to his friend Anil Walia, hence the police cannot be said to have arrested complainant, Atul and his family members in a false case and the acts of police officials were lawful as there was a complaint of kidnapping and abduction by father of Geeta. However this contention ofLd. Counsel for accused is without any force as PW1 and PW2 stated in their cross examination that on reaching PS Kavi Nagar Geeta had told the police officials that she had married Atul and asked police official to release them and fought with her father on the issue of getting them released. The testimony of PW 1, and PW 2 in this regard went unchallenged as such there was no justification to detain them without bonafide inquiry regarding the complaint of K. R. Ahuja.
172. It is contended on behalf of accused that PW 2, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 7 stated in their cross examination that electric shocks were given by SI H. K. Singh and SI Rana however they were not arrayed as an accused. PW 2 also stated in his cross examination that Inspector Sheela Chaudhary had beaten Anu and she had also not been arrayed as an accused and he had no grievances against her. It is SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 77 / also contended on behalf of accused that prosecution has failed to prove that electric shocks were given by any of the accused from the testimony of PW2, 3, 6 and 7. Therefore the giving of electric shocks by accused to PW 2, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 7 had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
173. On a careful scrutiny of evidence of PW 2, 3, 6 and 7 I find that their depositions regarding the injuries sustained by them during wrongful confinement and same were at substantiated as no hurt could actually be proved on record. In view of the several contradictions in versions of above PWs offence u/s 330 IPC could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
174. Section 54 of the Cr.P.C. provides for examination of an arrested person by medical practitioner and it is a right conferred of an arrested person but often arrested person is not aware of his right on account of his ignorance and is unable to exercise his right even though he may have been tortured or maltreated by police in police lock up. Hence, it is the duty of the Magistrate to inform the arrested person about his right of medical examination, in case he makes any complaint of torture or maltreatment in police custody.
175. The contention of Ld. counsel for accused A.K. Singh and and other accused police officials is that the complainant and his family members who were accused in case FIR No. 408/94 were produced before the Magistrate and had they been tortured or beaten in police custody, they would have made complaint to the Magistrate. Whereas the Ld. Special PP for CBI submitted that PW 1 had stated that they were not produced before Magistrate and the police official went inside and obtained their judicial remand. It was alleged on behalf of accused police officials that PW 1 had stated in his cross examination that he had mentioned in the writ petition Ex. PW 1/D2 that they were not produced before the Magistrate but after going through the copy of the writ petition Ex. PW 1/D2 it was found that SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 78 / no such averments were made therein. I find that there are inherent contradictions in the version of PW 1 and 3 as PW 3 in his statement made to CBI stated that they were produced before the Magistrate who dismissed their bail application and jail doctor did not examine them in spite of injuries of their person and they did not get themselves medically examined after being released from JC as they had no knowledge that it would be required in the case but gave contradictory version in court. PW 1 stated in his statement Ex. PW 1/DA that jail doctor examined them but had not mentioned about the injuries in his report but contradicted his version and deposed in court the jail doctor did not examine them. In view of the contradictions in the deposition of PW 1 and 3 there are inherent improbabilities in their version and same cannot be relied upon to convict the accused for the offence U/s 120 B IPC r/w section 330 IPC and Section 330 IPC.
176. On the other hand Ld. PP for CBI stated that complainant and his other family members PWs 3, 5, 6 and 7 had all categorically deposed that they were not only beaten but electric shocks were also given to them in PS Kavi Nagar during their illegal detention at PS Kavi Nagar and the testimony of the complainant and his family members stood corroborated by the version of each other regarding the beatings and electric shocks given to them and their version cannot discarded only because there is no medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by them during their illegal confinement in the lock up of PS Kavi Nagar. In support of his contentions that evidence given by medical officer is of advisory character he placed reliance upon:
2006 AIR (SC) 508 Vishnu @ Undrya Vs. State of Maharashtra SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 79 / Wherein it is held as follows:
"The opinion of the medical officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact."
177. It is further submitted by Sh. Anil Tanwar Ld. Special PP for CBI that the testimony of the complainant and his family membmers which were credible should not be discarded for want of medical evidence. He further submitted that the evidence of complainant and his family members must be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story. It was also submitted by Ld. Special PP that eye witnesses are eyes and ears of justice. In support of this contention he placed reliance on:
2004 AIR (SC) 77 Ramakant Rai Vs. Madan Rai Wherein it is held as follows:
"Medical Evidence and Eye Witness Evidence - Eye Witnesses are eyes and ears of Justice - Where the Eyewitness Evidence is found credible and trust worthy - Hypothetical answers given by Doctors cannot decrease the value of the Eye Witness Evidence."
178. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Satyapal, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh, Dureja and Promila and A.K. Singh is that no complaint was lodged by complainant and his family against the jail doctor who refused to examine them as no injuries were sustained by PW 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 80 / allegations made against jail doctor that he asked fro bribe were false and the name of the doctor was also not disclosed neither any complaint was lodged against him nor any allegations was made against the doctor in the writ petition. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that PW 1 also stated that they had engaged a counsel at the time of being produced before Magistrate but the lawyer did not meet them and his impression was that the advocate might have been under in the influence of accused K.R. Ahuja . He further stated that he do not know the name of the advocate. It was submitted on behalf of accused that had the complainant and his family members sustained injuries, the same would have been mentioned in their bail application but their bail application was not seized by IO, hence the injuries on their persons were not proved.
179. Ld. Counsel for accused A.K. Singh stated that PW 1 stated in his cross examination that no specific allegations were made against him in the writ petition as such the PW 1 and his family members had no grievance against him regarding beatings and torture. But this cannot be accepted as PW 1 clarified this fact and stated that he had levelled general allegations against the accused in the writ petition and he had impleaded the SHO, PS Kavi Nagar and Senior Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad as respondents but had not impleaded accused A.K. Singh as a party. He also contended on behalf of accused A.K. Singh that in the annexure annexed with the writ petition it has been mentioned that accused A.K. Singh restrained the police officials from torturing him and his family as such complaint and his family had not levelled allegations against him in the writ petition.
180. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused police official that in the complaint made by PW 2 to the District Magistrate Ex. PW 2/DA the names of the police officials who actually gave beatings or electric shocks was not mentioned by PW 2 and this fact was admitted by him. The complaint made to District Judge SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 81 / was annexed with the writ petition on which Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the orders directing CBI to investigate the allegations of torture and giving of electric shocks to the petitioner therein and his family members. However in this regard it may be noted that FIR is not encyclopedia of this event and it is sufficient if it mentions the manner in which the incident occurred and the gravity of the offence. In the present case the gravity of the offence and manhandling and beatings electric shocks given by police officials to the petitioner PW 1 and his family members had been mentioned.
181. It was also submitted on behalf of accused that although it was deposed by PW 2, 3 6 and 7 that SI H.K. Singh and SI Rana Singh gave electric shock to them but SI H.K. Singh & SI Rana but the said police officials were not arrayed as accused and PW 2 had stated that he had no grievance against H.K. Singh and Rana Singh and he also had not taken any action against CBI for not making Rana and H.K. Singh as accused.
182. Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that in his cross examination IO stated that he had not obtained the copy of the bail application moved by complainant and his family members before the Ld. MM. He denied that a copy of the same was not obtained as there were no allegations of torture therein. He also stated that he could not tell without seeing the police file that whether he seized the copy of JC remand application of complainant and his family. He also stated that he did not record the statement of the constable who escorted the accused of case FIR no. 408/94 i.e. complainant and his family at the time of their judicial remand and also stated that he could not state whether he had obtained the copy of the bail application or not. He also stated that he could not state without seeing the police file whether he recorded the statement of Magistrate of Ghaziabad or not to the effect that complainant as well as Atul, Sanjay, Deepak and Anu accused of case SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 82 / FIR no. 408/94 were not produced before the Magistrate before they were sent to JC. He also stated that it was correct that if a person is sent to JC in injured condition he is not permitted in the jail without first getting him medically examined. He also stated that electric shocks were given to family members of Atul by SI H. K. Singh and SI Rana and SI Sheela Chaudhary had beaten Anu. IO further stated that complainant and his family had not get themselves medically examined. He further stated that he could not recover any item from PS Kavi Nagar used for giving electric shock. He further stated that SI H. K. Singh, SI Rana and SI Sheela Chaudhary against whom allegations of giving electric shocks were made by the witness had not been made an accused in this case.
183. Ld. Spl. PP for CBI submitted that accused police official the then SO Satyapal Singh, was duty bound to get them medically examined before they were produced before the Magistrate but he had not done so. Ld. Spl. PP for CBI contended that in the absence of the same presumption to be drawn against that accused that injuries had been inflicted on the complainant and his family members by accused police officials. It has been held in
184. 2009 VIII AD Delhi 262 State Vs. Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal as follows:
185. that adverse inference against an accused is the result of a presumptive logic and by its very nature, presumptive logic is weak logic. However I am of the view no adverse inference of the same is to be drawn against the accused.
186. Ld. Counsel for accused further stated that as there were no injuries on their persons PW 2, 3, 6 and 7 they did not get themselves medically examined. SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 83 /
187. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused in furtherance of conspiracy entered into between them physically tortured the complainant and his family to extort information/ confession from them about Geeta and Atul. In view of the inherent inconsistency in the testimony of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 7 their testimony regarding torture and beatings and giving of electric shocks to them at PS Kavi Nagar during their wrongful confinement is not worthy of credence as evidence for admissibility has to tested for its inherent consistency and probability and it has failed the said test.
188. From the evidence of IO it is evident that material facts which would have revealed the connection of conspiracy of torture and giving electric shocks could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as IO did not obtain the necessary documents in this regard. Thus there is no satisfactory evidence on record from which it would be reasonable to connect the accused with the acts of torture, beatings and electric shocks given in pursuance of the conspiracy. Therefore prosecution has filed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had beaten or tortured the complainant and PW 3, 6 and 7 in the PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94, hence all the accused are acquitted for the offence u/s 120 B r/w 330 IPC and section 330 IPC.
189. The prosecution thus has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that accused Satyapal Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh had entered into a criminal conspiracy to wrongfully confine the complainant Raj Pal Dhall, Sanjay Dhall, Deepak Malik and Anu Dhall to extort information/ confession from them about Geeta and Atul and all the above named accused are accordingly held guilty for the offence punishable under section 120 B r/w 348 IPC. As accused Satyapal Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Satyavir SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 84 / Singh in pursuance of the conspiracy wrongfully confined complainant and his family members to extort confession/information from them about the whereabouts of Geeta and Atul hence they are also held guilty for offence under section 348 IPC.
190. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving that on 13.08.94 at Raj Nagar Ghaziabad accused Satyapl Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh, Dujja Yadav and Promila J. Mesih entered into a criminal conspiracy to fabricate false evidence against complainant Raj Pal Dhall and his family members with the intention to use that evidence against them in the case pertaining to FIR no. 408/94 u/s 363/366/376 IPC got registered by the accused Khem Raj Ahuja, accordingly all of them are held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC read with section 193 IPC and 195 IPC.
191. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving that in pursuance of the conspiracy accused Satya Pal Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Satyvir Singh, Duija Yadav, Promila J. Masih prepared a false recovery memo Ex. PW 1/DB and fabricated false GD entries no. 15, 21 and 50 in respect of the investigation of case FIR no. 408/94 registered at PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad for being used in case FIR no. 408/94. They are accordingly held guilty for the offence punishable under section 193 IPC and 195 IPC.
192. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Geeta Ahuja and accused A. K. Singh for the offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w section 195 IPC and 195 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences.
193. Prosecution also failed to bring home the charge against accused Satypal Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Satyavir Singh for the offence punishable u/s 120 B r/w section 330 IPC and section 330 IPC, accordingly the SC No. 68/09 CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 85 / above named accused are acquitted for the offene punishable u/s 120 B r/w section 330 IPC and section 330 IPC.
194. The bail bond of accused Geeta Ahuja is cancelled, her surety discharged.
Accused to be heard on the point of sentence on 28.05.2010.
Announced in the open court (POONAM CHAUDHARY)
On this day of 24th May 2010 ASJ (Central01) DELHI
SC No. 68/09
CBI Vs. Satyapal Singh and ors. Page 86 /