Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The prosecution case against the three appellants and Ram Kishan may briefly be stated as follows. Ram Chander (appellant No 1) had been posted as a Station House officer, Police Station, Sadar Panipat a few days before the occurrence, while appellants Nos 2 and 3 (Chand Ram and Baljeet Singh) and Ram Kishan were working as Assistant Sub Inspector, Head Constable and Constable respectively under him at that Police Station. According to the prosecution on the evening of September 6, 1972, appellant No. 1 summoned some persons suspected of having committed a theft to the Police Station; Banta (P.W.7) on being summoned through appellant No. 3 held reached the Police Station at about 4/5 p.m. while Vir Singh (P.W.6) and one Sukha Singh were personally brought by appellant No. l to the Police Station at about 7 p.m.; at about 10 p.m. appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Ram Kishan went to the house of Balwant Singh, the deceased, and proclaimed that Balwant Singh was wanted by the appellant No. I at the Police Station whereupon Joginder Singh (P.W.4) his brother and other members of his family requested that Balwant Singh should not be taken to the police station at that odd hour and that they themselves would produce him before the S.H.O. on the following morning but their request went unheeded and reluctantly Balwant Singh and his servant Harnam Singh (PW5) went with the police party in a tempo driven by Som Nath (P.W.14) to the police station while Joginder Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (P.W.12) another brother of Balwant Singh and two others followed the police party on their bicycles; on the way the police party told them (the witnesses) to go back, but Joginder Singh and his companions did not listen and followed the police party right up to the Police Station. Joginder Singh (P.W.4) approached appellant No. I and enquired from him about the matter for which the deceased Balwant Singh had been summoned but appellant No. l told him to go back and to make inquiries about the matter on the following morning. According to the prosecution further, within their sight Balwant Singh deceased and Harnam Singh (P.W.5) were taken in a room of the police station where Moharrir A Head Constable (Balwant Singh PW 15) used to sit, and while Joginder Singh (P.W. 4) and his companions were standing just outside the police station they heard the cries of Balwant Singh deceased who was saying that he was innocent and should not be beaten. In short, according to the prosecution, Balwant Singh was tortured to death by the three appellants and Ram Kishan while he was in police custody on the night between 6th and 7th September, 1972.

In the morning at about 6.30 (on September 7, 1972) Vir Singh (PW6) who came out of the police station told Joginder Singh (PW4) and his companions, who were still waiting outside the police station, that the three appellants and Ram Kishan had continuously beaten Balwant Singh inside the police station for the whole night and that he was not sure whether Balwant Singh was alive or not and that the appellants were conspiring to some how or other dispose of the dead body. At the instance of Joginder Singh (PW4), Amarjit Singh (P.W.12) went to the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, Panipat and got an application (Ex. PM) drafted and presented it to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who marked it to the Station House officer, Sadar Panipat (appellant No. I) for report. Smt. Harnam Kaur (P.W.13) mother of Balwant Singh deceased, after waiting in vain for her sons to come back till 11 a.m. herself went to the police station Panipat and met Joginder Singh (PW4) and others outside the police station and after hearing about the beating of Balwant Singh in the custody of the police station, at the instance of Joginder Singh (PW4), she sent a telegram (Ex. PL) to the Superintendent of Police Karnal to the effect that Station House officer, Sadar Panipat and five constables and Havildar Baljeet Singh raided her house on the previous night and took her son Balwant Singh and servant Harnam Singh (PW5) to the police station, that Balwant Singh had been beaten ruthlessly and taken to an unknown place and that his life was in danger and she prayed for an early action to save the precious life of Balwant Singh. At about 7 or 7.30 p.m. On September 7, 1972, Joginder Singh (PW4) contacted Dy. S.P. Iqbal Singh (PW16) and narrated to him all that had happened and Iqbal Singh assured him that justice would be done in the case. By this time it had become that Balwant Singh had succumbed to the injuries received by him and therefore Joginder Singh requested the Dy. S.P. to have the autopsy on the dead body done by Chief Medical officer Karnal instead of by the local Medical officer.

In view of the aforementioned rival versions put forward by the prosecution and the defence, three main questions arose for determination: (a) whether deceased Balwant Singh was taken to the Police Station Sadar Panipat by the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Ram Kishan in the tempo driven by Som Nath (P.W.14) on the night between 6th and 7th September, 1972 ? (b) what transpired at the Police Station, that is to say, whether deceased Balwant Singh was given a beating by the three appellants and Ram Kishan while he was allegedly in their custody ? and (c) whether the appellants particularly appellant No. I created false evidence by preparing documents in connection with the theft said to have been committed in the house of Bhim Singh (DW2) with a view to escape from legal punishment in connection with the murder of Balwant Singh ? on the first two points the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Som Nath(P.W.14),the driver of the tempo, Vir Singh (PW6), Banta Singh (PW7), Harnam Singh (PW5), Joginder Singh (PW4) and Amarjeet Singh (PW12), out of whom Banta Singh and Harnam Singh were said to be 'stamped witnesses' as they had injuries on . their persons allegedly suffered by them at the time of causing injuries to deceased Balwant Singh. On analysing the entire material on record the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution story was highly improbable and that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses was not reliable. The pleas of alibi were accepted and the defence version of theft at the house of DW Bhim Singh involving deceased Balwant Singh was held to be true. Leaving aside the defence case, it must be observed that he dealt with the prosecution evidence quite elaborately and gave substantial reasons for rejecting the same.

12) to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the names of appellant No. I (Ram Chander) and Ram Kishan had not been mentioned at all and this fact assumed importance especially when it was immediately after getting information about the assault on Balwant Singh from Vir Singh (PW 6) in the morning at 6.30 a.m. Amarjit Singh made that application as directed by Joginder Singh (PW 4). The learned Judge further pointed out that in the telegram Ex. PL sent by Harnam Kaur (PW 13), to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, it was stated that S.H.O Sadar Panipat alongwith five constables and Hawaldar Baljeet Singh had taken away her son Balwant Singh and servant Harnam Singh to the police station whereas it was never the case of the prosecution that S.H.O. Ram Chander (appellant No. 1) was among those police officials who had gone to the Dera of Balwant Singh. In view of these facts and the other material on record the learned Judge came to the conclusion that Ex. PG, the regular First Information Report lodged by Joginder Singh as late as on 9th September, 1972 had been got drafted after holding deliberations and consultations in which detailed allegations were made against the appellants mentioning even the sections of the Penal Code. One more crucial circumstance was referred to by the learned Sessions Judge and that was that Joginder Singh (PW 4), Amarjeet Singh (PW 12) had claimed that they had not allowed the dead body of Balwant Singh to be taken away from the police station and that it was brought out in the morning in the immediate presence of hundreds of persons and if that were so there should have been no dearth of independent persons, who could have been examined for substantiating the prosecution case that at some stage of the other the dead body of Balwant Singh was at the police station but nothing of the kind was done. What is more, Amarjit Singh (P.W. 12) had stated before the Dy. S.P. Iqbal Singh (PW 16), with which portion he was confronted, that he had seen the dead body of Balwant Singh for the first time at the morgue. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, concluded that there was no satisfactory proof that the deadbody of Balwant Singh had ever remained in the police station of Sadar Panipat either during the night intervening between 6th and 7th September, 1972 or any time subsequently and prior to its post mortem. As regards the two injured witnesses Banta Singh and Harnam Singh, the learned Sessions Judge pointed out that neither in Ex. PM dt. 7th September 1972 the fact that Banta Singh too had received injuries while at police station was mentioned and further, since Dr. R. S. Naiyar, who had examined Banta Singh's injuries had stated that Banta Singh could have received those injuries within 3 to 7 days of his examination, which was done on 13th September, 1972, it could not be pin-pointed with certainty that he had received those injuries during the night of the occurrence. As regards injuries on Harnam Singh, the learned Judge observed that the possibility of Harnam Singh being the other thief alongwith Balwant Singh during the theft that occurred on the night in question at the house of Bhim Singh (D.W. 2) and he being the thief who had escaped on that occasion with minor injuries at the hands of the villagers could not be ruled out. It was for this state of evidence and for the reasons indicated above that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants of the charge of murder. Consequently, the other charge under s. 218 also failed.