Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Initially, the investigation in regard to the incident was carried out by Inspector Niranjan Singh of Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi, but the same was later taken over by the CBI pursuant to a Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs' letter No. 14036/46/97-UTP dated 1st April, 1997. On transfer of investigation of the case, RC No.10(S)/97-SIU.V and RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V, corresponding to the said two FIRs, were registered by CBI/SPE. As both the FIRs related to the same incident, the same were investigated jointly. The CBI on investigation came to a conclusion that the police party under the leadership of ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi and Inspector Anil Kumar had fired upon the Esteem car without any provocation whatsoever, and that the FIR No. 448/97 dated 31st March, 1997 (RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V) was got registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi only with a view to cover up the incident and to justify the killings. Based on the evidence collected by it in the course of investigation, the CBI found that the police party was actually not fired upon from inside the Maruti Esteem car by the person sitting on the driver's seat as mentioned in FIR No. 448/97 dated 31st March, 1997 lodged by Inspector Anil Kumar. Further, the claim of two Constables forming part of the police party sustaining gunshot injuries as a result of firing from inside the Esteem car was also found to be false. The investigation revealed that 7.65 mm pistol and 7 live cartridges, apart from one misfired cartridge lodged in the barrel and two empties, shown as recovered from inside the car were actually planted subsequently and false records prepared by the police party with a view to screening themselves from legal punishment.

11. On completion of investigation in RC No.10(S)/97- SIU.V and RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V, a chargesheet was filed before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 13 th June, 1997. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate eventually took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302/307/201/34 IPC against the appellants vide his order dated 10th July, 1997. On case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed formal charges under various heads against the appellants. For facility of a ready reference, the charges so framed, are reproduced as hereunder:-

18. Shri M.K. Singh, Advocate appearing for appellants Subhash Chand, Tej Pal Singh, Kothari Ram and Sumer Singh in Criminal Appeals No.789/2007, 808/2007, 824/2007, 825/2007 submitted that in regard to the incident, two separate FIRs bearing RC No.10(S)/97-SIU.V and RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V were registered by the CBI, but both these cases were investigated by the same Investigating Officer. According to him, the investigation in respect of these FIRs should have been conducted separately, for the sake of a fair investigation, by different Investigating Officers. The learned counsel felt that the defence plea of the appellants was adversely impacted as the Investigating Officer acting in a slip shod manner failed to carry out a proper investigation to unravel the truth regarding the manner in which the incident actually took place. It was further argued that the chargesheet itself discloses that an Italian pistol of 7.65 mm bore containing 7 live cartridges and one misfired cartridge entangled in the barrel, in addition to two empties, were recovered from inside Esteem car and in the absence of any positive evidence in this regard, there was no legal basis to record a finding that the same had been planted and thus the finding of the learned Trial Court in this respect is unfounded. It was also argued that the appellants were not confronted with the evidence, if any, in regard to their being party to the alleged criminal conspiracy or about plantation of the pistol with cartridges and two empties or in respect of the windowpane on driver's side front door being intact, in the course of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hence the evidence, if any--direct or circumstantial--could not have been used by the learned Trial Court to record the adverse findings in these respects. Shri Singh pointed out that the fingerprints of the appellants sent to CFSL for examination did not match with the fingerprints available on the pistol. He questioned the bona fides of Investigating Officer in omitting to send the fingerprints of the inmates of the car for comparison with the fingerprints on the pistol. Lastly, referring to Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, learned counsel contended that no cognizance of the offences, as mentioned in the chargesheet, could have been taken initially by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently on committal of the case by the Court of Sessions for want of a sanction under that provision. The learned counsel citing a decision of the Supreme Court in "Jamuna Singh and Ors. v. Bhadai Shah", AIR 1964 SC 1541 argued that in a case where a chargesheet is filed without the copies of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and is thus incomplete, institution of the chargesheet would be on the date of cognizance. In this connection, the learned counsel also made a reference to Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. Further, the validity of the sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was questioned on the ground that the same was accorded without a proper application of mind and thus being vitiated on that account.

50. Yet another argument advanced on behalf of Inspector Anil Kumar-appellant was that on completion of the investigation in relation to RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V registered on the basis of his complaint, the Investigating Officer failed to file any closure or cancellation report and that there was no compliance with the provisions contained in Section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus there was violation of the said provision. From the chargesheet, it is gathered that RC No.10(S)/97-SIU.V and RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V were investigated jointly by Inspector A.G.L. Kaul, PW-74. Both the cases so investigated though related to the same very incident, contrary to the facts disclosed in RC No.10(S)/97-SIU.V in regard to the manner in which the shootout incident took place according to RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V, there was a firing from inside the Esteem car and 8 of the appellants had to resort to counter firing at the Esteem car in their self-defence. In the course of investigation, it was, however, gathered that there was actually no firing from inside the car and that it was a case of unprovoked indiscriminate firing by the appellants at the inmates of the Esteem car and accordingly prosecution was launched against the appellants by filing a chargesheet in that regard. Since on the basis of investigation, the facts stated in RC No.11(S)/97-SIU.V in regard to the manner in which the shootout incident had taken place was found untrue and the appellants were prosecuted by filing a chargesheet against them on the basis of RC No.10(S)/97- SIU.V and Inspector Anil Kumar-appellant stood informed of the result of investigation on his report, on being summoned as an accused, there was substantial compliance with Section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no illegality is found to have been committed in that respect. As an accused, Inspector Anil Kumar-appellant had full opportunity to produce evidence in support of the facts stated in his report Ex.42/C, but he omitted to exercise that option. In the circumstances, therefore, no prejudice could be taken to have been occasioned to him in his trail for the offences he was charged with.