Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(42) PW9 Inspector Raj Singh has deposed that on 30.11.1992 he was posted with FRRO as sub inspector and he was summoned by ACP Amarjeet Singh to Riot Cell, Mehrauli. According to the witness on 01.11.1984 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Nangloi and Inspector Rampal Singh was the SHO. The witness has deposed that he was shown some documents including copies of the wireless message, the daily diaries by ACP Amarjeet Singh on which he had identified the signatures of Inspector Rampal Singh. Witness has further deposed that a week prior to 01.11.1984 he was posted as Division Officer, Camp No.1, Nangloi and the Camp No.1 was at a distance of about one kilometer from Police Station St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 49 of 268 Nangloi. He has testified that on 30.11.1992 he had identified the signatures of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana who was posted as SHO in October/ November 1984 at Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness he had seen the documents which were shown to him by the ACP Amarjeet Singh, Investigating Officer of the case on 30.11.1992 which Mark PW9/A to PW9/L having photocopy of the signatures of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana at point X respectively. Witness has further deposed that all these photocopies of documents bear the photo impression of the SHO. According to the witness, he was posted at Police Station Nangloi under Inspector Rampal Rana as such he identified his signatures as he had seen him signing/writing. (43) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has admitted that as per procedure the roznamchas A and B are being written/ run from 12 midnight to next midnight every day and Dalel Singh was posted as ASI at Police Station Nangloi during October/ November,1984. According to the witness he had seen accused Karam Singh present in the court and has admitted that he was not posted as police official at Police Station Nangloi during October/November, 1984 and he has never seen him at the Police Station. Witness has further deposed that he has seen carbon copy of roznamcha B dated 27.10.1984 of Police Station Nangloi, Delhi prepared in the same process and at serial No. 27 of the roznamcha there exit an entry regarding ASI Dalel Singh about his departure on Casual Leave for six days plus two holidays combined, which was recorded at 2:15 PM mentioning therein the period of his casual leave sanctioned by DCP, St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 50 of 268 West and as per this entry he was required to resume his duties on 05.11.1984 before noon. Witness has further deposed that he knew accused Dalel Singh who is a resident of Qutabgarh, Delhi and he was living with his children in the village during the relevant time and a carbon copy of the daily diary is Ex.PW9/DA. According to the witness HC Kulbhushan was on duty and he had opened the roznamcha as per first entry in Ex.PW9/DA at midnight on 27.10.1984 and Chhater Singh Constable No. 10/W was the madamoharar (assistant clerk) on that night. He has also deposed that he identified the entry at serial No. 27 regarding Dalel Singh which is encircled in red at point A and the same is written and signed by constable Chhattar Singh who had worked under him and he had seen him writing and signing. He had also seen photocopy of the Duty Roaster dated 31.10.1984 and 01/2.11.1984 of Police Station Nangloi and has stated that as per the Duty Roasters (Chhitha), ASI Dalel Singh shown/ mentioned on Casual Leave on those days and that the photocopies of the duty roasters are attested as true copies by Sh. A.K. Singh, Section Officer, Justice Nanavati inquiry commission which are Ex.PW9/DB, Ex.PW9/DC, Ex.PW9/DD, Ex.PW9/DE and Ex.PW9/DF respectively which documents relates from 31.10.1984 to 04.11.1984. The witness has further deposed that on the day of the incident i.e. 01.11.1984 he was also on duty at Police Station Nangloi and had been continuously patrolling in the area due to the riots after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and all the staff of Police Station and additional force provided by the officers later on remained in the area of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 51 of 268 Police Station Nangloi to prevent the rioting. According to the witness, he was the Incharge of Camp No. 1, JJ Colony, Nangloi for the last one week prior to the day of riots and on that day i.e. 01.11.1984 he along with the staff was in the area of Police Station Nangloi including his own division. Witness has further deposed that a large number of calls were received and officers/ officials were on their toes to prevent the incident. He has also deposed that Inspector Rana had attended the large number of calls on that day including the incident of burning of Gurunanak Body Builder at Main Rohtak Road and SHO Rana with staff had attended the said call besides so many other calls. Witness has further deposed that he has not seen Inspector at camp No. 1, JJ colony, between 10 to 11 AM or so on that day. Witness has again seen the Duty Roaster Ex.PW9/DB to Ex.PW9/DF and states that there is no reference or mention in these duty roasters about accused HC Karam Singh in these duty roasters as he was not posted at Police Station Nangloi during that period.

(44) PW12 Inspector J.K. Tyagi has deposed that on 17.11.1992 he was posted as sub inspector at riots cell Malivya Nagar, New Delhi and on that day, he along with ACP Sh. Amarjeet Singh of Riots Cell had visited 5, Shamnath Marg, New Delhi from where ACP Amarjeet Singh had seized some documents as mentioned vide seizure memo dated 17.11.1992 and same is Ex.PW12/A. According to the witness the photocopies of the documents which were seized by the investigating officer in his presence on 17.1.1992 as per seizure memo Ex.PW12/A are Mark A1 to A17. Witness St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 52 of 268 has further deposed that on 18.11.1992 he had also gone to SIP Branch West District as per directions of the Investigating Officer ACP Amarjeet Singh who had sent him there for knowing about postings of some police personnels during October/ November, 1984 at Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness in this regard on 18.11.1992 he had also recorded the statement of W/HC Chandra No. 18/W and ASI Om Parkash U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he had recorded the case diary of 18.11.1992 under the directions of ACP Amarjeet Singh. Witness has further deposed that he had contacted W/HC Chandra on 18.11.1992 and came to know from her that Insp. Rampal Singh Rana was posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi during October/ November, 1984, SI Raj Singh, ASI Dalel Singh were also posted at Police Station Nangloi during October/ November 1984 and on recording the statement of ASI Om Parkash No. 3W SIP Branch West district, it revealed that Ct. Umed Singh, Ct. Rishi Pal, Ct. Hari Krishan, Ct. Dalbir Singh, Ct. Rajender Singh, Ct. Harpal Singh and HC Nawab Singh were posted at Police Station Nangloi during October/November 1984. (45) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that during investigations he never visited Police Station Nangloi and had not seen the posting record of the accused persons but he had only recorded the statements of the concerned police officials, who had made statements on the basis of the record. According to the witness he had not verified the fact that ASI Dalel Singh was on leave w.e.f. 27.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 and has voluntarily added that he had been sent to verify only St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 53 of 268 about the posting of the concerned police officials. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had seen the service record of ASI Dalel Singh and came to know that he was on leave during the aforesaid period but he intentionally concealed this fact. He has also denied the suggestion that he had seen any leave application of ASI Dalel Singh in the service record. Witness has further deposed that he is not known to the accused persons personally and he had not verified the posting record of HC Karam Singh. According to the witness at the time of his deposition due to lapse of time he does not remember if he was asked to verify the record of posting of the (then) HC Karam Singh. Witness has further deposed that he had not seen the duty roaster on 18.11.1992 for the period relating to October/ November 1984. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has shown the duty roaster where ASI Dalel Singh was shown to be on leave for the above mentioned period or he has intentionally concealed this fact. (46) PW13 W/HC Chandra has deposed that in the year 1990 to 1993 she was posted in HAE Branch DCP Office West District. After refreshing her memory the witness states that in the month of November 1992 SI Jitender Kumar had come to HAE Branch West District and on his asking after seeing the record she had informed him about the postings of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and SI Raj Singh during the October/November, 1984.

(63) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had sent rukka for registration of the case on 28.08.1991 and investigation was transferred from him on 30.10.1991. Witness has admitted that in the rukka the time is mentioned as 10:00/11:00 PM dated 01.11.1984. According to the witness due to lapse of time he does not recollect how many documents he had received along with affidavit Ex.PY of Gurbachan Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had received the copy of daily diary of Police Station Nangloi for the relevant period and the duty roaster of the police officials posted with Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period besides the wireless log book. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any inquiry so long the investigations remained with him as to which police official was posted with Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period or which police official was on duty on 01.11.1984 and so long he remained the investigating officer he did not summon Insp. RPS Rana posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period. Witness has admitted that he had not met Karam St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 61 of 268 Singh and Dalel Singh the accused present in the court during the period investigation remained with him nor he summoned them for interrogation. He has also deposed that during the period of investigations by him the then SI Mam Chand was posted along with him. He does not remember if at that time he was aware of the case FIR No. 67/87 registered with Police Station Nangloi as a riot case was investigated by SI Mam Chand and other police officials of the Riot Cell. According to the witness at that time since he was posted as ACP Anti Riot Cell he was monitoring all the riot cases received upto that date. He has testified that he did not make effort to collect the record of daily diary or the record of the duty roaster of police officers posted with Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period to find out the duties of the police officials on the particular dates nor he saw the record. Witness has further deposed that he knew accused RPS Rana before he joined the investigations in the present case since he was his associate. According to him, the site plan was prepared by him at the spot at the pointing out of Gurbachan Singh which is Ex.PW21/DA. He has also deposed that the said site plan was prepared and written under his instructions by one of his sub inspector. He has admitted that in the site plan it is not mentioned that it is prepared at the instance of Gurbachan Singh and has voluntarily added that it is mentioned in the statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. of Gurbachan Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that the said site plan was not prepared at the instance of Gurbachan Singh or that it is not mentioned in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. It has been observed by the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 62 of 268 Court that in the supplementary statement of Gurbachan Singh recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.10.1991 this fact is mentioned. (64) Witness has admitted that he did not inform the draftsman Balbir Singh that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW21/DA at the instance of Gurbachan Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has recorded false supplementary statement of Gurbachan Singh referred above to that effect. He has also deposed that investigations from him was transferred to the then ACP Sh. Amarjeet Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was pursuing the present matter when the commission of Justice Ranganath Mishra for inquiring into the matter was constituted. According to the witness he never filed any document before the commission of Justice Ranganath Mishra and he has no knowledge if any of his associates or the police officials had filed any such document before the commission. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is making a false statement on oath to that effect or that he recorded the statement of all the witnesses namely Gurbachan Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Gurmeet Singh falsely.

(74) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that during the tenure of his services he worked as SHO in the various Police Stations and that during investigations none of the witnesses examined by him in this case had disclosed or stated that any of the accused persons present in the court had poured kerosene oil on any person and set him on her on fire on 01.11.1984 or thereafter during the riots after the assassination of late PM Indira Gandhi. Witness has further admitted that as per the record i.e. DD of Police Station Nangloi and daily duty roaster of Police Station Nangloi of 01.11.1984 onwards HC Karam Singh was not posted at Police Station Nangloi nor he was assigned any duty there during the riots. According to the witness SI Dalel Singh was on casual leave w.e.f. 27.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 as per the entry in the DD Ex.PW9/DA and the Chitha Ex.PW9/DB. Witness has admitted that he had recorded the statements of ASI Harpal Singh, HC Umed Singh, SI Raj Singh in this case and all the documents including the Chitha/duty roaster of Police Station Nangloi Ex.PW9/DB to confirm the writings and duties of the officials of Police Station Nangloi St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 69 of 268 and it was confirmed that SI Dalel Singh was not on duty on 01.11.1984. He has also admitted that he recorded the statements of Ramdass Patwari, Afroz Ali and Krishna and none of these witnesses have made any allegations against the present accused persons about their involvement or role in any manner whatsoever during the riots on 01.11.1984 and subsequent thereto. Witness has further deposed that during investigations it was found from the statements of the witnesses recorded by him that Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh and Swaroop Singh had taken shelter in the house of Ramdass Patwari during the night intervening between 01/02.11.1984 and that at about 4:00 AM on 02.11.1984 they alleged to have been murdered. Witness has admitted that record about the mobility of the SHO/ wireless message logbook of the vehicle were also seized by him and the entries made therein were verified which were found to be correct. According to the witness, he did not find any kind of involvement of SHO Rampal Singh Rana in the riots which had taken place on 01.11.1984 while he was working as SHO Police Station Nangloi. Witness has further deposed that he had also verified the proper deployment of the force in the area by the SHO Police Station Nangloi during the riots but he does not recollect if he had confirmed from the traffic office regarding the duties of HC Karam Singh on 01.11.1984. Witness has further deposed that he has seen the order of SI Dalel Singh vide which he was released on anticipatory bail and by that time he was not St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 70 of 268 found involved in the incident of 01.11.1984. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has not corrected recorded the statements of Gurbachan Singh, Amarjeet Singh and other witnesses correctly or that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case.