Gurditt Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

A letter dated 29.10.1994 was received from one Gudditt Singh son of Inder Singh, resident of Ward No. 3, Gali No. 13, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda, wherein it has been stated that on 17.7.1992 at about 8.00 A.M. his son Paramjeet Singh was reading newspaper at his flour mill when some unidentified persons in Civil dress came there and asked him to accompany them as they were to conduct search of his house. The said unidentified persons instead of taking him to his house took to some unknown place. Gurditt Singh further stated in his letter that despite his making several applications to SSP Bathinda, Deputy Commissioner, Chief Minister and other higher authorities to recover and ascertain the whereabouts of his son, nothing in this regard has been done so far. He further stated that his son is married and has two children.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State by Shri Paramjit Singh Gill, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, who denied that the son of the petitioner was taken away by some unknown persons in civil dress from the flour mill. The Senior Superintendent of Police has stated that in fact the son of the petitioner namely Paramjit Singh resident of Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Street No. 13, Bathinda was arrested on 17.7.1992 in case FIR No. 28 dated 26.3.1992 under Section 307/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Bathinda from canal bridge near Thermal Plant, Bathinda on secret information. During the interrogation, Paramjit Singh accused suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he has hidden a AK 47 rifle, 3 magazines and 40 cartridges wrapped in a tractor tube under the earth in the area of village Chumba Kalan after crossing the canal bridge on the road leading to village Purie. That in pursuance of this disclosure statement while Paramjit Singh was being taken for the recovery of the weapon and ammunition by the police party at about 10.00 A.M. the police party was attacked by unidentified persons near the canal bridge lying in the area of village Chumba Bhai Ka. The firing continued from both sides for about 30 minutes, whereafter on search it was found that Paramjit Singh accused after breaking/removing the hook from the belt of the constable to which his handcuffs were attached, escaped from the custody taking the benefit of darkness and the crossfiring which was going on. A FIR No. 51/92 to this effect was lodged/recorded under Sections 307/224/225/186/34 of the IPC dated 18.7.1992, Police Station Sadar Bathinda."

Vide orders dated 17.1.1996 Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jhanji came to the conclusion that keeping in view the conflicting stand taken by the parties to the petition it has become necessary to ascertain as to which of two versions is correct and appointed the Sessions Judge, Bathinda as an Inquiry Officer to determine as to which of the two versions of the parties is correct. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda gave opportunity to both the parties in the inquiry proceedings and ultimately came to the conclusion vide report dated 24.6.1996 as follows :

"On the basis of evidence recorded in this inquiry, discussion of evidence and the probabilities of the rival version it is held that Gurdit Singh''s version is substantially correct while the police version is totally false."

On this inquiry the objections of the parties were invited. Though this court was not supposed to do so still in the interest of justice the counsel for the parties were heard as to why a criminal case should not be ordered against the delinquent officer of the State Government and why the compensation should not be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1994(1) Recent C.R. 18 had deprecated the custodial deaths by holding that such deaths amount to violation of fundamental right to life. It was also observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that once the custodial deaths are established, it is for the State to pay monetary compensation. Further, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to say that defence of sovereign immunity is not available. State is the protector of not only the individual liberties but also to ensure that in a welfare State its citizens must exercise their fundamental right to life in such a manner that such citizens should not be harassed or humiliated. Custodial deaths or custodial tortures are unknown to a civilised society and a clear distinction has to be marked between unsavour acts which might be performed by the State or its functionaries in the shape of extrajudicial killings and those legitimate acts where the genuine right of private defence is exercised by the police. Present is a case where judicial finding has gone against the State. In these circumstances it becomes imperative duty of law Courts not only to ensure that some legal action should be taken against the delinquent persons but also the family of the bereaved must be compensated with such suitable compensation so that the legal heirs of the victim may survive for the future. Any contrary view to the above proposition would defeat the object of the law itself.

In this view of the matter, I direct that the copy of report of the inquiry be sent to the D.G.P., Punjab with the directions to take such legal action against the defaulter police officers who were allegedly responsible for the elimination of Paramjeet Singh, a young boy of 24 years, who has left behind a widow and two small kids.

Since a prima facie finding has come against the State and its functionaries, compensation has to be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased and I direct the State to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ to the widow and children of Paramjit Singh. The money shall be deposited by the State within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order. Out of the awarded amount of Rs. 1,50,000/, Rs. 50,000/ each shall be deposited in the name of the minor children in a bank and they will be able to withdraw this amount only on their attaining the majority. The mother of the children can, however, draw the interest from the bank so that she may be able to look after her minor children. She can utilise the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/ on her personal expenses and for the expenses of her minor children.

Copy of this order be sent to the D.G.P. Punjab and Home Secretary, Punjab for compliance.

JUDGMENT accordingly.