Meja Singh vs S.H.O., P.S.Sadar, Zira

Ujagar Singh, J.

Meja Singh petitioner filed this criminal writ petition dated 23.8.1987 on 24.8.1987. It is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. Notice to the respondent was issued. Thereafter affidavit of Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Zira was filed and the petitioner sought to file a rejoinder which was also filed. The petitioner made allegations that on 3.7.1987 at 6 a.m., the respondent, accompanied by a few constables of the Punjab Police and a few others of the Central Reserve Police Force came in uniform to his house and enquired about the detenu, his son Sukhchain Singh. The detenu was sleeping and on asking by the respondent, the petitioner woke him up. The respondent wanted to take the detenu to the Police Station on the assurance that he would be released after compliance with some formalities. At about 1030 a.m. the petitioner accompanied by some relations and respectables of the village went to Police Station Sadar and found the detenu behind the bars. The respondent again told him that he should come on the next day when his son would be released. On the next day, he was told by the respondent that the detenu was sent to CIA Staff, Ferozepore and after a day or so, the detenu would be brought back and sent to him, During the period the detenu remained at Police Station Sadar, he was served with meals supplied from the house of the petitioner. The reason given for illegal detention is that one Gurdev Singh, cousin brother of the wife of the petitioner, was a proclaimed offender and was allegedly killed in police encounter on 1261987. During search of Gurdev Singh, address of the detenu in the driving licence was found and therefore, the detenu had been arrested. He was released after about a week.

The petitioner continued making enquiries as to the whereabouts of the detenu; but he was given vague and unsatisfactory reply even by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore. Sub Inspector Kashmir Singh in his affidavit denied the allegations of his visiting the village of the petitioner and taking the detenu in custody. However, it has been admitted that one Gurdev Singh son of Kirpal Singh, Jat, resident of village Satiawala, Police Station Sadar, Ferozepore was an extremist and was declared a proclaimed offender. The said Gurdev Singh was killed in police encounter in Moga Sub Division. The other allegations about the address of the detenu on a driving licence have been denied for want of knowledge. In his rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the allegations made in the petition. It has been added that SI Kashmir Singh respondent, a few days prior to 371987, came to his house and told him that his son had been killed and that he should accompany the police for identification of the dead body. When the petitioner saw the dead body, he told the police that it was not the body of his son and further informed that his son had gone to village Mehma. The dead body was, in fact, of Gurdev Singh of village Satiawala, Tehsil and District Ferozepore. The police accompanied him and took him to village Mehma and from there had taken his son in its custody. The petitioner and his son were detained for 6/7 days and then let off after that.

After considering the facts, vide my order dated 2171988, the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepore was entrusted with the enquiry to find out as to whether the detenu was taken away by the respondent, as alleged by the petitioner. Report dated 30.1.1989 of the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepore was received, holding that there were sufficient grounds to believe that on 371987, the respondent had taken Sukhchain Singh detenu with him. After receipt of the enquiry, the respondent gave a reply to this enquiry by way of. affidavit and therein he has explained that a case First Information Report 307 of 1986 u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and in that case the name of the respondent was not mentioned as a witness. One Chuni Lal had filed a criminal complaint against 4 persons, namely Raghir Singh, Banwari Lal, Tara Chand and Shiv Charan for offence, u/s 302/34. IPC. This complaint was registered as criminal complaint No. 27 dated 1841987 under the aforesaid offence. In that complaint, the respondent was summoned for 371987 to appear in the Court of Shri Iqbal Singh Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. In pursuance of the summons issued to respondent, he left the Police Station at 8.30 a m. vide Daily Diary Report No. 4 for. the said Court. Shri Iqbal Singh Additional Sessions Judge was on leave and the evidence could not be recorded. Therefore, the respondent came back at about 2.30 p.m. Lateron, with the permission of this Court, Meja Singh petitioner filed a reply to the affidavit of the respondent. In this, reply, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent was delaying the disposal of the case unnecessarily. The poor parents of the detenu are running from pillar to post in search of their son and in spite of lapse of two years, they have not been told of his whereabouts.

The District and Sessions Judge made a thorough enquiry and examined 8 witnesses on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent examined Head Constable Jaswinder Singh and himself in defence. After appreciating the statements of the petitioner''s witnesses, the District and sessions Judge felt that there were sufficient reason to believe that the detenu was taken into custody by the respondent on 3.7.1987. The record of the enquiry has been summoned and gone through.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the fact that the petitioner''s son Sukhchain Singh was taken away by the respondent on 3.7.1987 is amply proved and supported by the enquiry report. The detenu had passed Matriculation examination from Higher, Secondary School, and was the eldest son of the petitioner who was dependent on him, as the detenu was managing the affairs in agriculture and was serving the petitioner. All the other sons of Meja Singh petitioner are minors and because of illegal detention of Sukhchain Singh by the respondent, a great loss has been caused, especially when the petitioner or any of. his relations does not know as to whether the detenu is alive and in custody or he has been eliminated by showing a false encounter. This suspense about the whereabouts of Sukhchain Singh has caused a great loss to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a heavy compensation at least for the present.

The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the averment in the petition that the petitioner and others went to the Police Station at 1030 a.m. on 371987 and talked with the respondent at the Police Station, is falsified with a report in the Daily Diary that the respondent had left the Police Station at 830 a.m. on 371987 to attend the Court of Shri Iqbal Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, in the above said case. He has drawn my attention to the Zimini order dated 3.7. 1987, showing that the Presiding Officer was on leave, respondent''s presence is recorded and he was bound down for the next date. He has also argued that there are discrepancies about the joining of the respectables from the village by the petitioner for going to the Police Station and meeting the respondent with a request to release Sukhchain Singh, his son from illegal custody.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and am of the view that from the evidence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ferozepore, his finding that Sukhchain Singh was taken from his village on 371987 by the respondent is well proved. There is no enmity or illwill of the witnesses against the respondent. I have perused the statements of the witnesses recorded during enquiry. Nothing has been elicited from them as to at what particular time the respondent met them at the Police Station. PW1 Meja Singh has reiterated the allegations in the petition about taking away of Sukhchain Singh by the respondent. He took along with him Daljit Singh Sarpanch; Kalu Singh Exmember, Panchayat; Mukhtiar Singh Exmember, Panchayat; Yosuf Choudhary, Member Panchayat and Jagir Singh, husband of lady Panch of his village to the Police Station. Gurbachan Singh, Gurdial Singh and Gurbux Singh also went with him. They reached the Police Station at about 12 noon. Thereafter he was given an assurance for the release of his son. Shrimati Nirmal Kaur wife of Meja Singh petitioner supports his version in all its details. PW 6 Mukhtiar Singh supports the petitioner on the point that he himself and others, accompanied the petitioner to Police Station Zira in order to secure release of Sukhchain Singh and they had a talk with the respondent at the police station. He is silent about the time. In crossexamination this witness stated that he had seen Sukhchain Singh at the Police Station. Jagir Singh (PW 4) has also supported the version of his accompanying Meja Singh on the date of arrest of Sukhchain Singh and his carrying meals for Sukhchain Singh for two days and serving the same to him when he was in lockup. PW 5 Daljit Singh has similarly supported the version of the petitioner on almost all details except the time when they came to the police station and met SI Kashmir Singh. PW 6 Mukhtiar Singh, PW 7 Hasta and PW 8 Narinder Singh have also supported the petitioner.

HC Jaswinder Singh examined in defence proved Daily Diary Report No. 4 dated 371987 vide which the respondent left the police station at 830 a.m. for appearing as a witness, as stated above. He has also proved entry No. 24 therein showing that on 2.7.1987, SI Kashmira Singh left the police station at 6.35 p.m. in search of the suspected persons and returned at 7.45 p.m., vide entry No. 26 of that date. According to him SI Kashmira Singh did not leave out of police station till 830 a.m. SI Kashmir Singh respondent has also proved these facts.

From the evidence recorded, one fact is clearly proved that the detenu was taken at about 6 a.m. on 371987 from his house by the respondent and some constables to Police Station Zira and was kept there. Village people in the form of a Panchayat, including the Sarpanch and Punches, accompanied Meja Singh petitioner to the Police Station and also met SI Kashmir Singh. The respondent assure all of them that Sukhchain Singh detenu would be released within a day or so after making necessary investigation. So far as the time of meeting SI Kashmir Singh respondent is concerned, the witnesses appeared before the Enquiry Officer after about 14 months. The petitioner moved this criminal writ petition after about 20 days. With the passage of time, a witness cannot be expected to be sure about the exact time when SI Kashmir Singh respondent was approached. When a person is taken from his residence by the Police without any allegation against him and the Police officer comes out with an assurance that the detenu would be let off after some interrogation, the people concerned feel satisfied with the same and it is not something that is to be noted down particularly. Moreover, villagers do not keep watches with them so as to enable them to be exact about the time of happening of any event. Zamini order dated 3787 also bears the date 671987 and it is not possible to conclude that this order was actually passed on 3787 or not. This order is in the complaint case which was not brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge during enquiry when reference was made to the State case.

Another aspect of the matter is that the order shows that SI Kashmir Singh respondent was bound down for the next date, i.e. 2371987, but SI Kashmir Singh did not appear in Court on that date. The record of the case shows that DW 1 Hans Raj Kanungo, DW2 Gurdev Singh Ziledar and DW3 ASI Jagir Singh appeared on the date fixed, i.e., 23787 on which date the case adjourned to 29787 for the remaining evidence; as no other DW was present. On 2971987, again, no DW was present and a short adjournment was requested. The case was adjourned to 581987 and again on that date, no DW was present and the learned defence counsel stated that he only wanted to tender some documents in evidence. Ultimately on 2891987 some documents were tendered and the defence evidence was closed. So far as entry No. 24 in the Daily Diary Report and other entries are concerned, it is always possible to make such entries, knowing fully well that a particular person had been arrested illegally, for keeping him in custody with some ulterior motive which could be to eliminate him by showing false encounter and with a view to create defence. These entries may be made to create documentary evidence as an alibi.

For the foregoing reasons, I feel inclined to conclude that this illegal arrest of Suchkchain Singh detenu son of the petitioner must have caused immense strain not only to the petitioner, but also every body concerned, till today there is no definite evidence that the detenu has been eliminated or otherwise he is no more in the world but this is certain that his whereabouts are not known to the petitioner or others concerned with him. For all this, respondent mast be held guilty.

For the present I feel that an amount of Rs. 25,000/ as compensation would meet the ends of justice. SI Kashmir Singh is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/ as interim compensation to the petitioner by depositing the same in this Court and the same be paid to petitioner by a demand draft. Since it is not ascertained specifically, whether the detenu is alive or dead, this compensation is considered as only an interim compensation. Whenever it is brought to the notice of this Court that the detenu has been eliminated, this Court may consider to award further compensation to the petitioner after giving notice to the respondent and other persons concerned. SI Kashmir Singh may claim this amount from the State Government or any other authority if he had done this in pursuance of some instructions given him.

With the award of interim compensation, this Criminal Writ petition is consigned for the time being. It may be revived whenever the petitioner thinks that he is sure about the fate of detenu and files an appropriate petition.

JUDGMENT accordingly.