Prem Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Prem Singh son of Bawa Singh, resident of Village Mugho Sohi, filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C., for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the production of Bhupinder Kaur wife of Jagdish Singh, who is the daughter of the petitioner. It was further prayed by the petitioner that a judicial enquiry may also be got conducted either from the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, or from any other independent agency like C.B.I. with regard to the alleged abduction of Jagdish Singh alias Deesha, husband of Bhupinder Kaur. It was further alleged by the petitioner that his daughter Bhupinder Kaur and his soninlaw Jagdish Singh have been allegedly killed by the police by showing a false encounter. I need not incorporate in detail the allegations levelled by the petitioner in he main writ petition but suffice to say that the allegations regarding the alleged kidnapping of Bhupinder Kaur and her husband Jagdish Singh have been denied by the State, which has come with a plea that Jagdish Singh alias Deesha, in fact, has been killed in an encounter with the police as he was wanted in several F.I.Rs.

Hon''ble Mr. Justice P.K. Jain, vide order dated 30.10.1996, was pleased to pass the following order :

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is directed to make an enquiry into the allegations contained in the present petition and to submit his report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record. Registry is directed to send photo copy of the entire paper book to the Sessions Judge, for information and compliance. The case shall be relisted after the receipt of the report."

In compliance of the directions of this court, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, conducted an inquiry, a perusal of which would show that the Inquiry Officer examined Prem Singh, petitioner, besides Harpreet Singh and Amarjit Kaur. It has also been stated in para4 of the enquiry report that the Addl. P.P. for the State had made a statement before me not to examine any witness on behalf of respondent No. 1, i.e. the State of Punjab. The other respondents, however, examined six witnesses in order to rebut the allegations of the petitioner. Ultimately, vide para15 of the report, the Inquiry Officer same to the following conclusion :

"The version put forth by the police that Jagdish Singh @ Deesha was killed in an encounter is absolutely baseless and false. I am of the firm view that after committing the murder of Jagdish Singh @ Deesha, the F.I.R. has been recorded at police station Kathunangal that he has been killed in an encounter. Though, the whereabouts of Bhupinder Kaur are not disclosed by the police, yet, I am of the considered opinion that she has also been liquidated. It is found from the evidence on record that S.I. Dilbagh Singh and A.S.I. Amrik Singh, have snuffed their lives."

A reading of para2 of the enquiry report would show that it is the allegation of the petitioner that he is the father of Bhupinder Kaur, who was married with Jagdish Singh alias Deesha in the year 1991. She, at the time of marriage, was about 23 years of age and had completed her training as a Nurse. Jagdish Singh alias Deesha was an Exserviceman. At the time of marriage, he had left the Army service and was cultivating the land in the village. On 9.6.1993, Dilbagh Singh, S.H.O. of Police Station Kathunangal and A.S.I. Amrik Singh raided the tubewell of the petitioner. He was taken to the police station and was tortured. His legs were extended outwards and a roller was applied on his thighs. Paramjit Singh Gill, the then S.S.P. Majitha, personally supervised the torture done by S.H.O. Dilbagh Singh and A.S.I. Amrik Singh. On 11.6.1993, he was taken to his village at about 10 A.M. and he alongwith his wife was brought to the police station. She was also given beating. Her hair were pulled. The police officials enquired about their soninlaw Jagdish Singh alias Deesha and daughter Bhupinder Kaur and they were unaware of their whereabouts. They could not disclose anything. On 22.6.1993 Harpreet Singh alias Happy the brother''s son of Jagdish Singh, who at that time was of 9 years of age was also picked up by the police and on being tortured he had disclosed that Jagdish Singh alias Deesha and Bhupinder Kaur had gone to visit Gurdwara Manikaran in Himachal Pardesh. On 23.6.1993, the petitioner and Harpreet Singh were taken by the police in a Mini Truck by A.S.I. Amrik Singh and H.C. Sukha Singh to Manikaran. They reached there in the evening. At about 2 A.M., they both were made to knock at the door of the room where Jagdish Singh alias Deesha and Bhupinder Kaur were sleeping. The door was opened by them. The police brought them along with the petitioner and Harpreet Singh to the Police Station on 25.6.1993 at about 3 PM. At the police station, Jagdish Singh alias Deesha and Bhupinder Kaur were badly tortured and the petitioner was lodged in a nearby room. He heard cries of his soninlaw and daughter. On 26.6.1993, the police party headed by S.H.O. Dilbagh Singh forcibly made Jagdish Singh alias Deesha and Bhupinder Kaur to board a truck to take them to Mall Mandi which is a known torture centre of Amritsar Police. Bhupinder Kaur cried loudly for help but to no effect. The petitioner was hearing on the wireless set installed at the police station about the couple being taken for encounter. He heard reports of the shots fired. Later on, he was informed that his soninlaw had been killed in an encounter and his daughter was kept in custody and was to be released later on. In the News Paper of 28.6.1993, the news appeared that encounter had taken place near village Begowal in which hardcore militant Jagdish Singh alias Deesha was killed. On 28.6.1993 the petitioner and Harpreet Singh were released from the police station but the whereabouts of Bhupinder Kaur could not be told. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that at the time of alleged kidnapping of Bhupinder Kaur, she had conceived a child of three months in her womb. On the above broad allegations, the inquiry was conducted.

The respondents were given a chance to rebut the allegations of the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer and after availing that chance, the findings of the Inquiry Officer quoted above have gone against the respondents. Before passing this order, one more chance has been given to the respondents to explain with regard to the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

A very serious effort was made by the learned Senior counsel Shri Ghai and Shri Bharadwaj to convince to this court that the enquiry conducted by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is not only perfunct but also the Sessions Judge has not considered the material documents placed before him in support of the respondents. Both the counsel and the State counsel Shri Brar were highly critical of the conduct of the Inquiry Officer, who according to them, has even given a finding that the life of Bhupinder Kaur has been snuffed by respondents 4 and 5. The counsel submitted that such a report should not be acted upon or accepted by this court. Rather, this court should order further investigation which might be conducted by a highest police officer of the State Govt. as to whether there is a grain of truth in the allegations of the petitioner or not.

I do not want to discuss this aspect of the case of the respondents intentionally in this order, perhaps it might prejudice the case of the respondents subsequently but I would like to make one mention that reasonable opportunity has already been granted to the respondents to rebut the allegations of the petitioner before the Judicial Officer, who was noneelse but was holding the rank of District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded the evidence of the witnesses and has given an opportunity to respondents 4 and 5 to crossexamine the witnesses of the petitioner. They could lead such evidence before the I.O. so as to take the wind out of the sail of the petitioner. All these aspects have been taken note of and, prima facie, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the alleged story of encounter does not appeal to reason. It has been further observed by the Inquiry Officer that Bhupinder Kaur has also been, perhaps, liquidated. No doubt, the dead body of Bhupinder Kaur has not been recovered by the police or by anybody else. Equally, it is true that no postmortem on the dead body of Bhupinder Kaur was even conducted but, nevertheless, it is a fact that Bhupinder Kaur has not been produced so far by the police before any authority. An effort was also made by the learned counsel for the respondents that, in fact, Bhupinder Kaur, is not the legally wedded wife of Jagdish Singh alias Deesha. All these facts are beyond the scope of my order. The fact is that one Bhupinder Kaur was a living person at one point of time and the production of Bhupinder Kaur is not before us. What can be the reasonable inference ?, it is for the trial court to decide but for my purpose the findings of the Inquiry Officer, prima facie, disclose a cognizable offence which should be got investigated.

Resultantly, by accepting the inquiry report, I give directions to the S.S.P., Gurdaspur, to register a criminal case against S.I. Dilbagh Singh and A.S.I. Amrik Singh u/s 302, IPC, or any other section which in the opinion of the S.S.P. is applicable to the facts in hand. Directions are further given to the S.S.P. to hand over the investigation of this case to an officer not less than the rank of D.S.P., who shall investigate this case expeditiously and shall submit a final report before the Illaqa Magistrate within one year from the start of the investigation. If the police is not in a position to conclude the investigation, it shall apply to the High Court for extension of time. Before submitting the final report u/s 173, Cr.P.C., the officer so deputed shall also show the investigation to the Inspector General (Crimes) and Director General of Police, of the State. Respondents 4 and 5 shall be free to join the investigation and they can lead such evidence in support of their case in order to show their innocence.

The second point which survives for determination is whether any compensation should be awarded to the petitioner or not. Prima facie, the finding of encounter has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. In these circumstances, so far as the death of Jagdish Singh alias Deesha is concerned, I award a sum of Rs. 50,000/ by way of tentative compensation of the father of Jagdish Singh alias Deesha, which shall be given to him by the State within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order. I have not awarded any compensation with regard to the alleged death of Bhupinder Kaur as there is no firm finding given by the Inquiry Officer about her death. It will be open to the trial court in case of conviction to award such compensation, with regard to Jagdish Singh alias Deesha and Bhupinder Kaur, as in its opinion should be awarded to the families of the deceased.

Copy of the order be sent to the S.S.P., Gurdaspur, for compliance.