Surjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

V.K. Jhanji, J.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, grievance of the petitioner, Surjit Kaur, was that Surjit Singh son of Bhag Singh, Ajmer Singh son of Joginder Singh, and Kartar Singh son of Teja Singh have been illegally detained by the Incharge, CIA, Patiala.

In the petition, it was alleged that on 20.6.1992, father of the petitioner, namely Bhag Singh was kidnapped by Inderjit Singh, Dharam Singh, Gola, Pappu, Vinod and others of village Ablowal, District Patiala. Kartar Singh son of Teja Singh, one of the detenus, was a witness to the occurrence. Police though registered a case under section 364 IPC against the accused regarding kidnaping of Bhag Singh, but under the influence of the accused started putting pressure on the family of the petitioner to settle and compromise with the accused. Since the family of the petitioner did not succumb to pressure of the police and insisted on getting a case registered against the accused under Section 302 IPC, the brother of the petitioner, namely, Surjit Singh, Kartar Singh, witness to the occurrence, and Ajmer singh, i.e. husband of the petitioner, were taken into custody by the CIA. Patiala in the presence of villagers. They also gave beatings to them and to Satwant Kaur widow of Bhag Singh.

On a prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court on 10.6.1994 issued notice to the respondents for 17.6.1994, besides appointing a Warrant Officer to search the detenus named in the petition at the place of their confinement. Warrant Officer submitted his report on 17.6.1994 in which he recorded that Kartar Singh was found sitting in a room in the premises of CIA staff. The other two detenus, Surjit Singh and Ajmer Singh were not recovered despite efforts. Warrant Officer had checked the Roznamcha which was produced before him and found that there was no entry regarding arrest of Kartar Singh in the said record. Warrant Officer also recorded that Kartar Singh had informed him that he had been picked up by the staff of CIA on 7.6.1994 and tortured by the police.

In response to the notice of the petition, replies by way of affidavits of Sh. H.S. Chahal, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, and Darshan Singh Inspector, CIA staff, Patiala, were filed in which they denied the allegation with regard to detention of Surjit Singh and Ajmer Singh. In regard to the presence of Kartar Singh, they stated that he was called in connection with further investigation of case, FIR No. 163 dated 2.9.1993 under Section 364 IPC.

Since there was serious dispute on facts with regard to the circumstances in which Kartar Singh was found in the police station, the matter was referred to the District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana to enquire as to which of the two versions, i.e. one given by Surjit Kaur and Kartar Singh, and the other by the respondents with regard to the circumstances in which Kartar Singh was found in the premises of CIA staff, Patiala, was the correct one. In compliance of the said direction, the enquiry was conducted and the learned Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana after giving due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence submitted a detailed report dated 9.3.1995. The learned Inquiry Judge found that Inspector Darshan Singh had not been entrusted with the investigation of the case as stated by him in his affidavit. He thus, on the basis of evidence produced by the parties before him, concluded that Kartar Singh was factually arrested on 7.6.1994 and thereafter illegally detained in the CIA staff, Patiala till he was recovered by the warrant officer, Gian Singh, on 11.6.1994 at 10.50 A.M. He also opined that detention of Kartar Singh was aimed at to submit him to the pressure of the police not to depose and support his statement as a witness in case, FIR No. 16 dated 2.9.1993.

On submission of the report, Darshan Singh filed another affidavit dated 19.8.1995 in which he submitted that the Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana has not correctly appreciated the factual position available on the record. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge (Vigilance) has wrongly discarded the cogent and convincing evidence in his favour and has wrongly taken into account the unconvincing and untrustworthy evidence of the petitioner. He stated that some residents of village Ablowal, P.S. Sadar, Patiala had submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police Patiala alleging harassment by the police in the case of Bhag Singh. In the said application, they had alleged that Bhag Singh was missing from the village for the last three years. Petitioner, Smt. Surjit Kaur had a dispute with the neighbourer. The village Panchayat was invited to solve the dispute. However, she was not happy with the decision of the Panchayat and doubted that it was the handiwork of the Village Panchayat. In the application, it had also been stated that Surjit Kaur was harassing the village Panchayat by giving wrong information to implicate prominent respected villagers. He further stated in his affidavit that the Senior Superintendent of Police marked the said application to him for enquiry and report. He received the application on 10.6.1994 and for making an enquiry in the matter, he sent a requisition dated 10.6.1994 to Kartar Singh who allegedly was a witness to the occurrence of kidnaping of Bhag Singh. However, Kartar Singh was not found by Ranjit Singh, Constable, who was sent with the requisition, and therefore, an intimation was left with Gurbachan Singh, Chowkidar of the village. Kartar Singh came to CIA staff, Patiala on 11.6.1994 on his own. In support of his deposition in the affidavit, he annexed a copy of the application allegedly received from the villagers and marked to him by S.S.P., Patiala for investigation and also a copy of written requisition sent to Kartar Singh for joining investigation and the endorsement thereon made by Ranjit Singh, Constable. He also annexed a copy of another requisition sent to Santa Singh and others for joining investigation in connection with kidnaping case of Bhag Singh. Shri C.S.R. Reddy, who was then S.S.P. Patiala also filed an affidavit dated 15.9.1995 in which he stated that noting on the representation signed by Dharam Singh and others of village Ablowal was made by him in routine as it was represented to him that the matter was being looked into by the C.I.A. staff, Patiala.

Mr. S.S. Saron, Advocate, counsel for Darshan Singh submitted that petitioner''s version of the occurrence is not natural and probable; rather shows conscious improvements at various stages and not worth relying upon. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana has erred in not paying due consideration to the material documents, the reference of which has been made by Darshan Singh in his affidavit dated 19.8.1995. It was thus, submitted that the enquiry report of Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana be set aside and the police version be upheld.

On going through the report, statements of the witnesses recorded by learned Sessions Judge (Vigilance), objections filed by Darshan Singh by way of affidavit dated 19.8.1995 and after giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the contention of counsel for Darshan Singh. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and are supported by the material on record. Some of the documents which now have been filed along with the affidavit were not produced before the learned Sessions Judge. No explanation has been furnished as to why these documents were not produced; rather record of the enquiry has revealed that on 14.2.1995 counsel for Darshan Singh sought an adjournment for producing documentary evidence which was allowed and the case was adjourned to 1.3.1995. However, on 1.3.1995, instead of producing any documentary evidence, Darshan Singh gave the following statement :

"I close my evidence in defence in this case after tendering my affidavit dated 28.2.1995. I am not to produce any oral or documentary evidence in defence."

In view of statement dated 1.3.1995, it is not open to counsel for Darshan Singh to contend that the learned Sessions Judge (Vigilance) has not taken into consideration the evidence on record. Whatever evidence was there on the record, has been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. The findings of the Sessions Judge being based upon proper appreciation of evidence and supported by material on record deserve to be accepted for the purpose of this writ petition. Respondent, Darshan Singh would be free to establish the correctness of his assertions in the proceedings that may be initiated against him in relation to this incident. Since Kartar Singh was got released by the Warrant Officer and is now free, the prayer for the relief of writ of habeas corpus no longer survives, but having regard to the fact that there had been denial of right of Kartar Singh to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on account of his illegal confinement and his being subjected to torture in such confinement, Kartar Singh deserves to be suitably compensated. I, therefore, direct that Darshan Singh who has been found responsible for illegal detention of Kartar Singh shall pay to Kartar Singh a sum of Rs. 50,000/ by way of compensation for denial or his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said payment shall be made within a period of one month, failing which the amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue through the Collector, Patiala with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of illegal confinement of Kartar Singh, i.e. from 7.6.1994, till the realisation of the amount. The award of this compensation is independent of the remedy which Kartar Singh may have in private law for damages against the person(s) responsible for his illegal detention and torture. It is, however, made clear that the findings of the Sessions Judge will not in any way operate to the prejudice of the respondents in defending themselves in the proceedings that may be initiated against them in relation to the detention of Kartar Singh.

There is yet another aspect which has to be taken note of before the petition is finally disposed of. It is in regard to alleged attempt made by Darshan Singh to interfere with the administration of justice by putting pressure and threatening Kartar Singh to withdraw from the proceedings. The writ petition came to be listed before me on 5.1.1996 when at the request of counsel for the parties it was adjourned to 9.1.1996. On 9.1.1996 when the petition came up for hearing, Sh. S.S. Chopra, Advocate, filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Kartar Singh and submitted that the proceedings may be dropped as Kartar Singh does not wish to claim any compensation from the respondents. An affidavit to that effect was also filed. Since Kartar Singh was present in Court, I enquired from him the reason for withdrawing from the proceedings. Finding that he was hesitant to make a statement in presence of Darshan Singh and other police officials in Court, I thought it fit to take his statement in Chamber. In Chamber, he gave the following statement:

"Darshan Singh who was earlier Inspector at C.I.A. Staff, Patiala has come to Nabha as D.S.P. On his coming to Nabha, he started putting pressure on Sh. Jhalmal Singh Advocate with whom I am working as Clerk. Under pressure, Darshan Singh got three affidavits from me; one saying that the statement which I had given before the District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana was under pressure; and other two affidavits dated 8.11.1995 and 13.11.1995 in which it was stated that I do not wish to claim any compensation in regard to my illegal detention by the C.I.A. Staff, Patiala from 7.6.1994 to 11.6.1994. Darshan Singh threatened that in case I backed out from my statement given in affidavits, he would kill my young daughters and a son. Darshan Singh put one Havildar and two Home Guards in order to keep track on me so that I may not resile from my statement made in affidavits. Today, an Advocate namely Shri S.S. Chopra was engaged by the police and my affidavit which had earlier been obtained from me. Vakalatnama was also got signed from me today by the police while I was sitting in courtroom. I did not want to give the statement in an open Court as I feared from the police official who were sitting in courtroom and only for this purpose I have made request and given my statement in Chamber. I also prayed that I be provided protection through the C.R.P.F."

Later when the case was taken up for hearing in Court, another counsel came rushing to the Courtroom and stated that he is also appearing for Kartar Singh, little realizing that Sh. S.S. Chopra, Advocate, had already appeared for Kartar Singh. This counsel also filed another Vakalatnama along with affidavit dated 10.11.1995 of Kartar Singh. The affidavit was to the following effect :

"1. That the above case is pending in the Hon''ble High Court for 10.11.1995.

That in the above case, I do not claim any compensation from the respondents and neither do I want the case to be continued any further.

That the proceedings in the case may kindly be dropped for which I have no objection."

Darshan Singh when asked to explain, he filed an affidavit dated 11.1.1996 in which he offered an apology. However, he admitted that he had persuaded Kartar Singh not to press his claim for compensation and for dropping the proceedings. This conduct, thus, has shown that Darshan Singh has interfered with the administration of justice which may amount to commission of criminal contempt. Accordingly, a show cause notice is hereby issued to Darshan Singh as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt of this Court. Let notice be issued to him for 27.9.1996.

In Criminal Misc. 419 of 1995 filed in this writ petition, petitioner has stated that the Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana in his report dated 9.3.1995 has come to the conclusion that Kartar Singh, an eyewitness to the alleged abduction of Bhag Singh, was illegally detained from 7.6.1994 to 11.6.1994. Petitioner has also stated that Darshan Singh, Inspector, CIA Staff, Ropar, who has been held responsible for the detention of Kartar Singh, has been promoted as D.S.P. and is presently posted at Nabha where incidentally the petitioner and her family are staying at a village which is just near Nabha and her husband is managing the village affairs. Petitioner has also stated "that during the time when the enquiry was initiated by this Hon''ble Court, the local branch of I.G. Vigilance had provided the security to the petitioner and her family with a security guard so that the family is not harmed by the vested interest. The petitioner, after a few months relieved the security officials on the plea that she is safe and whenever she has to appear in the Court and feels the need of the security, she will inform the Nabha Police Station. Since, said Mr. Darshan Singh is posted as D.S.P. at Nabha, the Police Station Incharge of Nabha has refused to oblige her with the security to accompany them to the Court. The situation is such that at one hand the petitioner and her family members are apprehending danger from the antisocial elements who had killed the father of the petitioner and also committed rape on the sister of the petitioner and on the other hand, the Punjab Police has joined hands with the antisocial elements and is leaving no stone unturned in order to stop the petitioner from seeking justice." She has further stated that it has become impossible for her to visit the Court and to pursue the case due to apprehension of danger to her life at the hands of antisocial elements as well as the local police. Petitioner, thus, has prayed that security may be provided to her as well as her family members forthwith so that she may attend the cases pending in the High Court and also at Nabha Court without any fear.

As already seen, Darshan Singh not only detained and tortured Kartar Singh in custody but there is also a primafacie case against him for making an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by putting pressure and holding out threats to Kartar Singh to withdraw the proceedings against him. Thus, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Punjab Government to transfer Darshan Singh, presently posted as D.S.P. at Nabha, to some other district. It is ordered accordingly. Let the State Government comply with this direction forthwith. As regard respondent No. 3, writ petition qua him shall stand dismissed.

The writ petition, Cr.W.P. No. 439 of 1994 and Cr. Misc. No. 419 of 1995 stand disposed of accordingly.