WAILS OF INJUSTICE
The role of Central Bureau of Investigation in investigating
cases of human rights violations in Punjab has been most shady
to shield the guilty policemen. It has acted in an appalling
manner, making a mockery of the entire criminal justice system.
With the poor quality of investigation and serious lapses committed
by it during preparation of challan, it has experienced embarassing
situation more than once, when the courts granted bail to the
accused policemen or even acquit them for lack of evidence.
In many cases, it simply filed untraceable reports, showing
its incompetence thereby betraying the confidence reposed in
it. Its prosecution is too favourably disposed towards the offender.
Even the tale of police excesses in Punjab have failed to make
the agency sensitive and diligent enough to investigate and
prosecute fairly. Resultantly, the CBI has come out as merely
a toothless, diseased paper tiger whose roar is more effective
than its maul. How lackadaisical is the CBI conduct can be gauged
from the fact that in all cases filed by CBI against the police
officers in Punjab, bails have been granted to the accused policemen.
Terribly enough, very lenient sections of Indian Penal Code
are framed against the police personnel accused of most heinous
crime of fake encounter, forced disappearance and summary execution
enabling them to easily go out of the bounds of law. The Lawyers
for Human Rights International feel that most of the challans
presented by the CBI in the courts relating to fake encounter
or disappearance of innocent people by the Punjab police may
not be able to stand the acid test of judicial scrutiny because
of the faulty investigation done by the CBI bringing the agency
under a cloud. Another tragedy is that in most complicated cases
the CBI is being represented by counsels who are not effective
enough to handle such serious, cumbersome and complicated cases.
The victims have now lost faith in the agency. It has proved
to be another organ of the government trying to hide the truth
and fabricating evidence resulting in the failure of the investigation
process. If the CBI has the interests of the victims at hearts,
as it claims, it should come up with more effective, less cumbersome
and sound proof investigation.
We are sure that the study of case history of following cases
will bring home the above referred observations regarding the
CBI.
CASE STUDY:
State Versus
1. Assistant Commandant, BSF
Dilbagh Singh
2. Om Parkash
3. Jagdish
4. Mohan Lal
5. Mange Khan
6. Jaimal Singh
7. Kuldip Singh
8.Mukhtar Singh
9. Joginder Singh
10.Sukhjinder Singh
The background of this case will make a normal human being
feel like hearing a fairy tale. However, it is a factual story
in which a very common family has made a mark of historic importance.
The above referred police officers are being tried for murder
of Sube Singh, a school teacher of Village Talwandi in District
Gurdaspur in 1984. He was called to the Police Station on 2nd
October, 1984 and eliminated the next day in a fake encounter,
by Assistant Commandant, BSF, Dilbagh Singh and his party. His
wife Surinder Kaur, who was a young lady of about 25/26 years
at that time, took courage to file a private criminal complaint
in a court at Gurdaspur soon thereafter. The accused police
officers were summoned by the Court. Few of them appeared, but
one of the accused Jaimal Singh, who was Inspector at that time,
failed to appear before the Court, inspite of bailable and non-bailable
warrants of arrest being issued. Ultimately he was declared
a proclaimed offender and was arrested only after his retirement
about 10 years later. He even rose to the position of Superintendent
of Police and remained in service all these years, but could
not be arrested on account of his clout over the police force.
On the application of accused policemen, the Punjab & Haryana
High Court transferred the case of their trial to Chandigarh
on the ground that the fear of militants would not ensure fair
trial. The trial of the case is pending at the stage of Complainant’s
evidence in a court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
Ironically, while Surinder Kaur, the hapless victim inspite
of finding too difficult to make both ends meet, is fighting
the legal battle against the police officers at her own expense
whereas unlimited funds from the State treasury are being placed
at the disposal of the undertrial police officials for defending
their case in the court.
C B I Versus
1.DSP Surjit Singh Grewal(then
Inspector)
2.ASI Amarjit Singh( Retd.)
3.SI Birbal Dass (Retd.)
4.ASI Gurcharan Singh
5.HC Nikka Ram
6.ASI Chanan Singh
7.Constable Dayal Singh
Kulwinder Singh alias “Kid”, the only son of a
well placed Principal of Khalsa Higher Secondary School, Kharar,
Tarlochan Singh was picked up by a police party of Punjab police
headed by Inspector Surjit Singh Grewal, the then Incharge of
CIA Staff, Patiala alongwith another boy on 22nd July, 1989.
Both of them were later shown killed in a fake encounter. All
the efforts of the father and other respectables having failed,
a writ petition was filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court
and a judicial inquiry was marked into the incident. The Sessions
Judge, Chandigarh who conducted the enquiry, held that “Surjit
Singh Grewal and his party had forcibly taken the victim.”
After a clear finding to that effect, the High Court referred
the case to CBI for further investigation. The CBI registered
a case under Sections 120-B, read with Sections 302/364/218
IPC and nominated above referred accused in addition to placing
the names of six more police officers in column no.2 so as to
summon them through the court concerned. Interestingly, even
though the CBI also held that Kulwinder Singh “Kid”
was killed by enacting a fake encounter, still it did not arrest
any accused. On filing the challan in the court, the accused
were summoned by the court and they were given bail by the High
Court without any reluctance, irrespective of the heinous crime
with which the accused had been charged.
C B I Versus
1. DSP Jaspal Singh
2. SI Arvinderbir Singh
3. Inspector Amarjit Singh
4. ASI Darshan Singh
This case relates to the killing of Kulwant Singh, Advocate
of Ropar, his wife and 2 years old son. When Kulwant Singh and
his family members did not return home on 25th January, 1993
from the Police Station at Ropar, his father Jagir Singh lodged
a report at Police Station, Ropar. At the same time, lawyers
all over Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh showed concern at the
disappearance of the lawyer and his family. They even represented
to the State government to get an inquiry into the disappearance.
Inspite of long drawn strike by lawyer community and public
outcry, the State government did not order any inquiry. On the
other hand, the Ropar police falsely implicated one Harpreet
Singh alias Lucky for allegedly murdering the lawyer and his
family and launched prosecution against him under Section 302
IPC. A writ petition was also filed in the Punjab & Haryana
High Court, which was dismissed by a five judge bench in a most
unfortunate manner. The matter went over to the Supreme Court,
and the apex court made certain hard observations about the
judgment of the High Court, like holding that “ the high
court was wholly unjustified in closing its eyes and ears to
the controversy which had shocked the lawyer fraternity in the
region. For the reasons best known to it, the High Court became
wholly oblivious to the patent facts on the record and failed
to perform the duty entrusted to it under the Constitution.
After giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances
of this case, we are of the view that the least the High Court
could have done in this case was to have directed an independent
investigation/inquiry into the mysterious and most tragic abduction
and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh Advocate and his family.”
The Supreme Court directed the CBI to hold inquiry into the
disappearance of the lawyer and his family members. In that
inquiry, it was found that Harpreet Singh was falsely implicated
and being prosecuted, but actually Kulwant Singh was not killed
by him. The CBI was directed by the Supreme Court to prosecute
the accused police officers. For no valid reasons, the CBI charged
the accused under only Sections 193/194/211 and 218 IPC and
not under Section 302 IPC. One of the accused police officers,
went to the Supreme Court challenging their prosecution. The
Supreme Court apart from ordering the prosecution of the accused
on the basis of a complaint under the above referred sections,
also ordered the CBI to file a separate challan against them
for murder of the lawyer and his family. Thereafter, a complaint
was filed against these policemen in the Court at Ropar and
a separate challan under Section 302 IPC has been filed by the
CBI in a court of Additional Sessions Judge at Chandigarh. The
proceedings in both these cases being sub-judice, need not be
commented, but the most shocking and shameful thing for the
CBI is that it investigated the case in a totally faulty manner.
It tried to help the police personnel by filing a challan under
Sections 193/194/211/218 IPC so that there may not be any charge
against them with regard to the murder of the lawyer and his
family. It was only after the supreme court made a clarification
that the challan for murder of the lawyer was filed against
the police officers. Another shocking matter is that inspite
of committing such a most un-civilised and heinous crime by
the very protectors of law, the CBI did not arrest any accused.
The accused were allowed bail by the High Court without taking
note of the gravity of the offence.
CBI Versus
1.DIG Sanjeev Gupta(then SSP)
2.SP Mohinder Singh Chahal
3.DSP Ramesh Chander (then Inspector)
4. DSP Jagtar Singh(then Inspector)
Kamaljit Kaur, wife of Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha had filed
a Writ Petition in the High Court in 1996, seeking a CBI probe
into the disappearance of her husband in 1993. The High Court
considered the gravity of the allegations made in the petition
and ordered a CBI inquiry in 1998. The CBI had registered a
First Information Report on September 29, 1998, under Sections
364,365,344 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against DIG Sanjeev
Gupta, the then SSP Ropar, DSP Ramesh Chander and DSP Jagtar
Singh, the then SHO of P.S.Sohana and S.P. Mohinder Singh Chahal,
Ropar and started a thorough probe into the allegations levelled
in the Petition.
The CBI inquiry revealed that Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha was
called to Police Station Sohana by the then SHO Ramesh Chander
to meet the then SSP Sanjeev Gupta on 18th March, 1993. Sukha
alongwith his friend Jaspal Singh, the Sarpanch of Village Raipur,
Distt. Ropar, had gone to the Police Station Sohana, but only
Jaspal Singh returned back, while Sukhdev Singh was detained
in the Police Station Sohana till March 29, 1993. Thereafter
he was shifted to CIA Staff, Ropar but brought back to Sohana
on April 29, 1993 and was kept there till July 4, 1993. Surjit
Singh, younger brother of Sukhdev Singh used to visit him daily
to provide food, clothes etc. However, Sukhdev Singh was again
taken to CIA staff, Ropar after July 4, 1993 by the then SHO
Ropar, Jagtar Singh and thereafter his whereabouts are not known.
The CBI after conducting detailed investigation filed a chargesheet
in the Court of Special CBI Judge, Patiala on February 1, 2001.
The DIG Sanjeev Gupta who is an accused in the case applied
for anticipatory bail in the case Additional Sessions Judge,
Patiala stayed the arrest of the police officer till February
19, 2001 and the Judge while staying the arrest of the officer
till March 4, ordered him to surrender before the Special CBI
Judge and apply for regular bail on February 28. Thereafter
the accused moved a regular bail application before Sessions
Judge, Patiala and was granted regular bail on March 2. Similarly
SP Mohinder Singh Chahal, DSPs Jagtar Singh and Ramesh Chander
also applied for interim bail before Additional Sessions Judge,
Patiala. The Judge while staying their arrest on March 15, till
March 21 directed them to surrender before the Special CBI Court
and apply for regular bail. They did so, but the Special CBI
Judge dismissed their applications on March 16. They moved the
Sessions Court, Patiala but were declined bail by even that
court on March 21. Aggrieved by that order, the trio had moved
an anticipatory bail application before the Punjab & Haryana
High Court which was allowed vide order dated 3rd April, 2001.
In his order, the Judge recorded that “since the incident
is eight years old and the wife of Sukhdev Singh kept silent
for four long years, therefore, there is no possibility of accused
misusing the concession of bail. The evidence is circumstantial
in nature and the police officers have not absconded and there
is no likelihood of their absconding from the process of law.
They are allowed the concession of bail on the condition of
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 lac each with one
surety of the like amount and they should deposit their passports
with the trial court forthwith”.
According to Lawyers For Human Rights International, few extra-ordinary
things were witnessed in this particular case. It’s the
only first case where the anticipatory bail applications of
the accused were repeatedly rejected, but the magistrate or
even the Sessions Judge failed to order their arrest after their
so-called surrender. Even the arrests were stayed to enable
them to approach the High Court.At the top of it, the High Court
overlooked the fact that in the event of dismissal of their
anticipatory or regular bail applications, the accused should
have been in judicial custody in consonance with the provisions
of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But none of
the accused undergone even a day’s custody, inspite of
their prayer for bail being declined more than once. If the
time gap between the incident and the launching of prosecution
is material for considering the concession of bail, then thousands
of poor undertrials under NDPS Act or TADA Act deserves to be
given similar concession. And if delay in approaching the court
seeking justice is also considered an important factor in the
eyes of law, then almost all the police officers facing trial
in the cases of fake encounters, summary executions and forced
disappearances also deserves to be released forthwith, because
the CBI had taken many years before launching prosecution against
them.
CBI Versus SSP Ajit Singh
Sandhu ( deceased) and others
Jaswant Singh Khalra, a well known human rights activist and
the General Secretary of human rights wing of Shromani Akali
Dal was kidnapped from outside his house in Amritsar on the
morning of September 6, 1995, by the armed commandos of Punjab
police. A bench of the Supreme Court chaired by Justice Kuldip
Singh treated a telegram from Gurcharan Singh Tohra, President
of Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, about the abduction,
as a Writ Petition of habeas corpus and issued notice to the
Punjab authorities. The then SP Sukhdev Singh Chhina of Amritsar
city filed affidavit to claim that Khalra was neither wanted
in connection with any case nor had been arrested by the police.
Other officials also filed affidavits to maintain that the Punjab
authorities were making all efforts to trace Khalra, contending
at the same time that he might have become a victim of inter
gang rivalries. SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu of Tarn Taran also filed
a statement to deny that he had ever threatened Khalra. On 15th
November 1995, Punjab’s Advocate-General M. L. Sareen
suggested that the court should hand over the investigation
of Khalra’s abduction and disappearance to the Central
Bureau of Investigation. Accordingly, the court directed the
CBI inquiry. On 30 July 1996, the CBI submitted its report on
Khalra’s abduction and disappearance, holding nine officers
of the Punjab police under SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu responsible.
At the CBI’s request the Supreme Court directed their
prosecution on charges of conspiracy and “kidnapping with
intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person”. The
court also directed the Chief Secretary of Punjab to sanction
their prosecution within three weeks of the order. The Sanction
Order dated 19 August 1996 elucidated the CBI’s findings
that established the criminal conspiracy to abduct Jaswant Singh
Khalra. The Sanction Order pointed out that on 24 October 1995,
eighteen days after his abduction, Khalra was found illegally
detained at Kang Police Station, by one Kikkar Singh, who was
also detained there illegally. The Sanction order mentioned
that Kikkar Singh witnessed the injuries on Khalra’s body,
the evidence of his custodial torture. It went on to say that
Kikkar Singh helped Khalra to eat before he was taken away from
the Kang police station, never to be seen again. Kikkar Singh’s
illegal detention from 14 October to 11 November 1995, as elucidated
in the Governor’s Sanction Order, was independently corroborated
by an inquiry conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of
Chandigarh, which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana relied
on to grant him monetary compensation. The evidence on record
in the Governor’s order of sanction confirmed serious
offences under sections 302, 364, 346, 330, 331 and 120 of IPC.
However, the offenders were arrested only under section 365
of IPC which is “kidnapping with intent to secretly and
wrongfully confine a person”, a woefully insufficient
charge in the face of evidence which proved kidnapping with
the intent to murder, illegal confinement, custodial torture
and custodial murder. Subsequently, former Special Police Officer
Kuldip Singh, who was attached to the Kang police station, came
forward and told that Khalra was tortured and then shot dead
in the night of 24 October 1995. His dead body was quartered
and thrown in river Sutlej near Hari Ke Pattan. The court, which
presumed Khalra to be still alive, when it ordered the prosecution
of the officials on 30 July,1996 was not aware of these facts.
On 7 August 1996, the court also directed the Punjab government
to pay ten lac rupees as interim compensation to Mrs. Khalra.
The court’s order said: “The fact remains that the
abductors are keeping Khalra away from his family since 6 September
1995. Kidnapping of a person whose family is totally in dark
about his whereabouts – even about the fact whether he
is alive or dead – is the worst crime against humanity.
In the facts and circumstances of this, we direct the Punjab
government through the Chief Secretary, Punjab to pay a sum
of Rs. 10 lacs as interim compensation to Mrs. Paramjit Kaur,
wife of Mr. Jaswant Singh Khalra. In case, the police officers
are convicted the State of Punjab can recover the amount from
the police officers…”
CBI Versus
1. Inspector Dharam Singh
2. Inspector Tarsem Lal
This case speaks volume of extra-judicial methods adopted by
Punjab police in eliminating innocent youth. Kashmir Singh’s
son Daljit Singh of Khalyala Khurd in District Amritsar was
picked up alongwith his two brothers Rajwant Singh and Baljeet
Singh on 13th December, 1992 by Inspector Dharam Singh, the
then Station House Officer of Police Station, Lopoke, District
Amritsar. The two brothers were let-off after a day, but Daljeet
Singh was tortured and later on shown killed alongwith one Jagir
Singh alias Jagira in a police encounter on 29th December, 1992.
Kashmir Singh approached the High Court and a CBI case was registered
against Inspector Dharam Singh for staging a fake encounter
and killing Daljeet Singh and then cremating him as un-identified,
even though he had disclosed his identity before his death.
CBI registered the case on 5.3.1997 on the orders of the Supreme
Court dated 26.12.1995. The CBI inquiry clearly held the Inspector
Dharam Singh and SI Tarsem Lal and SI Swaran Singh responsible
for killing Daljeet Singh and then cremating him as unidentified
even though they were aware of his identity. In order to seek
bail, Inspector Dharam Singh and Tarsem Lal moved the Sessions
Judge, Patiala in October,2000. The trial court while rejecting
their bail application categorically held that “in case
the accused police officers were enlarged on bail, a fair trial
cannot be expected and there is every chance that they may either
threaten or try to win over the prosecution witnesses”.
But surprisingly, two weeks time was granted to them to obtain
fresh bail orders from the higher court. Inspite of the categorical
finding by the High Court that “by dismissing the bail
application, the Sessions Judge had become ‘funtus officio’
and ought not to have stayed its own order’ and that “the
petitioners being police officials, the possibility of their
attempting to influence the complainant cannot be ruled out”,
still the accused were granted bail by Justice S.S.Nijjar on
Ist February, 2001.
The question arises, if the accused had committed such a heinous
crime and the Sessions Judge, Patiala had passed the extra-ordinary
order of not arresting them(after dismissal of their bail application),
can it be justifiably held that the High Court also committed
grave error in giving undue favour to the accused police officers
?
Mohinder Singh Versus CBI
This is a case of CBI’s failure to deliver goods and betraying
the trust reposed in it by Mohinder Singh, the victim of police
excesses. Jagraj Singh, the only son of Mohinder Singh was picked
up alongwith his Maruti van from Mohali on 14th January, 1995
by Punjab police personnel. Later on the same police party picked
up another youth Sukhdev Singh of Mohali. Few days later, two
terrorists were shown killed in an encounter in Beas Police
Station in which the maruti van of Jagraj Singh was shown involved.
Mohinder Singh got suspicious that his son might have been killed
in that encounter. He approached the High Court and a CBI inquiry
was marked in 1996. But the CBI in a biased manner filed the
report holding that Jagraj Singh was not picked up by Punjab
Police but was killed in an encounter in Police Station Beas
on 15.1.1995. Inspite of Mohinder Singh’s repeated pleas
before the High Court for re-investigation into the abduction
of his son Jagraj Singh and raising a question on the conduct
of DSP S. Prasad of CBI, the High Court accepted the faulty
CBI report and dismissed his plea by observing that “
the petitioner, therefore, has failed to substantiate the allegations
made in the petition against the Investigating Officer or the
CBI. The report is exhaustive, investigation is sincere and
meaningful. No fault can be found with the enquiry report”.
It would not be wrong to say that the CBI by shielding the Punjab
police, caused even more grievous hurt to the distressed victim,
that has eroded his faith in the entire criminal justice system.
Would any body sitting on a seat of authority be able to heal
the wound of people like Mohinder Singh is only a hope in the
wilderness.
The conclusions on the basis of above referred cases are :
1. The guilty police personnel have been granted bail in most
heinous crimes by the courts whereas in ordinary murder cases,
the accused are languishing in jail for the last over 5 to
6 years during trial and even after conviction, having not
been given the bail in majority of the cases. There are only
few cases where bail has been granted. But in cases where
police personnel are involved, all have been granted bail.
2. The CBI did not investigate the cases honestly and even
did not arrest the accused inspite of seriousness of the crime.
It has been seen that in cases having lesser punishment like
in corruption cases, where the punishment has not been awarded
for more than three years R.I. the accused were arrested and
they remained in jail for more than 2 years. Whereas the latest
law is that a complainant can assist the prosecution but in
these cases, the prosecution hardly takes any assistance from
complainants.
3. It is even a known fact that all the police personnel facing
such like trials are being provided unlimited funds by the
State to defend themselves in cases involving human rights
violations. No such example or instance is available to the
civilised system that the state is to fund the defence of
any accused. It is a total negation of the system as a whole.
On the other hand, the accused police personnel are mis-using
their high positions in victimising and harassing the witnesses
and tampering with the evidence. They are enjoying the facilities
of their ranks, vehicles, security etc. Where can be the fair
trial under such circumstances?
It would be great folly to deny that there was no law and
order during those days in Punjab and the State was being ruled
by the jungle law. There was no question for the state to come
forward to get the protectors of law to be punished for glaring
human rights violations. Policemen felt proud of killing the
innocent people in the name of “combating terrorism”
or “protecting national security”. The judiciary
was sent on a long holiday by the very protectors of law and
they did what they like. On many occasions the courts even became
deaf and dumb at the tale of police excesses and failed to deliver
justice. Even today, this perverse attitude has been adopted
by the courts while hearing the cases of human rights violations.
Undue leniency is being shown to the police officials accused
of human rights violations and bail is granted to every policemen
accused of most heinous crime in the annals of mankind. That’s
why not even a single police officer accused of human rights
violations in the militancy period has been arrested. Human
rights activists are at loss to understand the indifferent approach
of the lower and even the Higher judiciary in the State towards
cases of human rights violations. This mindset of judges if
continued anymore may bring serious repercussions and may give
wrong signals to the rowdy Policemen who will consider themselves
even more powerful and free from bounds of the law and total
loss of faith in the judicial system by the families of the
killed persons making the system to be a Qazi like one.
Home
HOME 