CASE NO.: Writ Petition (crl.) 221 of 1994 PETITIONER: INDER SINGH RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/1995 BENCH: A.M. AHMADI & DR. A.S. ANAND & S.P. BHARUCHA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 309
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
This is habeas corpus petition to secure the release of Sadhu Singh,
Gurdeep Singh, Amanjit Singh, Hardev Singh, Davinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh
and Sharanjit Singh. On 15th September, 1994, having considered the
pleadings and the arguments of learned counsel, we passed a detailed order.
This order must be read with that earlier order.
For the reasons set out in the earlier order, we directed that an enquiry
should be conducted by the Director of the Central Bureau of investigation,
which would cover:
“(a) the circumstances of the abduction of said 7 persons (b) their
liquidation;(c) how it was that the inquiry into the complaint was delayed
front 25th January, 1992, when it was received by the office of the 2nd
respondent, till 23rd March, 1994, when the case was registered; (d)
whether it is in conformity with good police ad-ministration that a
complaint of abduction of 7 citizens by a high ranking police officer
should not be required to be brought to the attention of the officer in
command of the police force even after the allegations made in the
complaint had been found to be correct on inquiry by a specially designated
officer, (c) whether there has been an attempt to cover-up the misdoings of
police officers and policeman involved in the abduction of the said 7
persons and their subsequent incarceration or liquidation; and (f) if so,
who was involved therein.”
We now have before us the report dated 15th December, 1994, of the Director
of Central Bureau of Investigation, in which he concludes:
(a) The said 7 persons were forcibly removed from their farmhouse in
village Bagga, District Majitha, State of Punjab on 29th October, 1991, by
a police party led by Baldev Singh, D.S.P. The abduction was effected
because it was suspected by the said Baldev Singh that the said 7 persons
had had a role to play in the abduction by terrorists of his younger
brother.
(b) It could reasonably be concluded that the said 7 persons had been
killed. No evidence showed that any of the said 7 persons was still alive.
As the incident had taken place more than three years back, the changes of
recovering the bodies or other evidence was minimal.
(c) The writ petitioner had made written complaint two and a half months
after the abduction. During that period he had approached the said Baldev
Singh and Sita Ram, S.S.P., Batala, a number of times. Their assurances led
to the delay in his complaining to higher officers. The said Sita Ram had
not intervened when the 7 persons were still alive and in unlawful custody.
An intervention at this stage would have prevented their liquidation. The
enquiry into the writ petitioner a complaint remained with the D.l.G.,
Border Range, Amritsar, for more than 8 months and with the SSP, Batala,
for 2 months. The Crime Branch of the Punjab Police had pursued the matter
and, disagreeing with the recommendations of the District and Range
officers, had registered a case and charge-sheeted 9 accused (the alleged
members of the policy party).
(d) The file was at no stage put up before the Director General of Police,
Punjab, but it would have been “prudent and administratively correct to do
so”.
(e) The abduction of the said 7 persons was first brought to the notice of
the said Sita Ram a few days after the incident. No enquiry was made by
him. No complaint was recorded or investigated.
(f) On receipt of the information and, later, of the written complaint, the
said Sita Ram should have taken immediate action and initiated a regular
enquiry, if not investigation.
The C.B.I. report establishes that a Punjab Police officer of the high rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police had, upon the suspicion that the said 7
persons might have been concerned in the abduction of his brother by
militants, led a police party unlawfully to their house and abducted them.
The said 7 persons had then been kept under unlawful detention in police
stations in the Slate of Punjab, for example, at Kalanaur and Dera Baba
Nanak. The said 7 persons are untraceable. It is wholly reasonable,
therefore, to conclude that in all probability they were killed by those
who abducted them.
Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the
1st and 2nd respondents, namely, the Stale of Punjab and the Director
General of Police, Punjab, submitted that the Punjab Police should receive
the “commendation of this Court” : the Punjab Police had acted on its own
to discover the crime and to lake action against its errant officers and
men and this was an indication of “the percolation of constitutional
culture” to the Punjab Police.
A Deputy Superintendent of the Punjab Police and a police party abducted
the said 7 persons. The Deputy Superintendent of Police misused the
machinery of the police to wreak private vengeance upon the said 7 persons.
The said 7 persons, while they were alive, were unlawfully detained in
police stations in the State of Punjab. Their whereabouts are not known
till today. There can he little doubt that they were in all probability
liquidated by those who abducted them.
Sita Ram, the SSP, Batala, though he received oral and then written
information in regard lo the abduction, chose to do nothing while the said
7 persons were still alive. He sat on the complaint for two months. The
D.I.G., Border Range, Amritsar, sat on it for 8 months. It is only the
Crime Branch of the Punjab Police who acted, recognising where its duty
lay.
Though an officer as senior as a Deputy Superintendent of Police had led a
police party to abduct the said 7 persons, and they were thereafter
untraceable, the matter was not serious enough to be brought to the
attention of the D.G.P., Punjab, having regard to the delegation of
responsibilities made by him. To put it in the very mild words of the
C.B.l. report, it would have been ” prudent and administratively correct
to do so”.
In the background of these facts, the Punjab Police as a whole merit this
Court’s disapprobation, the Crime Branch there of a word of praise.
The Punjab Police would appear to have forgotten that it was a police force
and that the primary duly of those in uniform is to uphold law and order
and protect the citizen. If members of a police force resort to illegal
abduction and assassination, if other members of that police force do not
record and investigate complaints in this behalf for long periods of time,
if those who had been abducted are found to have been unlawfully detained
in police stations in the concerned State prior to their probable
assassination, the case is not one of errant behaviour by a few members of
that police force. We do not see that “constitutional culture” as Mr. Tulsi
put it, had percolated to the Punjab Police. On the contrary it betrays
scant for the life and liberty of innocent citizens and exposes the
willingness of others in uniform to lend a helping hand to one who wreaks
private vengeance of mere suspicion.
This court has in recent times come across far too many instances where the
police have acted not to uphold the law and protect the citizen but in aid
of a private cause and to oppress the citizen. It is a trend that bodes ill
for the country, and it must be promptly checked. We would expect the
D.G.P., Punjab, to take a serious view in such cases if he is minded to
protect the image of the police force which he is heading. He can ill
afford to shut his eyes to the nose-dive that it is taking with such
ghastly incidents surfacing at regular intervals. Nor can the Home
Department of the Central Government afford to appeal to be a helpless
silent spectator.
When the police force of a State acts as the Punjab Police has done in this
case, the State whose arm that force is must bear the consequences. It must
do so in token of its failure to enforce law and order and protect its
citizens and to compensate in some measure those who have suffered by
reason of such failure, we direct the State of Punjab to pay to the legal
representatives of each of the said 7 persons the amount of Rs. 1.50 lakhs
with in 2 weeks. Later when the guilty are identified the State should
endeavour to recover the said amount which is the tax-payers money.
The prosecution of those who have been charge-sheeted in connection with
the abduction and disappearance of the said 7 persons should be
expeditiously conducted under the supervision of the Crime Branch of the
Punjab Police. We would like to caution the court trying the accused that
it should decide the case on the evidence that may be laid before it
without being unduly influenced by what we have said hereinbefore.
Disciplinary inquiries must be started against the aforesaid accused as
also the said Sita Ram and the then DIG, Border Range, Amritsar.
Others responsible for delaying the registration of the complaint and
inquiry thereon must also he identified and proceeded against.
The Slate of Punjab shall pay to the petitioner the costs of the writ
petition, quantified at Rs. 25,000.
Before we part with the matter, we must express our appreciation of the
efforts of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. So as not
to prejudice the prosecution aforementioned, we deem it proper that his
report should remain confidential, being preserved in a sealed envelope in
the custody of the Registrar General of this Court.
A copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General of this court to
the Secretary in the Home Department of the Government of India for
appropriate action.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly,
Petition disposed of.