Cr.M.No.36584-86 of 2009 -1-
Cr.A.No.517-DB of 2006
Kulwinder Singh and others v. The State of Punjab.
Present:- Shri R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Miss Tanu Bedi, Advocate
for the applicant/appellants.
---
MEHTAB S.GILL,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant/appellants Chamkaur Singh and
Sohan Singh has argued that the applicants were Constables posted at Police
Station Sherpur District Sangrur where the unfortunate death of Ravinder Singh
took place. The learned counsel has further argued that as per the medical report,
the cause of death was due to Cynope due to Vasovagal inhibition. This is a
natural form of death and the applicants had nothing to do with the death of
Ravinder Singh. The co-accused Mukhtiar Singh appellant No.5 of the applicants
was granted bail on 12.9.2006. The applicants are better placed than Mukhtiar
Singh. The applicants were mere constables and they had nothing to do with the
interrogation of deceased Ravinder Singh.
We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellants,
perused the medical report and statements of the witnesses attached with the bail
application.
During the course of arguments, we consistently and persistently kept
asking the learned counsel for the applicants, as to if any sort of explanation had
come from the side of any of the accused as to what was the reason of which
Ravinder Singh had died, as he was in police custody in Police Station Sherpur but
nothing substantial was being told to us apart from that it has been stated by one of
Cr.M.No.36584-86 of 2009 -2-
Cr.A.No.517-DB of 2006
the accused that Ravinder Singh died a natural death.
We cannot overlook this fact that Ravinder Singh was in the custody
of the applicants in Police Station Sherpur, though the applicants have a right to
give a flat denial and no question can be asked by the Court but it is difficult to
overlook this fact that the deceased was within the four walls of Police Station
Sherpur in the custody of the applicants, when his death took place. Appellants
were the ones who only knew as to what happened within those four walls at that
moment of time immediately before Ravinder Singh was taken to the hospital.
It has been mentioned in para-10 of the judgment of the learned trial
Court that when the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard
to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the
prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. The co-accused of the applicants,
Kulwinder Singh took up a stand that Ravinder Singh became unconscious when
he found difference between the Registration Certificate and Engine number of the
car. He tried to save the life of Ravinder Singh and took him to the hospital at
Sherpur, but the doctor did not attend to him, nor noted anything in the register,
but asked Kulwinder Singh to take deceased Ravinder Singh to Dhuri. He took
Ravinder Singh to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri and there he was declared dead by the
doctors. Ravinder Singh did not have any injury with electric current apart from
two superficial abrasions which could be caused by a fall while doing agriculture
work which was the profession of Ravinder Singh. Apart from the statement of
Kulwinder Singh (accused) no light has been put regarding the circumstances
leading to the death of Ravinder Singh, nor has any convincing suggestion been
put to the witnesses.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that it was a natural
death, but going through the report of the Pathologist (Ex.P6) it comes out that the
Cr.M.No.36584-86 of 2009 -3-
Cr.A.No.517-DB of 2006
organs which were sent for examination were autolysed or showing partially
autolystic changes. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the parcel
containing these parts was tampered with, so that a truthful and a correct report did
not come.
Dr.R.P.Jindal PW-1 whose statement has been attached as Annexure
A-1, produced reports Exs.DA and DB. The report Ex.DA has been given by the
Medical Board of Medical College, Amritsar. In the statement of Dr.R.P.Jindal
PW-1 he has stated, that the report Ex.DA and endorsement Ex.DB was made on
11.5.2004. It has been stated in para-24 of the judgment of the learned trial Court,
the bail application of Kulwinder Singh was taken up in the Hon’ble High Court on
28.3.2005 when the trial of the accused was going on. The main thrust of the
arguments at that time was that Ravinder Singh died a natural death. During the
course of the arguments of the bail application or the bail petition, on 11.9.2004,
there was no mention of report Ex.DA regarding the natural death of Ravinder
Singh. It seems this document (Ex.DA) has been procured by the applicants to save
their skin. The learned trial Court has held as under :-
“Whatever reasons the doctors tried to assign about the death, the
above discussion shows that whatever reasons are being assigned
by the doctors, they know that they are not assigning the reasons in
a convincing manner rather the reasons given appear to be procured
what to say more.”
Coming to the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that
one of the appellants has been granted bail i.e. Mukhtiar Singh appellant No.5 and
the present applicants also be granted bail as they are at parity with him does not
cut much ice. Mukhtiar Singh appellant No.5 was granted the concession of
suspension of sentence vide order dated 12.9.2006 of this Court. We have perused
Cr.M.No.36584-86 of 2009 -4-
Cr.A.No.517-DB of 2006
the order. Merits for suspension of sentence and granting bail have not been
discussed. We would not like to go any further into that order, which is as under :-
“Present:-Mr.R.S.Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
Mr.K.S.Boparai, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr.H.R.Nohria, Advocate for the complainant.
Mukhtiar Singh applicant-appellant No.5 is praying for
suspension of substantive sentence.
We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and
gone through the impugned judgment.
Besides pointing out certain flaws in the case of the
prosecution qua the present applicant-appellant, Mr.Ghai states that
he was on bail during trial.
On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the applicant-appellant prays for suspension of
substantive sentence which is opposed by the learned State counsel.
Having regard to the facts of the case and also on
account of the fact that it may not be possible to hear the appeal in
the near future, therefore without commenting on the merits of the
case, lest it may prejudice the case of either side at the relevant
stage, we deem it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence
imposed upon the applicant-appellant.
Consequently, the instant miscellaneous application is
allowed, and Mukhtiar Singh applicant-appellant No.5 is ordered to
be released on bail on his furnishing adequate surety bond to the
satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.
Sd.
(VIRDNDER SINGH)
JUDGESd.
( A.N.JINDAL )
September 12, 2006 JUDGE"
Cr.M.No.36584-86 of 2009 -5-
Cr.A.No.517-DB of 2006
Notice of motion has been issued for accused Kulwinder Singh, but
on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana
1999(4) R.C.R. 600, as he has completed 5 years of actual sentence and 3 years
after conviction. It is to come up on 13.8.2009.
Since custodial deaths are a serious matter which are taking place
very frequently in the State of Punjab, we cannot show any leniency for
suspending the sentence of the applicants when the applicants have been
convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned trial Court,
after elaborately going into all the aspects of the evidence of the prosecution and
the defence. Applicants are not undertrial prisoners that they should be presumed
to be innocent. They are convicts and after having been held guilty by the
competent Court have been awarded life imprisonment.
The prayer for bail for applicant/appellants Chamkaur Singh and
Sohan Singh is declined.
Cr.M. No.36584 of 2009 is dismissed.
Cr.M.Nos.36585 and 36586 of 2009
Formal Cr.M.s are allowed as prayed for.
( MEHTAB S.GILL )
JUDGE
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
July 30, 2009 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO