-1

-
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI-03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Sessions Case No.-01/11
RC Number : 6(S)/2009 CBI/SCB/Lucknow
CBI Vs (1) Sh. S.K. Jaiswal,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Bahadur Singh
R/o. Civil Lines, Kutub Khana
Road,Opp. Telephone Exchange,
PS Kotwali, Barreilly.
(2) Sh. Gopal Dutt Bhatt
S/o Sh. Puran Chandra Bhatt
R/o Village Matola, PS Jageshwar,
Tehsil Bhanauti, Distt.: Almora,
Uttrakhand.
(3) Sh. Rajesh Bisht
S/o Sh. Jhoon Singh
R/o House no. 7, Type III,
PS Raipur, Dehradun.
(4) Sh. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o. Type-III, Near PS Raipur,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
(5) Sh. Nitin Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh Chauhan
R/o. H.No. 19, Vivek Vihar,
Pocket-II,GMS Road, Dehradun.
S C No.01/11 1/139
-2-
(6) Sh. Chander Mohan Singh Rawat
S/o Late Sh.Shobha Singh Rawat,
R/o Deepnagar, Near Water Tank,
Ajabnpur, Kalan, Dehradun.
(7) Sh. Ajeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Om Pal Singh
R/o Village Gadarjudda,
Post Manglore, Haridwar.
(8) Sh.Satbir Singh
S/o Shri Rakam Singh
R/o. 5, Cement Road, Kanranpur,
PS Dalanwala, Dehradun.
(9) Sunil Saini
S/o Shri Kadam Singh
R/o Village Kurdi, PS Manglore,
Haridwar.
(10) Chander Pal
S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram
R/o Village Kankhal Barakothi,
Pahari Bazar, Haridwar.
(11) Saurabh Nautiyal
S/o Shri Hiramani Nautiuyal ,
R/o Village Kairada, Post Nagraja
Dhar, Distt. Tehri Garhwal.
(12) Nagendra Rathi
S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh ,
R/o. Village Narsangh Kalan,
PS Manglar, Haridwar.
S C No.01/11 2/139
-3-
(13) Vikas Chandra Baluni
S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Baluni,
R/o Village Baluni Banek,
PO Banek, Distt.:Pauri,Garhwal.
(14) Sanjay Rawat
S/o Shri Sain Singh Rawat ,
R/o. Village Kundali, PS Satbuli,
Ekeshwar Block,Tehri Garhwal.
(15) Mohan Singh Rana
S/o Shri Pratap Singh Rana
R/o. Village Reni , PS Joshimath,
Chamoli.
(16) Inder Bhan Singh
S/o Shri Janmadeo Singh
R/o.Village Saga Rai, PS Darauli,
District Seewan (Bihar).
(17) Jaspal Singh Gosain
S/o Late Shri Manbar Singh Gosain ,
R/o. Village Kamoldi, Post Kwalli,
Tehsil Agast Muni,Rudraprayag.
(18) Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri Tej Pal Singh
R/o. Village & Post Chunsa,
APS Bhorakalan, Mujjafar Nagar.
Under Section: 120-B r/w 364, 302 & 201 IPC and substantive
offences u/s 364, 302 & 201 IPC
S C No.01/11 3/139
-4-
Date of Institution : 22.12.2009
Date of conclusion of arguments: 29.05.2014
Date of judgment : 06.06.2014
JUDGMENT:-
1. Accused no.1, S.K. Jaiswal, was posted as SHO,
P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand on 03.07.09, and on
the basis of statement made by him, two cases being case
Crime no. 98/09 under Section 307 I.P.C, and case Crime no.
99/09 under Section 25 Arms Act, were registered at P.S.
Raipur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. The cases being Crime nos.
98/09 and 99/09, were registered relating to an incident in the
afternoon of 03.07.09 in Ladpur forest area of Dehradun,
wherein a young boy named Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder
Pal Singh R/o Village Nirojpur Emma, P.S. and Tehsil Khekra,
Distt. Bagpat , U.P., was killed. The version of the police as
per the statement of accused no.1, S.K. Jaiswal, relating to the
incident was that the said person was killed in a cross firing
when the police had to resort to the firing in self-defence after
the deceased fired at the police party, when it was chasing him
to apprehend him, as he alongwith two of his associates had
entered into a scuffle with accused no.2, G.D. Bhatt, at Mohini
S C No.01/11 4/139
-5-
Road, near Gurudawara, Dehradun City and those miscreants
including the deceased, had run away from the spot after
snatching the revolver of SI G.D. Bhatt. A-2, G.D. Bhatt, was
posted at P.S. Dalanwala as Sub-Inspector and was on routine
checking in the area. Her Excellency, Smt. Pratibha Devi
Singh Patil, the then President of India, was visiting Dehradun
City on 03.07.09.
2. However, after the incident was highlighted and
news regarding the incident were telecast on T.V. channels,
questions were raised as regard the genuineness of the version
of the police and relatives of deceased Ranbir Singh including
his father, Ravinder Pal Singh protested claiming that deceased
Ranbir Singh had been killed by police officials, while in
custody, and a false story of encounter had been concocted by
the police. After the hue and cry was raised, investigation of
Crime nos. 98/09 and 99/09, both of P.S. Raipur, were
entrusted to Insp. D.C. Baunthiyal, SHO, PS Cantt. District
Dehradun, as per directions of SSP Dehradun on 05.07.09.
3. A case FIR no. 101/09 under Sections
147/148/149/302/506 I.P.C, was registered at P.S. Raipur,
S C No.01/11 5/139
-6-
Dehradun on 06.07.09, on a complaint by Sh. Ravinder Pal
Singh, father of deceased Ranbir Singh.
4. However, father, relatives and family members of
deceased Ranbir Singh were not satisfied with the investigation
of the case, and they had approached the Chief Minister of
Uttarakhand and other higher-ups in the Government of
Uttarakhand and vide order no. 723/XX(3)-14/CB/CID/2009
dated 05.07.09, Government of Uttarakhand transferred the
investigation of the cases Crime nos. 98/09 and 99/09 P.S
Raipur, Dehradun to CB-CID. Father, relatives and family
members of deceased, Ranbir Singh continued to agitate and
there was apparent criticism of the investigation, forcing
Government of Uttarakhand to hand over the investigation of
the cases, Crime No. 98/09 under Section 307 I.P.C and Crime
No. 99/09 under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Raipur, Distt.
Dehradun and Crime No. 101/09 under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Raipur, Distt, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and
Crime no. 143/09 under Section 394 I.P.C, P.S. Dalanwala,
relating to death of Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh.
Crime no. 143/09 P.S Dalanwala, was in regard to the case
S C No.01/11 6/139
-7-
registered on the basis of statement of accused no.2, G.D.
Bhatt, as regards snatching of his pistol on 03.07.09 at Mohini
Road, near Gurudwara, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to CBI, and
issued Notification no. 542/XX(1)/126/CBI/2009 dated
08.07.09, gave its consent for investigation of the case by CBI.
Pursuant to the Notification dated 08.07.09, issued by
Government of Uttarakhand, Government of India also issued
Notification no.228/37/2009-AVD-2 dated 09.07.09, gave its
consent for investigation of the cases by CBI.
5. The present case relates to case Crime no. 101/09,
P.S. Raipur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, registered on the
complaint of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, father of deceased Ranbir
Singh, which was taken over by CBI, and regular case RC No.
0532009S006, hereinafter to be referred as RC 6(S)/2009, was
registered at CBI/SCB at Lucknow, U.P. on 30.07.09
6. After completion of investigation, CBI filed the
chargesheet in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate(CBI),
Dehradun on 22.12.09, which was produced before Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, as Special Judicial Magistrate
was on leave on 22.12.09, against 18 accused, i.e. A-1 Santosh
S C No.01/11 7/139
-8-
Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4
Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh
Rawat and A-7 Ajit Singh, A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini,
A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15
Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal,
A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar,
A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7
Ajit Singh, were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under
Section 120-B r/w Sections 364,302 and 201 I.P.C and
Substantive offences punishable under Sections 364,302 and
201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C and u/s 218 I.P.C.
A-8, Satbir Singh, was charge-sheeted for offence punishable
under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and under section
201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C. A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10
Chander Pal Singh, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Baluni and A-14 Sanjay Rawat, were
charged for offences punishable under Section 201 I.P.C r/w
Sections 364 IPC and 302 I.P.C as well as under Section 218
S C No.01/11 8/139
-9-
I.P.C. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17
Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar, were charged
for offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. Sanction for
prosecution as required under Section 197 CrPC against the
accused persons, they being the police officials, were obtained
from the State Government. A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini,
A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15
Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar, were not arrested in the case
by the CBI. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, were in judicial custody, when the chargesheet was
filed. A-1 to A-7 were granted bail by Hon'ble Uttarakhand
High Court vide order dated 20.01.2010. Ravinder Pal Singh,
father of deceased Ranbir Singh, and complainant, challenged
the order, passed by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court, before
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Crl. Appeal Nos. 748/2011 to
753/2011, relating to A-1 to A-7, and vide order dated
S C No.01/11 9/139
-10-
17.03.2011, the appeals filed by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the
complainant, were allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
order passed by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court, granting bail
to A-1 to A-7, was set aside.
7. Again, in Transfer Petition (Crl.) no. 222/2010,
filed by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the complainant, Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2011, transferred the
case Crime no. 03/2010 titled as State through CBI Vs. S.K.
Jaiswal, from the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI,
Dehradun, to the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, for its
assignment to appropriate court, as the Special Judge may
consider it fit and proper.
8. However, during the period, vide order dated
10.12.2010, Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun, had
committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge, Dehradun
and by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, the case was assigned
for trial to IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, Anti Corruption(CBI), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Record
of the case being ST no. 237/2010, CBI Vs. Santosh Kumar
Jaiswal & Ors, was received by Sh. Pradeep Chadha, Special
S C No.01/11 10/139
-11-
Judge(CBI-01), Central/Delhi, on 04.04.2011 vide letter dated
02.04.2011 of Sh. Pradeep Pant, IIIrd Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Branch(CBI), Uttarakhand,
Dehradun. The case was assigned to Sh. V.K. Maheshwari,
Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, my Ld. Predecessor. On
04.04.2011 itself, my Ld. Predecessor, Sh. V.K. Maheshwari,
entertained some reservations as he was dealing with the cases
pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act only, and he
directed to put up the file before Ld. District & Sessions
Judge-1, Central District, for appropriate orders. Vide order
dated 05.04.2011, the case file was directed to be sent to the
Court of Sh. V.K. Maheswari, my Ld. Predecessor, Special
Judge, CBI, Delhi, and it was observed by Ld. Sessions Judge,
Delhi that apart from being Special Judge/CBI, he was also
competent to deal with and decide the case as Additional
Sessions Judge.
9. The facts, in brief, as per the investigation carried
out by CBI, as per the chargesheet filed, is that deceased
Ranbir Singh had gone to Dehradun on 02.07.09 alongwith his
accomplices Shekhar Tyagi, Ram Kumar, Ashok Panwar, after
S C No.01/11 11/139
-12-
they had entered into a conspiracy to commit theft at the house
of Smt. Kavita Saxena, who was a cousin of one Amit
Bhatnagar, who was also a party to the conspiracy. Deceased
Ranbir Singh and his associates Ram Kumar and Ashok
Panwar, stayed at Flat no.9 of Jain Dharamshala, Gandhi Road,
Dehradun. The other accomplice Shekhar Tyagi, after pointing
out the house of Smt. Kavita Saxena, returned back to Meerut.
House of Smt. Kavita Saxena was situated at 14, Madhuban
Enclave, Mohini Road, Dehradun. On 03.07.09 at about 12.30
noon, deceased Ranbir Singh and Ashok Panwar left Jain
Dharamshala with one black bag containing Katta, ropes and
Cello Tape etc. on a motorcycle no. HR 06G 9093, which was
used by deceased Ranbir Singh and Ram Kumar for reaching
Dehradun from Meerut. Ram Kumar followed them. Ashok
Panwar was sent to see the lane, where house of Smt. Kavita
Saxena was located. While Ranbir Singh and Ram Kumar were
waiting for Ashok Panwar at a place near Gurudwara at
Mohini Road, Dehradun at around 12.45 hours, SI G.D.
Bhatt(A-2), Incharge Aaraghar Post under P.S. Dalanwala,
Dehradun, reached while patrolling on routine checking. While
S C No.01/11 12/139
-13-
he was questioning the deceased Ranbir Singh and his
associate Ram Kumar, there was a scuffle between them.
Deceased Ranbir Singh caught hold of service pistol of SI G.D.
Bhatt. One passer-by Anjum Parvez Khan, came at the spot,
fired two rounds in the air from his licensee pistol. Deceased
Ranbir Singh was caught on the spot, whereas his associate
Ram Kumar was able to run away from the place, who had in
the meantime snatched the service pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt
(A-2) from Ranbir Singh, alongwith service pistol of SI G.D.
Bhatt (A-2). As per the case of CBI, a case being Crime no.
143/09 of P.S Dalanwala, was registered as regard the scuffle
and robbery of pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt (A-2). However, after
the deceased Ranbir Singh had been caught on the spot, there
was a conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and
particularly, A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, has been named by CBI in the chargesheet, to kill
deceased Ranbir Singh. He was not shown to have been
arrested in case Crime no. 143/09 P.S Dalanwala, was
S C No.01/11 13/139
-14-
abducted and was killed claiming that he had been killed in
cross-firing with the police in an encounter, when he fired at
the police party, which was chasing him, he having run away
alongwith two of his accomplices on the motorcycle, in the
area of Ladpur forest, Dehradun. It was the case put up by the
local police, including the accused persons, that deceased
Ranbir Singh was not caught on the spot of incident at Mohini
road, Dehradun, and he had been able to run away from the
place alongwith two of his accomplices. It was the case put up
by the local police of P.S. Dalanwala and others, claiming to be
involved in the said encounter, that two of accomplices of
deceased, had been able to run away from Ladpur forest area.
10. The case, as put up by CBI, after investigation is
that to cover up the story of deceased Ranbir Singh having
been caught from Mohini Road near Gurudwara, information
of which was given by A-1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, Dehradun to
City Control Room at 1.12 P.M., to the effect that one person
with Tamancha had been brought to police station Dalanwala,
and so, the search for the miscreant be stopped, story of one
Karunesh was inserted, who as per GD entry at 1.10 P.M. of
S C No.01/11 14/139
-15-
P.S. Dalanwala was shown that Cheetah-VI, Ct. Satbir and Ct.
Jitender Joshi had brought one miscreant to P.S. having
revolver and then G.D. Entry at 1.20 p.m that said Karunesh,
was a Constable and was shadow of Kunwar Pranav Singh,
MLA, and was having his service revolver. The role attributed
to each of the accused person individually, had been stated as
revealed during investigation, by CBI.
11. Charge for offences punishable under Section
120-B I.P.C r/w Sections 302, 364,201 and 218 I.P.C, was
framed against all the accused on 02.06.2011. Further charge
for substantive offences punishable under Sections 302 and
364 I.P.C was framed against A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal,
A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar,
A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7
Ajit Singh. Further, charge for substantive offences punishable
under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 302,364 IPC and
substantive office punishable under Section 218 I.P.C were
framed against A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
S C No.01/11 15/139
-16-
Singh, A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal,
A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas
Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat. Further, accused no.8,
Satbir Singh, was charged for substantive offences punishable
under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and under Section
201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana,
A-16 Inderbhan, A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj
Kumar, were further charged for substantive offence
punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
12. Pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2011 of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, cancelling the bail of A-1 Santosh Kumar
Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj
Kumar, A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat
and A-7 Ajit Singh, they had surrendered in the Court on
different dates. Thereafter, an application was filed by Sh.
Ravinder Pal Singh, the complainant for cancellation of bail of
A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal, A-11
Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander
Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16
S C No.01/11 16/139
-17-
Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj
Kumar, on the ground that charge for offences punishable
under Section 120-B I.P.C r/w Sections 364,302, 201 and 218
I.P.C, had been framed against all the accused persons.
Earlier, as per the chargesheet, there were allegations of only
bailable offences against A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini,
A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15
Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar, and after the framing of
charge, they had been charged for offences of criminal
conspiracy in commission of offences punishable under
Sections 364 & 302 I.P.C, which were non-bailable. The
application was disposed of by my Ld. Predecessor vide order
dated 17.11.2011 and the bail granted to A-8 Satbir Singh,
A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal,
A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14
Sanjay Rawat, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan
Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar,
were cancelled. The issue was agitated by A-8 to A-18 before
S C No.01/11 17/139
-18-
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as before Hon'ble
Supreme Court and vide order dated 29.05.2012 in Special
Leave to Appeal ( Crl.) no. 4396/2012, Hon'ble Supreme Court
declined to entertain the Special petition filed by the accused
persons. In this way, all the 18 accused persons, are in judicial
custody.
13. Prosecution examined 122 witnesses in order to
substantiate the allegations against the accused persons.
14. Accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC
and their statements were recorded.
15. The stand taken on behalf of accused nos. 1 to 7 is
that, it was a case of genuine encounter and deceased Ranbir
Singh was killed in cross-firing with the police and it was
when the deceased Ranbir Singh had fired at the police party,
which was chasing him and that the police was compelled to
return fire in self-defence.
16. The allegations against A-8 Satbir Singh as
regards the specific role played by him were that he was
instrumental in introducing the story of bringing Ct. Karunesh
at P.S. Dalanwala alongwith Ct. Jitender Joshi while on duty
S C No.01/11 18/139
-19-
on Cheetah-VI( being riders of motorcycle), was claiming that
the boy(Ct. Karunesh) was seen by them, when they reached at
Mohini Road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, the place of the
incident, who was matching the description as per the
information being given from the City Control Room and was
found running towards Laxmi Road. A-8 Satbir Singh denied
that he was knowing Ct. Karunesh before he was apprehended
by them that he was a member of the police force and was
deputed as a shadow of an MLA. A-8 Satbir Singh had also
taken the stand that it was a genuine case of deceased Ranbir
Singh, having been killed in exchange of fire, with the police
and he at the time of encounter at Ladpur forest, had taken
cover behind a tree.
17. A-9, Sunil Saini has also taken the stand that it
was a genuine encounter and deceased Ranbir Singh was killed
in exchange of fire at Ladpur forest. A-9 Sunil Saini had also
claimed that on 03.07.09 he had accompanied A-4 Neeraj
Kumar to Sahastradhara Crossing at Dehradun, checking for
the miscreants, who had run away from the Mohini Road near
Gurudawara, after robbing the service pistol of A-2, G.D.
S C No.01/11 19/139
-20-
Bhatt.
18. A-10 Chander Pal Singh had taken a different
stand in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The allegations
against him as per the role assigned, was that he had
accompanied A-5 Nitin Chauhan, Incharge, Special Operation
Group, Dehradun on 03.07.09, and was accompanying him at
the time of alleged encounter. It was also alleged that he was a
party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir
Singh. However, in the statement under Section 313 CrPC,
A-10 Chander Pal Singh had taken the stand that he had not
accompanied SI Nitin Chauhan on 03.07.09 at any place and
was at office of Special Operation Group throughout the day
and had been forced to sign the documents by A-5 Nitin
Chauhan and Senior officers. In particular, A-10 Chander Pal
Singh had claimed that Seizure memo Ex. PW-36/A as well as
another Memos Ex. PW-38/G and Ex.PW38/H were signed by
him at police station Raipur, and he was in no way involved
with the said encounter and do not know anything about that .
19. Similarly, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal has taken the
stand that he had not accompanied A-5 Nitin Chauhan,
S C No.01/11 20/139
-21-
Incharge, Special Operation Group on 03.07.09, and remained
present in SOG office from morning till evening. The role
assigned to him was that he was with A-5 Nitin Chauhan,
Incharge SOG on 03.07.09 and also, at the time of alleged
encounter, and was a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill
deceased Ranbir Singh. A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal has claimed
that he was also forced to sign documents and was called to
reach P.S. Raipur on that day by A-5 Nitin Chauhan, and it was
only under pressure of A-5 Nitin Chauhan, Incharge, Special
Operation Group, that he had reluctantly signed the documents
in P.S. Raipur in the morning of 04.07.09 which are Ex.
PW-36/A, Seizure Memo dated 03.07.09 Ex. PW-38/G and
Ex.PW38/H.
20. A-12 Nagender Rathi in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC has taken the stand that it was a case of
genuine encounter, deceased Ranbir Singh having been killed
in exchange of fire between the deceased and the police
officials. The role assigned to A-12 Nagender Rathi is that he
was accompanying A-1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S. Dalanwala on
03.07.09 and was also a party to abduct and kill deceased
S C No.01/11 21/139
-22-
Ranbir Singh.
21. A-13 Vikas Baluni has taken the stand that on
03.07.09, he was detailed for VVIP duty at GTC Helipad,
Cantt. Dehradun, due to the visit of President of India in
Dehradun City, on that day, and he had not accompanied SO
Rajesh Bisht, Incharge of P.S. Nehru Colony on 03.07.09. The
role assigned to A-13 Vikas baluni is that he had accompanied
A-3 Rajesh Bisht, SO, P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun on
03.07.09, was present at the time of alleged encounter and was
a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir
Singh. A-13, Vikas Baluni has taken the stand that being
detailed for VVIP duty on 03.07.09 in the afternoon, he was on
rest in the morning hours, and was present at his house when at
about 2.00 P.M., he received a call from A-3, Rajesh Bisht,
asking him to reach Pullia No.6 in the area of P.S. Nehru
Colony, Dehradun, and also to convey the same message to
A-14, Ct. Sanjay Rawat. As per the stand taken by A-13 Vikas
Baluni, he conveyed the message to Ct. Sanjay Rawat A-14
and reached at Pullia no.6 where Ct. Sanjay Rawat A-14 had
also reached, but SO Rajesh Bisht did not meet them there.
S C No.01/11 22/139
-23-
They were not able to connect to SO Rajesh Bisht(A-3), but
somehow they were able to call A-16 Inderbhan Singh on his
mobile, the driver of the vehicle of SO Rajesh Bisht(A-3), who
instructed them to reach Ladpur forest. A-13 Ct.Vikas Baluni
claimed that when they reached in the Ladpur forest, they
found a crowd and a person lying on the ground. A-13
Ct.Vikas Baluni also claimed that he was forced to sign the
documents by A-3 Rajesh Bisht, as well as other senior
officers.
22. A-14 Sanjay Rawat, has also taken the stand like
A-13 Ct. Vikas Baluni, he was also detailed for VVIP duty on
03.07.2009, and was not accompanying A-3 Rajesh Bisht, SO,
P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun, and he was called through A-13
Ct. Vikas Baluni, and was also forced to sign the documents by
A-3 SO Rajesh Bisht, and other senior police officers, when he
had reached Ladpur forest alongwith A-13 Ct. Vikas Baluni.
23. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana has also taken the stand
that he was not involved in any conspiracy to abduct or kill
deceased Ranbir Singh. The role assigned to A-15 Mohan
Singh Rana is that he was Ct Driver of P.S. Dalanwala on
S C No.01/11 23/139
-24-
03.07.09, was party to the conspiracy and had made false
entries in the log book of the vehicle no. UA-08B-9981 TATA
SUMO which was being driven by him on 03.07.09, framing
incorrect record while functioning as a public servant. A-15
Mohan Singh Rana has taken the stand that he had not made
any false entries, which were made by him as per the
directions of SHO, claiming that he was not aware of the
places, where the vehicle had gone. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana
claimed that the movement details in the log book were
relating to the movement of the officers and were recorded
accordingly and his job was only to ensure maintenance of the
vehicle and to keep details of the distance covered by the
vehicle and fuel consumed.
24. A-16 Inder Bhan Singh has taken the stand that
on 03.07.09, after information was flashed by City Control
Room, he had driven the vehicle no. UA-07A-3846 carrying
SO Rajesh Bisht(A-3),Ct. Sanjay Rawat( A-14) and Ct. Vikas
Baluni(A-13), and he continued to drive the vehicle as per the
directions of A-3 Rajesh Bisht. The role assigned to A-16
Inder Bhan Singh is that he was a Ct. Driver at P.S. Nehru
S C No.01/11 24/139
-25-
Colony on 03.07.09, was party to the conspiracy to abduct and
kill deceased Ranbir Singh on 03.07.09, was present at the time
of alleged encounter and made false entries in the log book of
vehicle regarding movement of the vehicle.
25. The stand taken by A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain in
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he was not party
to any conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh.
A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain has claimed that he was not known
to any of the co-accused prior to 03.07.09, and was not even
having telephone number of any of the accused, and had no
contact with any of the co-accused on 03.07.09. The role
assigned to A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain is that on 03.07.09, he
was posted as Head Operator in City Control Room of
Dehradun Police, and made false entries in the log book of
City Control Room to the effect that information has been
received from Panther(SP City) that three miscreants were
running towards Nehru Colony, Dehradun City on motorcycle
no. HR 06G 9093 and same was done by him despite the fact
that intimation as given by T-5 (SHO P.S.Dalanwala, A-1) at
1.12 P.M. that the boy alongwith Tamancha had reached P.S.
S C No.01/11 25/139
-26-
Dalanwala, and so, the checking for the boy be stopped and
only routine checking be continued. A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain has stated that all the informations received by him
between 10.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M., while he was on duty in the
City Control Room, from Senior officers, were recorded by
him correctly in the log book and he had flashed the
information, so received.
26. A-18 Manoj Kumar has denied being party to any
conspiracy on 03.07.09, to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir
Singh. The role assigned to A-18 Manoj Kumar, as per the
case of the prosecution is that on 03.07.09, he was functioning
as Ct GD Munshi at P.S. Dalanwala, Delhi, and had made
incorrect entries. It is claimed, as per the case of the
prosecution, that at 1.10 P.M. on 3.07.09, he made an entry to
the effect that one suspect wearing green T-shirt has been
brought by Ct. Jitender Joshi and Ct. Satbir of Cheetah-VI and
then making an entry at 1.20 P.M ( overwriting and cutting) to
the effect that the suspect brought, was in fact Ct Karunesh,
and this was done by him to prevent and save himself and
other accused persons from legal punishment. Allegations were
S C No.01/11 26/139
-27-
also to the effect that he was a party to the conspiracy. In his
statement, A-18 Manoj Kumar, took the stand that the
information received by him were recorded correctly, in GD
diary at P.S. Dalanwala.
27. In all 30 witnesses were examined on behalf of the
accused persons including A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal and A-13
Vikas Baluni, who have also examined themselves, on oath
under Section 315 CrPC, pursuant to the applications moved
by them.
28. Arguments were heard on behalf of the
prosecution as well as on behalf of the accused persons. On
behalf of A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18,
submissions were made by Sh. R.M.Tufail, Advocate. On
behalf of remaining accused being A-10, A-11, A-13, A-14
and A-15, submissions were made by Sh. Anupam Sharma,
Advocate. Written submissions were also placed on record on
behalf of A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18 and also on
behalf of complainant.
29. To prove the fact that it was deceased Ranbir
Singh, who was apprehended at the place of incident at Mohini
S C No.01/11 27/139
-28-
road near Gurudwara on 03.07.2009 and was taken to P.S
Dalanwala, prosecution has examined several witnesses to the
incident. PW-9 Anil Vohra (r/o Mohini road, Dehradun) is one
of them, who has testified as regard the scuffle which was seen
by him on 03.07.2009, when he saw a police man in hands up
position and two boys standing in front of him, one of the boy
having revolver. PW-9 Anil Vohra also deposed that from the
gesture, he gathered that the police man was helpless and the
boys were dominating him. PW-9 Anil Vohra was passing by
the place on his motorcycle and on seeing the situation, he
made a call at number 100 and told the lady who picked up the
phone on other side the situation and asking to send someone
immediately at Mohini road, Gurudwara.
30. Another witness examined on behalf of the
prosecution is PW-11 Surender Singh, who was working at a
godown of M/s Himani Gas Service and deposed that on
03.07.2009, when he reached at Circular Road near
Gurudwara, Dehradun, after taking 20 cylinders from the
godown, he saw a scuffle taking place near the Gurudwara and
he had seen two boys in scuffle with a Daroga. PW-11
S C No.01/11 28/139
-29-
Surender Singh further deposed that Daroga had caught hold of
a boy and the other boy was having a pistol and was pointing
towards Daroga in a manner, as he was about to fire. PW-11
Surender Singh did not support the case of prosecution beyond
that and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution by
Ld. Sr.PP.
31. PW-12 Raksh Pal also deposed that on
03.07.2009, he had reached the Gurudwara situated at Mohini
road in Dehradun, with his three wheeler Vikram loaded with
gas cylinders and between 12.30 to 1.00 noon, he had noticed a
crowd near Gurudwara. PW-12 Raksh Pal was also working at
Himani Gas Agency, Dehradun. PW-12 further deposed that
two boys were seen by him beating a Daroga and one of the
boy was pointing a revolver at the Daroga. Beyond this,
PW-12 Raksh Pal also did not support the case of the
prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
32. PW-13 is Ravinder Kumar, who was having a
tailoring shop under the name and style of M/s Patiyala Shahi
Boutique nearby. The witness did not support the case of the
S C No.01/11 29/139
-30-
prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
33. PW-14 is Smt. Farhad Naaz, who has deposed that
on 03.07.2009, she was working in a tailoring shop named
Patiyala Shahi Boutique at Mohini road, Dalanwala, Dehradun
and at about 12.00/12.30 noon, she heard a lot of noise from
outside near the Gurudwara and also heard sound of two fire
shots and when she came outside, she had seen people running
and had also seen one person running from the place, having a
pistol in his hand. Beyond that, PW-14 Smt. Farhad Naaz also
did not support the case of prosecution and was cross
examined by Ld. Sr.PP on behalf of the prosecution.
34. PW-15 is Anjum Parvez Khan, who has deposed
that he was a resident of 24/61, Circular Road, Dalanwala,
Dehradun and on 03.07.2009 between 12.45 and 1 noon, when
he had come to his house for changing clothes to offer Namaaz
of Jumma, he saw a lot of crowd near the Gurudwara and three
persons were quarreling among themselves. PW-15 further
deposed that due to curiosity, he went to the place and when he
reached near the crowd, he saw two boys beating a person,
S C No.01/11 30/139
-31-
who was in police uniform. The two boys had pushed down
the police personnel on the ground. PW-15 Anjum Parvez
Khan, in order to save the police personnel, had fired twice
from his licensed pistol, which he brought from his house.
PW-15 further deposed that after he fired in the air, there was a
stampede in the crowd and the boys also ran away with the
crowd. This witness also did not support the case of the
prosecution fully and was also cross examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
35. PW-26 Ram Anuj was working as Crime Reporter
for Time T.V at Dehradun in month of July 2009 and had
deposed that on 03.07.2009, he had followed the Ranbir
encounter case for T.V reporting and he had recorded the byte
of PW-15 Anjum Parvez, with regard to the incident of
fighting, which occurred near the house of Anjum Parvez.
36. Statements of PW-12 Raksh Pal, PW-13 Ravinder
Kumar, PW-14 Farhad Naaz and PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan
were also recorded Under Section 164 CrPC, which was
confronted to them in the cross examination on behalf of the
prosecution. PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan admitted having
S C No.01/11 31/139
-32-
made the statement Under Section 164 CrPC which is
Ex.PW15/A and also admitted correctness of the same. PW-15
also admitted the correctness of CD Ex.P-1 which was inter
alia having the recording of PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan,
saying that the Badmash who was having pistol in his hand had
run away on foot from the place and the other boy was caught
by the police of P.S Dalanwala. However, in cross
examination on behalf of the accused persons, he again stated
that the person who was apprehended from the stampede was
taken away by the police personnels, who had come on the
motorcycle, on their motorcycle.
37. It is the case of the local police of Dehradun as
well as the defence taken on behalf of accused that instead of
deceased Ranbir, it was one Ct. Karunesh, who was
apprehended on the spot by Cheeta-6 i.e. rider Ct. Satbir Singh
(A-8) and Ct. Jitender Joshi and he was taken away by them,
on their motorcycle.
38. Another witness examined on behalf of the
prosecution is PW-10 Ram Kumar, cousin of deceased Ranbir,
who as per the case of the prosecution, was accompanying
S C No.01/11 32/139
-33-
deceased Ranbir Singh and was present at Mohini Road near
Gurudwara, Dehradun on 03.07.2009, at the time of quarrel
between them and A-2 G.D.Bhatt. However, PW-10 Ram
Kumar, despite being the cousin of deceased Ranbir Singh, had
totally betrayed the case of the prosecution and had even
deposed that it was in fact an encounter in the Ladpur forest
area while he, deceased Ranbir and one more accomplice were
running away on the motorcycle, being chased by policemen
and the deceased Ranbir had in fact opened fire, when their
motorcycle fell down in the Ladpur forest. Statement of
PW-10 Ram Kumar was also recorded Under Section 164
CrPC, but he was evasive while answering the questions put to
him by Ld. Sr.PP, when confronted with the statement, just
stating that he was not remembering what was told by him to
the Magistrate, recording his statement Under Section 164
CrPC Ex.PW102/D (proved by PW-102 Sh. Arvind Nath
Tripathi). PW-10 Ram Kumar also stated that whatever was
told by him to the Magistrate recording his statement Under
Section 164 CrPC was, as told by the CBI to him to state.
PW-10 was seen supporting the case of the accused persons, in
S C No.01/11 33/139
-34-
their defense.
39. There is PW-24 Smt. Sushma Bansal (nearby
resident), who had made a call at number 100 to police Control
Room on 03.07.2009 after a passerby had come to her house
and requested to make a call to the police. PW-24 stated that
she had not seen the incident herself and was cross examined
on behalf of the prosecution.
40. PW-25 is Mala Singh (nearby resident), who had
deposed that on 03.07.2009 between 12.30 to 12.45 noon, she
had heard a lot of noise and sound of fire and when she went to
the roof of her house to see the incident, she saw a crowd from
the terrace of her house. The witness also did not support the
case of prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. Sr.PP on
behalf of the prosecution.
41. Thus, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of
the prosecution as regard the incident of 03.07.2009 at Mohini
road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, involving A-2 G.D.Bhatt,
deceased Ranbir Singh and his cousin-cum-associate PW-10
Ram Kumar, has supported the case of the prosecution to the
fuller extent. However, from their testimonies, particularly of
S C No.01/11 34/139
-35-
PW-9 Anil Vohra, PW-11 Raksh Pal, PW-15 Anjum Parvez
Khan, it has come on the record that there were only two boys
who were involved in the scuffle with A-2 G.D.Bhatt on
03.07.2009. All these witnesses have deposed consistently and
none have stated that they had seen the third boy also, who was
either involved in the scuffle with A-2 G.D.Bhatt or that three
boys had run away from the place, on a motorcycle, as is the
case, which was set up by the local police and is the defense of
the accused persons. PW-11 Surender Singh Rawat, has
deposed only, that the two boys who were in scuffle with the
police man, had run away on the motorcycle, one driving the
motorcycle and other was sitting holding a pistol in his hand
and it was after, he had heard two fire sounds and there was a
stampede. PW-14 Smt. Farhad Naaz has deposed that after the
sound of shot was heard, people were seen running and she had
seen one person running from there having a pistol in his hand.
PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan has also deposed that after he fired
two shots in air from his licensed pistol, both the boys had run
away alongwith the crowd. PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan, no
where deposing that two boys had run away from the place, on
S C No.01/11 35/139
-36-
motorcycle. There was not even a suggestion to that effect on
behalf of the accused persons. PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan
also admitted in cross examination on behalf of prosecution,
that whatever was recorded in CD Ex.P-1 was correct, and it
was what had been told by him in his interview, after about
three hours of the incident on 03.07.2009 and admitted that he
had stated in his interview that the badmash who were having
pistol in his hand had 'paidal -paidal bhag gaya tha (had run
away on foot)' and the other boy was caught by police of P.S
Dalanwala. Even in his examination-in-chief, PW-15 Anjum
Parvez Khan has deposed that during the stampede (bhagdad)
other police personnels had also reached the spot and one of
the boy was caught hold by those police personnels, who had
reached the spot.
42. It is the case of prosecution that the accused
persons had inserted the story of Ct. Karunesh, a shadow of
MLA, Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, was falsely
introduced while not arresting deceased Ranbir Singh in case
Crime No.143/09 P.S Dalanwala under section 394 I.P.C
which was registered in regard to the incident of robbery of
S C No.01/11 36/139
-37-
service pistol of A-2 G.D.Bhatt.
43. PW-64 Gopal Singh Negi, deposed that Ct.
Karunesh was brought at P.S Dalanwala on 03.07.2009 at
about 1.00/1.15 P.M (noon) by Ct.Satbir and Ct. Jitender Joshi.
It was also argued on behalf of the accused persons that the
presence of Ct. Karunesh at the spot i.e. Mohini road near
Gurudwara, Dehradun, is also established, because he had also
called at number 100, transcript of which is memo Ex.PW17/H
(proved by PW-17 Ashwani Raturi) regarding the scuffle there.
44. There are two entries in the General Diary
Register of P.S Dalanwala, Dehradun recorded by A-18 Manoj
Kumar, who was acting as GD writer on 03.07.2009 there.
First entry is No.28 Ex.PW64/E-3 (proved by PW64 Gopal
Singh Negi) at 1.10 P.M. It is to the effect that Ct. 149 Satbir
Singh alongwith Ct. 915 Jitender Joshi, have brought one
person to the P.S, who was matching the description of the
person involved in the incident of loot with A-2 G.D.Bhatt and
he gave the information to the Control Room. Another entry
is GD No.29 Ex.PW64/E-4 (proved by PW64 Gopal Singh
Negi) at 1.20 P.M wherein it was stated that he had given the
S C No.01/11 37/139
-38-
information to the SHO that the person, who was brought by
Cheeta-6 being Ct. Satbir and Ct. Jitender, was in fact Ct.
Karunesh, being the shadow of MLA Kunwar Pranav Singh
Champion.
45. It is the case of prosecution that GD entries of
1.10 P.M Ex.PW64/E-3 and 1.20 P.M Ex.PW64/E-4 made by
A-18 Manoj Kumar are fake entries and nothing of the sort had
happened and the entries were made only to facilitate, non-
reporting of deceased Ranbir Singh, having been apprehended,
in pursuance to the conspiracy to abduct and kill him.
Prosecution is claiming that on the ground that intimation to
that effect had already been given to the City Control Room at
1.12 P.M by A-1 S.K.Jaiswal, then SHO P.S Dalanwala to the
effect that the boy with the tamancha had been brought to the
P.S and search be discontinued.
46. Ct. Karunesh was a member of the police force
and as per GD No.29 Ex.PW64/E-4 recorded at 1.20 P.M in
the General Diary of P.S Dalanwala, was having his service
revolver. As per Ex.PW17/H (proved by PW-17 Ashwani
Raturi), which is a memorandum of voice file taken from
S C No.01/11 38/139
-39-
police Control Room in regard to the information given by Ct.
Karunesh to City Control Room on 03.07.2009 at 12.55.44 and
it is to the effect that Ct. Karunesh is telling the operator at
City Control Room that they should reach Mohini Road
immediately, scuffle is taking place with the Daroga and the
persons are also shooting Daroga. In case Ct. Karunesh was
having his service revolver with him when the scuffle was
going on with A-2 G.D.Bhatt, it was not expected from him,
not to intervene, he being the member of the police force and
having arms. Instead of depending on the arrival of other
police personnels, it was his duty to come to the rescue of A-2
G.D.Bhatt.
47. On behalf of accused persons, reliance has been
placed on the statement of Ct. Karunesh Kumar recorded in
case Crime No.l43/09 Ex.PW71/G-2 (proved by PW-71 SI
Bhaskar Lal Shah) wherein he had stated that on 03.07.2009,
when he was walking on foot and was proceeding towards
Aaraghar post for night pass, on reaching at Mohini road near
Gurudwara, he saw three boys in a scuffle with a Daroga and
the boys were also pointing a tamancha and a pistol at the
S C No.01/11 39/139
-40-
Daroga, one person came from the side of Circular road, fired
with his revolver and three boys, who were in scuffle with the
Daroga, had run away on a CBZ motorcycle towards Sanjay
Colony. Ct. Karunesh in statement Ex.PW71/G-2 (proved by
PW-71 SI Bhaskar Lal Shah) claimed that he chased those
three boys and while he was returning, he was apprehended by
Cheeta police, who did not listen, when he told them that he
was a member of the staff. Ct. Karunesh also claimed that he
was brought to P.S and after inquiries and confirming that he
was a police Constable, he was allowed to go. Ct. Karunesh is
claiming that he was not having his purse on that day and so,
could not show his ID card. Ct. Karunesh also stated that he
had given the information at 100 number, being puzzled at that
time in his statement recorded Under Section 161 CrPC in case
Crime No.143/09 Under Section 394,332 I.P.C PS Dalanwala,
Ct. Karunesh has not been examined in the case, on behalf of
either prosecution or the defence. Even otherwise, it is
difficult to believe the story being put up by Ct. Karunesh
Kumar, that he was not able to convince the staff of Cheeta-6,
being A-8 Satbir Singh and Ct. Jitender Joshi, that he was a
S C No.01/11 40/139
-41-
member of the police force. Again A-8 Ct. Satbir and Ct.
Jitender Joshi would be able to take him to the P.S on the
motorcycle, despite having the information that the boys
having scuffle, had run away with the service pistol of A-2
G.D.Bhatt and would not like to search the boy, after
apprehending him to ensure that he was not having any
weapon and may not harm them on way to P.S. Again entry
no.29 Ex.PW64/E-4 (proved by PW-64 Gopal Singh Negi) also
show some manipulations and overwriting and it is reasonable
to assume that same had been done intentionally and same is to
the effect that the person brought at P.S is Ct. Karunesh. In
entry no.28 Ex.PW-64/E-3 recorded at 1.10 P.M, it is also
mentioned that the Badmash brought is also having a revolver,
but there is no mention of the person stating that he was a
member of the police force and revolver, he was having, was a
service revolver. Ct. Karunesh was expected to tell the same,
when he was brought to P.S Dalanwala, as stated to the
officials of Cheeta-6, as claimed by him in his statement
Ex.PW71/G-2.
48. Then, there is an entry recorded in log book of the
S C No.01/11 41/139
-42-
City Control Room, Dehradun dated 03.07.2009 which have
been exhibited as Ex.PW16/B (proved by PW-16 Mahesh
Arya) and it is recorded in the entry made at 1.12 P.M that
information had been given by T-5 (SHO P.S Dalanwala) that
the said boy with tamancha (country made pistol) had reached
P.S and checking of that boy should be stopped.
49. It is also the case of prosecution that deceased
Ranbir Singh alongwith his associates, was staying in flat no.9
at Jain Dharamshala, on 03.07.2009 and immediately after
deceased Ranbir Singh,was apprehended and brought to P.S
Dalanwala, Dehradun, some police officials had gone to Jain
Dharamshala, had broken open the lock of flat no.9 and left the
place with a bag from the flat. It is the case of the prosecution
that it could have been possible so early only, when deceased
Ranbir Singh was apprehended and he had disclosed this fact
to the police officials. There is no other way for the police
officials to know this fact within half an hour of the incident,
except deceased Ranbir Singh, having been apprehended, and
disclosing the fact. For that, prosecution has examined Arun
Kumar Jain, who was working as Assistant Manager in Jain
S C No.01/11 42/139
-43-
Dharamshala, Dehradun in July 2009 and deposed that on
03.07.2009, around 1.30 (noon), 8 to 10 police personnels
came, enquired about room no.9, went there accompanied by
PW-3 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, a guard, broken open the lock of
room no.9, then went to flat no.9, broken open the lock of the
same and deposed that later on, he came to know that some bag
was taken away by the police personnels, as told by the guard.
The witness has also deposed that from the record, he came to
know that one boy named Ranbir was staying in flat no.9.
50. Another witness Ram Kumar Garg (PW-2) who
was also working in Jain Dharamshala, Dehradun deposed that
on 02.07.2009, flat no.9 in Jain Dharamshala was alloted to
Ranbir Singh, alongwith his two companions and on that day,
when he reached for duty around 1.20-1.25 P.M (noon), 8 to 10
police personnels had come there, enquired about the
accommodation no.9, PW-3 Jagdish Prasad Gairola,
Chawkidar was sent by PW-1 Arun Kumar Jain. PW-2 Ram
Kumar also deposed that they first broke the lock of room no.9
then broke the lock of flat no.9 and then from flat no.9, had
taken away one bag as told to him by Chawkidar Bhagwan
S C No.01/11 43/139
-44-
Singh.
51. PW-3 is Jagdish Prasad Gairola, who was working
as guard in Jain Dharamshala and deposed that on 03.07.2009,
he accompanied police personnels, who had reached Jain
Dharamshala. The police personnels were first taken by him to
room no.9 of which lock was broken by police officials, then
they went to flat no.9.
52. PW-4 Satender Jain, Manager of Jain
Dharamshala, Dehradun has testified that on 03.07.2009 while
he had gone to his house at about 1.00 P.M, he received a
telephonic call from PW-1 Arun Kumar Jain at about 1.30
P.M, who informed him about police personnels having
broken open the lock of room no.9 and proceeding towards flat
no.9 on 2
nd
floor. PW-4 Satender Jain instructed PW-1, Arun
Kumar Jain to inform the Secretary of Dharamshala, Sh.
Praveen Kumar Jain. PW-4 deposed that Ranbir Singh, was
staying alongwith his two companions in flat no.9 and room
no.9 was allotted to one Dr. Bisht, who has been examined in
the case as PW-7. PW-4 deposed that after Dr. Bisht returned
to Dharamshala at about 3.00 P.M, and on being told that lock
S C No.01/11 44/139
-45-
had been broken by police personnels, he called at telephone
number 100. Some police officials came to Dharamshala and
met Dr. Bisht. PW-4 Satender Jain has proved the slip
Ex.PW4/B filled up by the visitor to Dharamshala for stay and
also proved the receipt Ex.PW4/C in the name of Ranbir
Singh. Daily summary for the date 02.07.2009, computer
generated printout Ex.PW4/D having the particulars of Ranbir,
has also been proved. PW-4 Satender Jain also proved the
diary maintained at the counter of Jain Dharamshala as
Ex.PW4/E having two mobile numbers written alongwith the
name of Ajit, Dalanwala Thana. PW-4 Satender Jain also
deposed that two mobile telephone numbers were written by
the police personnels in the diary of Dharamshala, which have
been proved by the witness as written in encircled portion
Ex.PW4/F.
53. PW-5 is Bhagwan Singh, also another Chawkidar
in Jain Dharamshala and has deposed as regard the police
personnels visiting Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.2009 and
deposed that he had seen four police personnels going through
the main gate, taking a red colour bag with them.
S C No.01/11 45/139
-46-
54. PW-6 Than Bahadur Kshetria was also working
with Jain Dharamshala. PW-6 deposed that on 03.07.2009, he
was working as guard in Jain Dharamshala and at about 1.30
P.M, he had seen 8 to 10 police personnels going out of
Dharamshala from the gate of Dharamshala to a gypsy.
55. PW-7 is Dr. Raje Singh Bisht, who was staying in
room no.9 of Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.2009. PW-7 deposed
that he returned to Dharamshala between 2.30 to 3.00 P.M on
03.07.2009 and found lock of his room broken and his luggage
including his clothes, scattered in the room. PW-7 Raje Singh
Bisht deposed that on inquiry, he was told by the Dharamshala
staff that some police personnels had come and had broken the
lock of room and thrown away the luggage in room no.9.
PW-7 also deposed that he gave a call at number 100 and had
also given a call to SSP, Dehradun and had talked to his Steno
as SSP had gone to his house for lunch. Thereafter, one SI and
3 constables had come and met PW-7 Dr. Raje Singh Bisht.
56. PW-8 is Praveen Jain, who was the Secretary of
Digambar Jain Panchayat Mandir Awam Jain Bhawan (Jain
Dharamshala) and has deposed that on 03.07.2009 at about
S C No.01/11 46/139
-47-
1.30 noon, he had received a telephonic call from Arun Jain,
Assistant Manager (PW-1) about police personnels reaching
Jain Dharamshala. PW-8 further deposed that after reaching
Dharamshala, he found 7/8 police personnels present and he
inquired from them why the lock of room no.9 had been
broken. PW-8, Praveen Jain also deposed that he had an
argument with the police officials and inquired from them as to
what had happened with the occupier of the room, to which the
police officials replied that they were leaving and whatever the
witness can do, should do. The witness was also cross-
examined on behalf of the prosecution, as he did not support
the case of the prosecution beyond that and also in cross-
examination stated that they had been informed by the local
police, prior to the visit of President of India to Dehradun City,
that some rooms were required in the Dharamshala for security
purpose.
57. Both A-1, Santosh Kumar Jaiswal and A-7 Ct. Ajit
Singh, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 CrPC,
has taken the stand that mobile numbers and his name etc.
were written by A-7, Ajit Singh in the diary of Jain
S C No.01/11 47/139
-48-
Dharamshala, Ex. PW-4/E not on 03.07.09, but A-7 Ct. Ajit
Singh was sent to Jain Dharamshala by A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, 2/3
days prior to 03.07.09 for making reservations in Jain
Dharamshala for staying of police force in Jain Dharamshala
on 03.07.09, which was to reach Dehradun for arrangements
relating to visit of the President of India to Dehradun on
03.07.09. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, had also taken the stand
in his statement that he had also requested Mr. Praveen Kumar
Jain, Secretary of Jain Dharamshala to book 2/3 rooms for stay
of police force in Jain Dharamshala. Praveen Kumar Jain has
been examined as PW-8, and it has been argued on behalf of
accused persons that PW-8 Praveen Kumar Jain in his cross-
examination had stated that police personnels had in fact came
to him for booking of rooms on 03.07.09, when he was sitting
in his chamber in Jain Dharamshala, and he had told them to
write their mobile phone numbers in the diary, for availability
of the rooms on respective dates. Otherwise, witnesses had
deposed that they were not making advance bookings for stay
in the Jain Dharamshala. From the witnesses examined being
the persons working at Jain Dharamshala, and its officials as
S C No.01/11 48/139
-49-
well as PW-7, Dr. Raje Singh Bisht, who had stayed at Jain
Dharamshala on 03.07.09, and lock of whose room was also
broken by the police officials, it is proved conclusively that it
was on 03.07.09 that the police personnels had come to Jain
Dharamshala, and it was on 03.07.09, when the mobile
numbers in the diary of Jain Dharamshala, which are in
encircled portion Ex. PW-4/F in the diary Ex. PW-4/E, were
written by A-7 Ajit Singh, and not on any other day, and it is a
make believe story of A-7 Ajit Singh, visiting Jain
Dharamshala, 2/3 days earlier to 03.07.2009, at the instructions
of A-1, S.K. Jaiswal.
58. Further, as per the transcript of the voice file
B0000220090703130557, Ex. PW-23/B, it was a call made
from City Control Room by Smt. Ganga Yadav to Police
Station, Dalanwala by A-18 Manoj Kumar, and it was
informed by A-18 Manoj Kumar that he had noted the
information and Inspector( A-1 S.K. Jaiswal), Incharge,
Aaraghar Post as well as Cheetah-VI, are reaching the place of
incident( Mohini Road near Gurudwara).
59. A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, in his statement recorded under
S C No.01/11 49/139
-50-
Section 313 CrPC has also taken the stand that on 03.07.09 at
about 12.55 P.M, he was near Welham Boys School on Laxmi
Road in Dehradun City, when he received the information
from City Control Room, and he rushed to Mohini Road near
Gurudwara. A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, further took the stand that
neither he nor the driver (A-15, Mohan Singh Rana)were
familiar with the colonies road, for reaching Gurudwara on
Mohini Road from Laxmi Road and when they ultimately
reached crossing of Mohini and Laxmi Road, they found 4 or 5
persons standing there. A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, further stated that he
had conveyed the information received by him to CO Ajay
Singh telling him that he was rushing to the place of incident.
In short, A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, has stated that by the time, he
reached the place of incident, the Badmash were told to had
run away from the place of incident and A-2 G.D. Bhatt, had
been taken on motorcycle, by someone.
60. There is one entry in the log book of City Control
Room recorded at 13.15 PM being Q-4 in Ex. PW-16/B, which
is in the handwriting of A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, who was
posted as Head Operator( Constable) in City Control Room on
S C No.01/11 50/139
-51-
03.07.09. The entry had been proved by PW-16 Mahesh Arya
of City Control Room, also posted as Head Operator. Another
witness is PW-22 HC Narender Kumar, who was posted at
City Control Room Wireless Section, as Radio Transmitter on
03.07.09. The writing at Q-4 on back page of Ex. PW-16/B
was examined by PW-110 R.S. Rana, Scientist at CFSL Unit,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, and he had proved his report Ex.
PW-110/B to the effect that the portion Q-4 at back page of Ex.
PW-16/B, had been inserted later on. The entry being in the
handwriting of A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain, is not disputed by
him, but it is stated that entry was made on 03.07.09 at 1.15
P.M., as per the information received, regarding checking of
motorcycle no. HR 06G 9093, as directed by SP City. Even
without opinion of an expert, the entry at 1.15 P.M. at Q-4 on
the back of Ex. PW-16/B, being the log book of City Control
Room, Dehradun dated 03.07.09, it is clear with naked eye,
that entry has been made later on and the entry has been made
for a purpose. It makes no difference, if other entries recorded
at 1.20 PM on 03.07.09, and subsequent to that also speaks for
continuation of the checking to apprehend the miscreant, since
S C No.01/11 51/139
-52-
the information recorded at 1.20 PM, is the one having been
received from T-5(A-1 S.K. Jaiswal), and he had informed
City Control Room that checking is to continue, as per the
direction of SP City(Panther). If the information received from
SP City has already been recorded in the log book of City
Control Room at 1.15 PM, there was no question of further
information through T-5(A-1 S.K. Jaiswal) that checking shall
continue, which was to continue even otherwise, if the
information recorded at 1.15 PM, being Q-4, on the reverse
page of Ex. PW-16/B was correct and had been received from
S.P City.
61. The entry recorded in General Diary of Police
Station Dalanwala dated 03.07.09 vide entry number 29 at
13.20 hours ( cuttings and overwriting) Ex.PW64/E-4, it is
stated that the person brought by Cheetah-VI, was Ct.
Karunesh, was having a service revolver, and on this, SHO
immediately gave the intimation to City Control room as well
as to senior officers, and then, SP City gave the directions to
continue the checking. Directions from SP City to that effect
are already recorded at 1.15 PM being Q-4( Ex. PW-16/B) in
S C No.01/11 52/139
-53-
the log book of City Control Room, and another entry at 1.20
PM of the information being received from SHO, P.S.
Dalanwala, A-1 S.K. Jaiswal. Thus, the entry being Q-4 in Ex.
PW-16/B, being the log book of City Control Room dated
03.07.09, is a manipulated entry and circumstances points to
nothing else. Also, as per entry Ex. PW-64/E-4 being the entry
in General Diary of P.S. Dalanwala dated 03.07.09, Ct.
Karunesh was having a service revolver whereas in fact as
deposed by PW-68 Rajender Singh Negi, he was issued only a
rifle, and no effort was made to ascertain whether the revolver
in case, Ct. Karunesh was carrying, was the service revolver,
had been issued to him, particularly, when it is the case of the
local police as well as the defence of the accused persons that
he was apprehended, as a suspect of the incident of Mohini
Road and was taken to police station, Dalanwala by officials
on duty at Cheetah-VI, being the motorcycle riders.
62. DW-16, Ct.Paras Mani, examined on behalf of
A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18 has proved that the
entry Ex.DW16/B was recorded by him, as per the information
given to him by SO, Nehru Colony, Rajesh Bisht, and it was
S C No.01/11 53/139
-54-
argued that so, the entry at 1.15 P.M at Q-4 in Ex.PW16/B
cannot be said to be fake one. The information was recorded
as per the information given by A-3 Rajesh Bisht, and no
inference as regard the correctness of the same can be drawn.
63. From the above circumstances, as discussed in
detail earlier, the only conclusion which can be reached is that
there were only two persons, being deceased Ranbir Singh and
his accomplice and cousin Ram Kumar, who were involved in
the scuffle with A-2 G.D. Bhatt on 03.07.09 at about 12.55
PM, and it was deceased Ranbir Singh, who had been brought
to P.S. Dalanwala and not Ct. Karunesh, which is a story
inserted to cover up the situation and resultant conspiracy to
kill him, instead of arresting him in case Crime no. 143/09,
P.S. Dalanwala, relating to the robbery of the service pistol of
A-2, G.D. Bhatt. The circumstances also point to only
situation that it was on 03.07.09, when some officials including
A-7 Ajit Singh had gone to Jain Dharamshala around 1.30
PM, and they had taken away a bag, being of black colour or
black/red colour, after breaking open the lock of Flat no.9 of
Jain Dharamshala where deceased Ranbir Singh was staying
S C No.01/11 54/139
-55-
alongwith his associates.
64. Postmortem in the matter was conducted by a
panel of two doctors, being PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola and PW-92
Dr. Anil Arya. PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola has proved the
postmortem report Ex.PW92/A, which was also proved by
PW-92 Dr. Anil Arya, and as per the external examination of
the body of deceased, following injuries were noticed-
External injuries-
1. lacerated wound size 2 X 1.5 cms on left side of chin.
2. Abrasion size 4 cm X 1.5 cm on front of chest.
3. Abrasion size 2 cm X 1 cm on right shoulder 10 cm below
acromion.
4. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on right side of chest 9 cm
below supra sternal notch margins inverted, blackening
present.
5. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left side of chest 10 cm
above sub costal margins inverted, blackening present.
6. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 4 cm
below injury no.5 margins inverted, blackening present.
7. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 4 cm
S C No.01/11 55/139
-56-
below injury no.6 margins inverted, blackening present.
8. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 7 cm
above left nipple margins inverted, blackening present.
9. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left arm medially 10 cm
below shoulder margins inverted, blackening present.
10. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm in upper part of left arm 4
cm lateral to injury no.9 margins inverted, blackening present.
11. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of abdomen in
lumber area 5 cm above iliac crest margins inverted,
blackening present.
12. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on thigh upper part left
side just medial border of iliac crest inverted margins,
blackening present.
13. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on left thigh mid part
medially margins inverted, blackening present.
14. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on mid of left thigh
medially margins inverted, blackening present.
15. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm in left thigh 2 cm lateral to
injury no.14 margins inverted, blackening present.
16. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left thigh 3 cm above
S C No.01/11 56/139
-57-
knee joint inverted margins, blackening present.
17. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm 4 cm lateral to injury no.
16 margins inverted, blackening present.
18. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left forearm 9 cm
above wrist joint.
19. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on right side of abdomen
in lumber area 9 cm above iliac crest.
20. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back of left knee joint
in popliteal fossa margins inverted, blackening present.
21. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on back of lower part of
left thigh margins inverted, blackening present.
22. Abrasion size 3 cm X 2 cm on back of upper part of left leg.
23. Abrasion size 2 cm X 1 cm on left side of wrist at the base of
left thumb.
24. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on left side of chest
margins everted.
25. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on back at lumber area 14
cm above margin of sacrum margins everted.
26. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back of lower part 1 cm
below injury no.25 everted margins.
S C No.01/11 57/139
-58-
27. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back 3 cm below injury
no.26 margins everted.
28. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on right arm margins
everted.
65. Further, it was observed that rigor mortis passed
in upper parts of the body and were present on the lower parts
of the body. The date of death of the deceased was found to be
within 24 hours i.e. during the period intervening 1.00 P.M on
03.07.2009 and 1.00 P.M on 04.07.2009. PW-86 Dr. Ajit
Gairola also deposed that two metallic bullets were recovered,
one from abdominal cavity which was lodged in vertebra and
second one from left thigh. Further, PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola
deposed that on internal examination of the body of the
deceased, it was noticed that-
Internal examination:-
The head, neck, skull, membranes, brain and skull base were
normal.
In the examination of chest, plura was torn and cavity was full
of blood.
Right lung was normal but laceration was present in left lung at
S C No.01/11 58/139
-59-
the lower lobe of the size of 3 cm X 2 cm and 3 cm deep.
Heart was normal and peritoneum was torn at places.
Abdominal cavity was full of blood. The stomach was filled
with some semi solid digested food about 500 ml.
There was rupture of right lobe of liver size 10 cm X 6 cm and
left side 2 cm X 2 cm.
There was a laceration on left kidney size 2 cm X 2 cm. Right
kidney was normal.
The cause of death has been given by the doctors as shock and
hemorrhage, caused by the injuries to the vital organs as a result of
fire arms.
66. It has been argued on behalf of accused persons
that postmortem on the body was suggesting that encounter
was genuine and is based on the deposition of PW-86 to the
effect that kind of injury no.13 is possible only in a situation
when the subject is moving and the injury of joint, no.9 would
be caused only when the arm is stretched. Defence is drawing
the conclusion that manner of receiving injury no.9 and 13
clearly suggest that deceased Ranbir Singh was moving and
was having his arms stretched forward for firing at the police
S C No.01/11 59/139
-60-
team. No one has deposed as regard the manner in which the
injuries were received by the deceased and once, it is proved
from the uncontroverted circumstances that deceased Ranbir
Singh had been apprehended by the police from Mohini Road,
no inference can be drawn from the kind of injuries, being
injury no.9 and 13, received by the deceased. Further, defence
has relied upon deposition of PW-81 Bimla Gunjial, Addl.SP
of CB-CID, Dehradun by whom the investigation was
conducted initially that in site plan Ex.PW81/L, Point-1 was
written, after she had made the observation to the effect that
there were marks of bullets on a teak tree and defense has
argued that such mark on tree is possible, only in cross fire.
No such inference can be drawn, in the circumstances of the
case. It was also argued on behalf of accused persons, that it
was only a Class-IV employee who had conducted the
postmortem instead of doctors and it is only because PW-86 in
his cross examination stated that it was the attendant, who told
him that track of projectile could not be found or that incision
was given by the Class-IV employee, but it has been deposed
by PW-92, that same was being done as per the directions of
S C No.01/11 60/139
-61-
the doctors. It was also argued on behalf of the accused
persons that there had been a random numbering of the injuries
done by the doctors, which might have resulted in counting of
an injury again and again, thus showing large number of
injuries on the body of deceased. It was also argued that there
were about 8 injuries mentioned in the sketch Ex.PW38/A
prepared on the spot after PW-38 D.M. Unial, the Tehsildar
and Magistrate, reached there, whereas 28 injuries were
shown in the postmortem report Ex.PW92/A. Certain other
discrepancies have been pointed out as regard the number of
holes in the clothes which were not matching the injuries on
the body of the deceased. It was also argued, as admitted by
PW-86 in cross examination, that body tissues and skin
surrounding the wound was not taken, the residue surrounding
the injury was not preserved for chemical examination and that
the blackening which was residue deposit, could not be seen by
naked eye and instead is sent to lab after scrapping the same,
which was not done. On behalf of defense, it was also argued
that PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola also admitted in his cross
examination that a medical expert is a competent person to find
S C No.01/11 61/139
-62-
the track and not a ballistic expert and that only a medical
doctor can tell the impact or influx of foreign substance like
gun shots, splinters, any other projectile and also stated in
cross examination that he cannot tell if the bullet recovered,
were from rifled one or of smooth bore. It was also argued on
behalf of defense that PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola stated that he
was not aware if black powder was used for smooth barrel
weapon and in rifled weapon, smokeless powder was used, and
was also not in a position to comment on a suggestion that in
case of close range, carboxyhaemoglobin in the soft tissues in
and around the wound of entrance is suggestive and was also
not able to tell if any carboxyhemoglobin in the soft tissue was
found. It was also argued that it was a false report prepared by
the doctors without examining the body and there was also
lack of competence and skill in the doctors performing the
postmortem. It was also argued that despite directions by
PW-38 Dinesh Mohan Unial, the Tehsildar, who had reached
the spot, vide memo Ex.PW38/A, no video recording at the
time of postmortem was done. As per Ex.PW38/A, PW-38
D.M.Unial had only sought the permission from the doctors
S C No.01/11 62/139
-63-
conducting the postmortem, to allow videography, while the
postmortem was conducted by the doctors. No arrangements
were made by the administration or the local police to get the
postmortem videographed and same is clear from the
deposition of PW-77 Ct. Gopal Gyansu. PW-77 Ct. Gopal
Gyansu had gone to Chander Nagar mortuary for maintaining
law and order as postmortem of deceased Ranbir Singh was
being conducted there and he was asked by CO, Sh. Girish
Chand Tamta, as deposed by him, to perform the job of video
recording. PW-77 deposed that he was able to record the
postmortem a little bit, and he was forced to leave the place as
the persons who had gathered there, had entered the
postmortem room. As per the injuries noticed by PW-38
D.M.Unial, recorded vide sketch Ex.PW38/D, there were two
injuries on the left chest and five injuries on left leg apart from
some abrasions on right arm. It was argued on behalf of
accused persons that despite glaring discrepancies in the
number of injuries, as per sketch Ex.PW38/D, where 8 injuries
were mentioned and postmortem report Ex.PW92/A where 28
injuries were noticed by the doctors, neither IO was contacted
S C No.01/11 63/139
-64-
nor crime scene was visited by the doctors, conducting the
postmortem. Merely because the panch witnesses being
PW-33 Dinesh Kaemwal, PW-34 Akash Kumar Bhaskar,
PW-35 Vipin Dabaral, PW-36 Kapil Vohra, PW-37 Rajesh
Kumar apart from PW-38 Dinesh Mohan Unial, have deposed
as to the correctness of Panchnama Ex.PW33/A written by
PW-73, SI Kushal Pal Singh on the dictation of PW-38
D.M.Unial, there is no reason to question the postmortem
report Ex.PW92/A, as same had to be considered in the light of
charged situation, on 03.07.2009. PW-38 has deposed that he
had reached the place of incident in Ladpur forest after
receiving a call from his ADM at about 4.00 P.M. on 03.07.09 .
Press Reporter and villagers were there. There was a crowd.
It was a forest area. There is nothing on the record to suggest
that someone, after the Panchnama had been prepared and the
body sealed as per the instructions of PW-38 D.M.Unial, had
caused additional injuries on the body of the deceased and
there is no reason for that. CBI was no where in the picture by
then and even investigation was not entrusted to CB-CID. It
was with PS Raipur, till the time postmortem was conducted
S C No.01/11 64/139
-65-
on 04.07.2009.
67. Even otherwise, postmortem is relevant only to
the extent, that a large number of injuries and the nature of
injuries shows that it was a case of indiscriminate firing on the
deceased resulting in large number of injuries. It is not in
dispute that deceased Rajbir Singh died and was killed because
of being shot, repeatedly. It was only a piece of corroborative
evidence and by itself, cannot be conclusive proof whether or
not, it was a genuine encounter.
68. It was argued on behalf of accused persons that no
TIP was conducted in the matter to identify the police officials
who had gone at Mohini road spot near Gurudwara, Dehradun
to prove the fact that a boy was brought by them from there
and also to identify the police personnels who had gone to Jain
Dharamshala. Not holding of the TIP in the case cannot be held
to be fatal to the case of prosecution, as identity of the accused
persons, is established from other facts and evidence on record.
69. Prosecution has also relied upon the Call Details
Records relating to the mobile numbers of the accused persons,
which showed their locations at different times on 03.07.09.
S C No.01/11 65/139
-66-
PW-18 Ranjeet Kumar has proved the chart Ex. PW-18/A, in
regard to the location of four spot namely Mohini Road spot,
PS Dalanwala spot, Jain Dharamshala spot and Ladpur
encounter spot, which was downloaded by him from Google
earth. The witness has testified that each place as per the chart,
is covered by major signals of which tower of BSNL, deposing
that tower is divided into three sectors, which are either named
as 1,2 and 3 or A B and C. PW-21 Dinesh Kumar Sahay of
BSNL, Indira Nagar, Dehradun, has deposed as regard the Call
Details Records of 17 mobile numbers, which were certified by
SDE Neeraj Gautam, and had been handed over to CBI vide
covering letter dated 27.09.09, signed by SDE Neeraj Gautam.
Witness has proved the forwarding letter Ex. PW-21/A. SDE
Neeraj Gautam, himself was also examined on behalf of the
prosecution as PW-119. Another witness examined is PW-85
Rajeev Singh, Chief Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, Lucknow,
U.P, who has testified as regard the attested hard copies of
several mobile numbers and Consumer Application Form,
which were sent to CBI vide letter dated 17.12.2009 Ex.
PW-85/A, and has proved the same as Ex. PW-85/B-1 to Ex.
S C No.01/11 66/139
-67-
PW-85/B-121. It was argued on behalf of the accused persons
that PW-119, Neeraj Gautam, Jr. SDE at BSNL at the relevant
time, has deposed that server was in Chandigarh, and he had
the access to the Tracia system in his official capacity,
admitting that it was possible that certain informations were
not there in the Call Details Records. It is argued that PW-119,
was not exclusive custodian of the data and others were also
having access to the said data, and so, the authenticity of CDR
Ex. PW-21/B-1 to Ex. PW-21/B-30, was doubtful. It was also
argued on behalf of the accused persons that there was no
Certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act,
and reliance in this case was placed on a case decided by
Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Rakesh Kumar & Ors.
Vs. State 1V(2009) DLT (CRL) 353 DB, wherein it was held
by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the Call Details Records
could not have been proved by any of the modes prescribed
under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. It was further held by
Hon'ble High Court that admittedly, no Certificate in terms of
Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act has been issued in the
present case. It was also held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
S C No.01/11 67/139
-68-
the said case that irrespective of the compliance of
requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, there was no
bar to adduce secondary evidence under the provisions of
Evidence Act, namely Sections 63 and 65. In the present
proceedings also, the call records have not been proved in
terms of Section 63 or Section 65B (2) or Section 65B(4) of
the Evidence Act, and as such, it is held that prosecution has
not been able to prove the call records. Section 65B (2) of the
Evidence Act provides the conditions for making a document
being paper print out of electronic records stored in an optical
or magnetic media produced by a computer and reads as under:
“(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section(1) in
respect of a computer output shall be the following
namely:-
(a) The computer output containing the
information was produced by the computer during the
period over which the computer was used regularly to store
or process information for the purposes of any activities
regularly carried on over that period by the person having
lawful control over the used of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the
kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from
which the information so contained is derived was regularly
fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said
activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period,
the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in
S C No.01/11 68/139
-69-
respect of any period in which it was not operating properly
or was out of operation during that part of the period, was
not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of
its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic
record reproduces or is derived from such information fed
into the computer in the ordinary course of the said
activities”.
Sub-section (5) of Section 65B provides that
informations shall be taken to be supplied to a computer by
means of an appropriate equipment, in the course of normal
activities intending to store or process it in the course of
activities and a computer output is produced, be it whether
directly or by means of appropriate equipment. It was also held
by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar's case(supra)
that Sub-section (4) of Section 65B provides for an alternative
method to prove electronic record. Sub-section (4) allows the
proof of the conditions set out in Sub-section (2) by means of a
certificate, issued by the person described in Sub-section (4)
and certifying contents in the manner set out in the Sub-
section. It was further held that the sub-section makes
admissible an electronic record when certified that the contents
of a computer print out are generated by a computer satisfying
S C No.01/11 69/139
-70-
the conditions of Sub-section (1), the certificate being signed
by the person described therein.
70. Similar is the position as regard the Global
Positioning System evidence recording which has been
produced on behalf of the prosecution on the basis of location
of the vehicles used by the accused persons on 03.07.09. First
witness is PW-17 Ashwani Raturi, who was posted at City
Control Room, Dehradun, and was an employee of HCL.
PW-17 Ashwani Raturi has deposed that he was maintaining
the Global Positioning System installed in police vehicles and
Voice Logger System installed in the City Control Room. The
witness has proved the seizure memo dated 02.08.09 through
which the documents were seized by CBI. Vehicle history of
vehicle T-5(A-1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S.Dalanwala), has been
proved by the witness as Ex. PW-17/B, identifying signature of
one witness Mr. Martulaya. Similarly, vehicle history of
vehicle T-6( relating to P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun) on
03.07.09, identifying signature of Mr. Martulaya, has been
proved as Ex. PW-17/D. Similarly, vehicle history in respect of
vehicle T-5 has been proved by the witness(running into 124
S C No.01/11 70/139
-71-
sheets) Ex. PW-17/F and Ex. PW-17/G, and that in respect of
vehicle T-6 as Ex. PW-17/E, running into 6 sheets. Call details
of all telephone operators on 03.07.09 from 12.00 noon to 6.00
PM, has also been proved by the witness as Ex. PW-17/H,
bearing signature of Mr. Martulaya, identified by PW-17, and
other call details as having been signed by Yashpal Singh
Rawat, has been proved as Ex. PW-17/G. In cross-
examination, PW-17 Ashwani Raturi admitted that Ex.
PW-17/G collectively were not generated by him. Ex.
PW-17/G(running into 124 pages) and Ex. PW-17/C, were not
having any certificate as required under Section 65-B of
Evidence Act. PW-17 Ashwani Raturi, also in cross-
examination stated that he was not aware of how the printout
of Ex. PW-17/B, Ex. PW-17/C, Ex. PW-17/G and Ex.
PW-17/E, were taken as same were taken out by the company
person, deposing only to the extent that the same were taken in
his presence. The evidence as regard the Global Positioning
System being Ex. PW-17/B, Ex. PW-17/C, Ex. PW-17/G or
Ex. PW-17/E, is thus not admissible in evidence and
prosecution has failed to prove the same, as per the
S C No.01/11 71/139
-72-
requirement of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
71. It has been argued on behalf of the accused
persons that the case property, being weapons seized by CBI,
were tampered with by prosecution with the sole motive to
implicate the accused persons falsely in the present case, and
that was for the reason that case property seized vide memo
Ex. PW-62/A, were not sealed by the CBI in the presence of
the witnesses, in order to facilitate further tampering and
manipulation to suit the case of the prosecution. Ex. PW-62/A
has been proved by PW-62 Khilanand Tiwari, who was, on
01.08.09 working in BSNL at Cross Road, Dehradun, and was
called to CBI office, for handing over of documents/articles to
Akhil Kaushik, Inspector of Police, CBI, Dehradun by Insp.
I.D. Joshi of CB-CID, Dehradun.
72. Another witness is PW-68 Rajender Singh Negi,
who was the Head Armour at Police Line, Dehradun, who had
deposed as regards the issuance of a rifle .303 alongwith 60
cartridges to Ct 91 Karunesh by the Ct. Armour Anurag, vide
entry Ex. PW-68/A dated 04.11.2008. PW-68 also deposed as
regard the Fard dated 11.07.09 and deposed that a pistol given
S C No.01/11 72/139
-73-
to SOG, SI Nitin Chauhan(A-5) on 30.07.07 was deposited by
him in Armory, Police Line, Dehradun on 09.07.09, which was
received by Insp. I.D. Joshi of CB-CID vide memo Ex.
PW-68/E, and then handed over back to Head Armour
Dharmanand Pokharyal, under superdari.
73. PW-98 Akhil Kaushik has also testified as regards
the seizure memo Ex. PW-62/A, relating to seizure of exhibits
including weapons from Insp. I.D. Joshi of CB-CID, and he
has deposed that the articles mentioned in Ex. PW-62/A were
in unsealed condition. Accused persons have also relied upon
the deposition of PW-113 Insp. Chakradhar Anthwal, who had
deposed that on 08.07.09, Smt. Bimla Gunjiyal, Addl. SP, CB-
CID, had come to Police Line, Dehradun, and had brought
arms and ammunitions, seized in the case, which were first
sealed and put in a steel trunk, and then the trunk was placed
in double lock room vide memo Ex. PW-68/D. PW-113 in his
cross-examination admitted that box was once taken in their
possession by CB-CID, led by Smt. Bimla Gunjiyal on
31.07.09, was returned back on the same evening, and
deposited in double lock room on 31.07.09, and on 01.08.09, it
S C No.01/11 73/139
-74-
was again taken back by Insp. I.D. Joshi from police line from
the double lock room. It was argued on behalf of the accused
persons that PW-113 has admitted in his cross-examination
that the documents as well as the case property in total, had
been received from CB-CID by CBI team on 31.07.09.
74. The admitted case is that deceased Ranbir Singh
was killed in firing and the dispute is only as regards the
circumstances in which he was killed, and it was the accused
persons, who had used the service weapons, having been
issued to them, and so, there is no issue as regard the
tampering of the weapons, as, what is to be determined by the
examination of the forensic experts, is only for the purpose of
corroboration to show and prove the circumstances of killing
of deceased Ranbir Singh. It is not that the weapon could be
changed by any manipulation, as all weapons are having serial
number and the record, as regards the accused persons, to
whom those had been issued.
75. PW-64 Gopal Singh Negi has deposed that on
03.07.09 at 9.00/9.15 AM, he had given one revolver and 12
cartridges to A-1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S. Dalanwala, also
S C No.01/11 74/139
-75-
gave one AK-47 and 30 cartridges to A-12, Ct. Nagender
Rathi. Again, on 03.07.09 at 1.30 PM, one revolver and 12
cartridges were given to A-4, SI Neeraj Kumar. Again, on
same day at 2.15 PM, he gave one pistol and 12 cartridges to
A-2 SI G.D. Bhatt. PW-64, Gopal Singh Negi, who was posted
as Incharge, Malkhana on 03.07.09 also deposed that A-10, SI
Chander Pal Singh, had already been given one pistol and 12
cartridges. PW-64 again deposed that on 03.07.09 itself, at
8.00 PM, A-4 SI Neeraj Kumar and A-9 Ct. Sunil Saini, came
to PS and A-4 SI Neeraj Kumar told him that in the incident,
he had used 2 cartridges for firing and 10 cartridges and
revolver was returned by him. PW-64 Gopal Singh Negi also
deposed that A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-10 Chander Pal and A-8
Ct. Satbir also came to him. A-2 G.D. Bhatt and A-10
Chander Pal told that they had used 6 cartridges each in the
encounter, telling that empty cartridges had been deposited in
P.S. Raipur, and they told that they were having their pistols
and 6 cartridges each, with them. PW-64 Gopal Singh Negi
also deposed that thereafter Insp. S.K. Jaiswal(A-1) came to
P.S. Dalanwala at about 2.30/3.00 A.M( during night) on
S C No.01/11 75/139
-76-
04.07.09, told that he had used 2 cartridges in the encounter,
empty cartridges deposited in P.S. Raipur. A-1, S.K. Jaiswal
handed over to PW-64 Gopal Singh Negi, one revolver and 10
cartridges. PW-64 also deposed that A-12 Ct. Nagender Rathi
and A-7 Ajit Singh had also come to PS alongwith A-1, S.K.
Jaiswal, A-12 Nagender Rathi telling that he had used 2
cartridges in the encounter, empty cartridges deposited in PS
Raipur and A-12 Nagender Rathi had handed over one AK-47
and 21 cartridges, for keeping the same in Malkhana. The
weapons were seized on 08.07.09 from P.S. Dalanwala by
PW-81 Bimla Gunjiyal, vide memo Ex. PW-81/J.
76. It has been argued on behalf of accused persons
that report by the forensic experts is not reliable as articles
which were sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, were moving in
CFSL, CBI, articles having been with two Divisions at the
same time. PW-82, Dr. B.K.Mahapatra has deposed that on
12.08.2009, he had received 46 sealed parcels and one
unsealed parcel in the case and one sealed parcel was received
by him on 28.08.2009 from SP, CBI, SPE, Dehradun and seals
on the parcels were found to be intact, when he tallied with the
S C No.01/11 76/139
-77-
specimen seals provided by the forwarding authority. Related
exhibits were examined by PW-82 B.K.Mahapatra in Biology
Division and submitted his report dated 21.10.2009
Ex.PW82/A (colly.). PW-82 deposed that after receiving the
parcels, he had given the marking as S1 to S-30, S-30a and
S-30b and X-1 to X-11 and parcels 42 to 48, 48a and 48b. The
parcels were sent to the concerned Divisions of CFSL for their
examination, some in sealed condition as received and some
after the examination required to be done in Biology Division.
PW-82 B.K.Mahapatra has deposed that samples were sent to
different Divisions on different dates.
Parcels related to Physics Division were sent on 09.09.2009
(29 parcels).
Parcels related to Ballistic Division were sent on 06.10.2009
(26 parcels)
Parcels related to Fingerprint Division were sent on 20.08.2009
(4 in number)
One parcel was sent to Computer Forensic Division on
20.08.2009.
Mobile phone which was received unsealed and which was
S C No.01/11 77/139
-78-
forwarded in the same condition.
The witness further deposed that report from Serology
Division was received on 15.10.09.
Report from Fingerprint Division was received on 15.09.2009.
Report from Physics Division was received on 14.10.2009 and
report from Ballistic Division was received on 20.10.2009.
77. S.No. S-13(a) to (e) were clothes of the deceased
and as per the deposition of PW-82, Dr. B.K.Mahapatra, had
been sent to Ballistic Division on 06.10.2009 and were
received back on 20.10.2009. Examination was conducted by
PW-79, A.R.Arora, who gave his report Ex.PW79/C after
examination of the same. Again, articles S-13(a) to (e)
(clothes of the deceased) were received in the Physics Division
on 11.09.2009 vide letter dated 07.09.2009 and were returned
by the Physics Division on 19.10.2009. Articles were
examined by PW-90, Rajinder Singh in the Physics Division,
who has proved his report as Ex.PW90/B. Thus, articles
S-13(a) to (e) (clothes of the deceased), as per the deposition of
PW-79, A.R.Arora and PW-90, Rajinder Singh, were both with
S C No.01/11 78/139
-79-
the Ballistic Division as well as Physics Division from
06.10.2009 to 19.10.2009. It was serious discrepancy in the
case of the prosecution, which prosecution has not been able to
explain.
Apart from this, in his report Ex.PW79/C, PW-79 A.R.Arora
has opined that firing was from a close range. Further, PW-79
had given a clarification vide Ex.PW79/X-2 to the effect that
the maximum distance from which the firing was done, was 3
ft. PW-79 has not testified as regard any test conducted by him
to give his opinion that firing was made from a distance of
maximum 3 ft. Reliance in this regard has been placed on
behalf of accused persons on a case decided by Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court titled as Gopal Singh Gorkha Vs
State of UP 1991 Crl.L.J 1235, wherein it was held by
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that any opinion of the Ballistic
Expert without any reason to arrive at any conclusion, cannot
be relied upon. It was further held by Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court that an expert should give up his habit of producing his
bald opinion and the expert should, if he expects his opinion to
be accepted by the Court, should put before the Court, all the
S C No.01/11 79/139
-80-
materials which induced him to come to his conclusion and
thus, bald opinions are of no use to the Court. Since, the
opinion given by PW-79, A.R.Arora was without disclosing
the basis or the reasons for the same, and the fact that articles,
which were being examined simultaneously in the Ballistic
Division as well as in the Physics Division, reliance cannot be
placed on the report Ex.PW79/C as regards the opinion of
PW-79 that fire was from a close range and also as regards the
other issue relating to the bullets having been fired from a
particular weapon, which were received by the Ballistic
Division for examination. Report Ex.PW79/C as such, cannot
be relied upon. As per the report of PW-82 B.K.Mahapatra,
Ex.PW82/A, blood was detected on exhibits S-1 (sky blue
colour cap), S-9 (loose and lumps of earth described as 'soil
sample with blood'), S-3(3 hairs-1,2 and 3 were found to be of
human in origin), then DNA profile generated as regards the
identity of the deceased and same is not disputed. There was
no serious issue with the report of PW-82, B.K.Mahapatra
Ex.PW82/A.
78. PW-80, Suresh Kumar Singla, Sr. Scientific
S C No.01/11 80/139
-81-
Officer, Grade-I, Serology Division, CFSL, New Delhi, has
deposed that in the year 2009, he had received 21 exhibits on
07.09.2009 from Biology Division for serological examination
and after examination, he gave his report Ex.PW80/A and the
details of the report were forwarded by PW-82, Dr.
B.K.Mahapatra, alongwith his report Ex.PW82/A.
79. PW-91 is A.D.Shah, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-
I, Fingerprint Expert, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, who had proved
his report Ex.PW91/A to the effect that no fingerprint could be
developed from the lock, 9MM pistol as well as country made
pistol, which were received by him on 21.10.2009 in the
Fingerprint Division of CFSL through Biology Division vide
letter dated 11.08.2009 alongwith 3 chance prints lifted. The
articles were those claimed to have been recovered from
deceased Ranbir Singh. There is no issue as regard the report
of the expert, except as regard the exhibits having been
received in sealed or unsealed condition.
80. PW-90 is Dr. Rajinder Singh, Principal Scientific
Officer and deposed that in year 2009, he was working as head
of Physics Division in office of CFSL, New Delhi and on
S C No.01/11 81/139
-82-
11.09.2009, had received 29 parcels from Biology Division of
CFSL, out of which 7 were sealed with the seal of forwarding
authority i.e. SP, CBI, Dehradun, one parcel was sealed with
the seal of Fingerprint Division of CFSL and rest of the parcels
were sealed with the seal of Biology Division of CFSL. After
examination of the articles received, the witness had given his
report Ex.PW90/A. The report Ex.PW90/B is not of much
significance to the present case, and it was only to the
examination of the soil samples marked S-9, S-10 and S-25,
S-26, S-27 and S-28 to the effect that they were similar to each
other in respect of colour, density gradient, distribution of
particles, ingredient material and other physical characteristics
and were brown coloured soil samples as per S-9 and S-10 and
again brown coloured soil samples as per S-25, S-26, S-27 and
S-28, which were the samples of soil, taken from the spot in
Ladpur forest.
81. PW-111, M.Bhaskar, Sr. Scientific Officer,
Grade-II, CFSL, has done the examination as regards the
passing of vehicle through Sahastradhara Crossing Chowk on
03.07.2009 and has proved his report Ex.PW111/A. PW-111,
S C No.01/11 82/139
-83-
M.Bhaskar deposed that on 25.08.2009, he had received
exhibits from SP, CBI, Dehradun at CFSL, Chandigarh and he
recommended to return the case alongwith 6 sealed parcels, as
the blank hard disk had not been submitted. Again, the witness
deposed that he alongwith letter dated 28.08.2009, received 6
sealed exhibits alongwith 3 blank hard disks from SP, CBI,
Dehradun, which were received at CFSL, Chandigarh on
31.08.2009. The case was assigned to the witness and he
started his examination on 02.03.2010 after opening the
exhibits. The exhibits were found to contain 4 hard disks and 2
CDs and the witness examined the same with 'Encase Version
6 of M/s Guidance Software INC, USA'. The witness prepared
the image of the exhibits, resealed the original exhibits and did
the examination with the imaged hard disk and had worked on
the image of hard disk given number as H-4 by him. The
witness deposed that image of H-1, H-2 and H-3 were not
accessible to the forensic computer and had given his report to
the effect that he had identified a vehicle resembling with the
photograph of UA-07K-5163 which passed Sahastradhara
Crossing on 03.07.2009 at 2.17.11.031 P.M and the witness
S C No.01/11 83/139
-84-
identified another vehicle No.UA-08B-9981 passing through
Sahastradhara Crossing at 2.26.45.015 P.M. These were the
vehicles belonging to T-5 and T-6 being SHO, P.S Dalanwala
and SO, PS Nehru Colony. The witness has deposed that he
had received 9 photographs, 4 photographs of vehicle
No.UA-08B-9981 and 5 photographs of vehicle
No.UA-07K-5163. The report given by PW-111, M.Bhaskar
was not proved in the manner required to be proved U/S 65-B
of Evidence Act and no certificate U/S 65-B of Evidence Act
was given by the witness. Hence, this report also cannot be
taken into consideration, as the same has not been proved
according to law.
82. The sanction to prosecute the accused persons has
been proved by PW-104 Anup Wadhawan, who was working
as Principal Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand on
31.03.2010, and was also having the charge of Ministry of
Home Affiaris, Government of Uttarakhand. Sanction has
been proved as Ex.PW104/A and it has been deposed by
PW-104 Anup Wadhawan that after the approval by the Chief
Minister of Uttarakhand, he had issued the sanction order for
S C No.01/11 84/139
-85-
prosecution of all the accused persons. PW-104 has deposed
that request for granting sanction for prosecution was received
from CBI, which was processed by the witness and it is
deposed that after discussions with the Law Department of
Government of Uttarakhand and after examination of all the
documents and attending circumstances, he had forwarded the
case for grant of sanction for prosecution of accused persons to
the competent authority, being the Chief Minister of
Uttarakhand in the case.
83. The submissions on behalf of defence as discussed
hereinbefore, were in relation to A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16,
A-17 and A-18.
84. The remaining accused being A-10, A-11, A-13,
A-14 and A-15 have taken an altogether different stand.
85. As regard the existence of criminal conspiracy,
same has been defined under Section 120-A I.P.C, which reads
as under:
“120A.Definition of criminal conspiracy.- When two or
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such
an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
S C No.01/11 85/139
-86-
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless
some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties
to such agreement in pursuance thereof”.
86. It has been argued by Sh. R.M. Tufail, Ld.
Counsel appearing for A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18
that to establish the existence of criminal conspiracy, it is
necessary that there is an agreement between the parties to do
an unlawful act and reliance in this regard has been placed on a
case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Vijay Rajan
Vs. State of Kerala in Crl. Appeal no. 1059, decided on
16.02.99, a copy of which has been placed on record. On
behalf of A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18, reliance is
also placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled
as Satbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1993 SCR (1)1072, as
regards the circumstantial evidence required to draw the
conclusion of the guilt on the basis of the circumstances which
need to be fully established and should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and should be such as to
exclude every other hypothesis, but the one sought to be
proved. Reliance on the point has also been placed on other
S C No.01/11 86/139
-87-
cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Mushir
Khan Vs. State of M.P 2010 (2) SCC 748 and Sanjeev
Kumar Vs. State of H.P 1999(1) SCR.
87. In the present case, there is a complete chain of
circumstances and the circumstances are fully established to
the effect that it was deceased Ranbir Singh, who was
apprehended by the police personnels from Mohini Road near
Gurudwara on 03.07.09, sometime around 1.00 PM, and was
brought to the police station Dalanwala as held hereinbefore. It
has also been established from the situation that story of Ct.
Karunesh having been introduced by the officials of Cheetah-
VI by A-8 Ct. Satbir and Ct. Jitender Joshi, was introduced
only in order to avoid arresting deceased Ranbir Singh in case
Crime No. 143/09 under Section 394 etc., P.S. Dalanwala. For
that, false entry in the General Diary of P.S. Dalanwala, was
made at 1.10 PM, Ex. PW-64/E-3 and again at 1.20 PM Ex.
PW-64/E-4 by A-18 Manoj Kumar, who was working as GD
Writer at P.S. Dalanwala on 03.07.09. Entry Ex. PW-64/E-3 is
that a person matching the description of miscreant had been
brought to P.S. and entry Ex. PW-64/E-4 is to the effect that
S C No.01/11 87/139
-88-
the person brought was found to be Ct. Karunesh. This was
despite the fact that information was given by T-5 (A-1 S.K.
Jaiswal) to the City Control Room at 1.12 PM on 03.07.09 that
the said boy, who was in scuffle with A-2 SI G.D. Bhatt on
03.07.09 had been brought to police station having 'Tamancha'.
It would have been quite recognizable by the police officials,
the difference between a Tamancha and a service revolver. All
this had been done pursuant to the conspiracy, wherein
deceased Ranbir Singh was not to be shown as arrested in case
Crime No. 143/09, P.S. Dalanwala and the conspiracy to
abduct him, knowing that he is likely to be killed and to kill
him, was clear. Thus, the conspiracy to abduct deceased
Ranbir Singh knowing that he may be killed and to kill him in
fact, was clear and it is the only hypothesis which could be
established, from the circumstances and none other.
88. Ex. PW-36/A is the Recovery Memo relating to a
pistol, one countrymade tamancha, one bag containing clothes
etc, one motorcycle, which were recovered from the spot in
Ladpur forest on 03.07.09, and was prepared by PW-73 SI
Kushal Pal on the dictation of PW-38 D.M. Unial, Magistrate-
S C No.01/11 88/139
-89-
cum-Tehsildar, and it bears the signature of A-1, S.K. Jaiswal,
A-2 G.D. Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5
Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat, A-7 Ajit
Singh, A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal,
A-11 Saurabh Nautial, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas
Chander Baluni and A-14 Sanjay Rawat, which has been
signed by A-1 to A-14 as witnesses. Similarly, Ex. PW-38/G,
which is a Memo as regards the recovery of empty cartridges
bears signatures of A-1 to A-14, as witnesses, and so, the
Memo for control earth as well as blood stained earth, vide
Memo Ex. PW-38/H. Except for A-10 Chander Pal Singh,
A-11 Saurabh Nautial, A-13 Vikas Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat,
others have not disputed their signatures on the Memos Ex.
PW-36/A, Ex. PW-38/G and Ex. PW-38/H. That they are party
to the conspiracy, can be inferred and only point towards that
A-13 Vikas Baluni has examined himself in his defence under
Section 315 CrPC, and has taken the stand that on 03.07.09, he
was not with A-3 Rajesh Bisht, who was then working as SO,
PS Nehru Colony, claiming that he was detailed for a VVIP
duty at GTC Helipad, Dehradun, because of the visit of the
S C No.01/11 89/139
-90-
President of India to Dehradun City on that day, and has placed
reliance on the call details records, particularly those of his
being in conversation with A-3 Rajesh Bisht and has tried to
prove that as per the Call Details Records, he was at a place
different from A-3 Rajesh Bisht on that day till the time of
encounter. A-13 Vikas Baluni has claimed that he was called to
Pullia no.6 by A-3 Rajesh Bisht on 03.07.09 at around 2.00
PM, when he was present at his house, who had asked him to
also intimate A-14 Sanjay Rawat to come along, and from
there, he was told by A-16 Inderbhan Singh, being a driver on
the vehicle of A-3 Rajesh Bisht, to come to the area of Ladpur
forest, Dehradun, where they found a person lying on the
ground. A-13 Vikas Baluni has claimed that he was forced by
A-3 Rajesh Bisht and other senior officers, present on the spot,
to sign the documents. In a way, he is claiming that he was not
present at the time of alleged encounter. This was also the
stand taken by A-13 Vikas Baluni in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC. However, in his deposition under Section
315 CrPC, he had gone a step ahead and claimed that when the
matter was entrusted to CBI for investigation, a news item was
S C No.01/11 90/139
-91-
published in newspapers including Indian Express to the effect
that some constables of PS Nehru Colony, Dehradun, were
willing to be Approver in the matter. A-13 Vikas Baluni
claimed that he received a call from A-3 Rajesh Bisht
sometime in August 2009, who asked him to see CO Ajay
Singh. When A-13 Vikas Baluni went to CO Dalanwala, Ajay
Singh, at his house, he asked him to accompany him to SSP,
inquiring what was being published in newspapers. A-13 Vikas
Baluni has claimed that he had gone to house of CO Dalanwala
Ajay Singh, alongwith A-14 Sanjay Rawat, and both of them
were taken to the Police HQ, where the then SSP Amit Sinha,
showed them the copy of Indian Express Newspaper, inquiring
how the item had been published. A-13 Vikas Baluni claimed
that SSP Amit Sinha assured him and A-14 Sanjay Rawat that
it was a case of genuine encounter and they need not worry.
A-13 also examined DW-30 Rajiv Aggarwal, a Sr. Executive
with Indian Express, New Delhi, who had proved the copy of
newspaper 'Indian Express Newsline' dated 10.08.09, wherein
one news item under the title 'four accused cops turn approvers
in Dehradun fake encounter case', was published on page no.2,
S C No.01/11 91/139
-92-
and same was proved as Ex. DW-30/A. The entire reading of
the news item in totality, gives the impression that four cops,
who were involved in the said encounter, were willing to turn
Approvers.
89. It was argued by Sh. Anupam Sharma, Counsel
for A-13 that A-13 Vikas Baluni was not in any position to
prove the correctness or otherwise of the news item and the
same has been proved by him, only to show that there were
persons, who were not involved in the incident and they had
conveyed this fact to the CBI officers, investigating the case,
and the information might have been published at the instance
of CBI. When a witness is examined on behalf of accused or
any party, not only the document which is proved, but it is also
proved that the person bringing the kind of evidence believes
and is proving the contents of the document also. When, A-13
Vikas Baluni is proving the news item published in Indian
Express Newsline dated 10.08.09, being Ex. DW-30/A through
DW-30 Rajiv Aggarwal, it implies that CBI was considering to
get him and others, as approvers on the condition that they
shall be disclosing the true and full facts. In fact, the news
S C No.01/11 92/139
-93-
item states “ fours constables were part of the encounter. They
had witnessed the whole incident. With their turning witnesses,
the case would move in a positive direction”, which was
attributed to a source information, given by a CBI official.
Another witness examined on behalf of A-13 Vikas Baluni is
DW-1 Anil Bisht, who had deposed as regard A-13 staying at
his house in the morning hours on 03.07.09, bringing
household articles required by her mother. Another witness
examined on behalf of A-13 as well as A-14 Sanjay Rawat, is
DW-9 SI Satyanand Badoni, who was called for proving the
directions given at the time of visit of Dehradun/Masoorie by
the President of India from 03.07.09 to 05.07.09, but only the
photocopy was produced. In his defence A-13, Vikas Baluni
has also examined his mother DW-13 Smt. Sumitra Baluni,
who has also testified that A-13, Vikas Baluni was on rest in
the morning hours of 03.07.09 and had gone for duty at around
2.15/2.30 PM. Another witness examined on behalf of A-13
Vikas Baluni is DW-14 Sh. M.L. Sharma, Divisional Engineer,
BSNL, Patel Nagar Telephone Exchange, who has proved the
fact that mobile phone no. 9412323055, was issued in the name
S C No.01/11 93/139
-94-
of Vikas Chander S/o Ramesh Chander. Similarly, DW-24 M.
L. Sharma, Divisional Engineer, BSNL,Patel Nagar Telephone
Exchange, has been examined by A-13 in his defence, who has
proved the chart relating to towers location in the City of
Dehradun and proved the same as Ex. DW-24/A. DW-26
Navneet Singh is SP City, Dehradun, who was also summoned
on behalf of A-13 Vikas Baluni and A-14 Sanjay Rawat, to
prove the fact that both of them were detailed for VVIP duties
from 03.07.09 to 05.07.09, same could not be proved, as
original document was not available.
90. Call Detail Records by themselves proves nothing
as same could not be proved, even on behalf of the
prosecution, as opined earlier. It was argued on behalf of A-13
Vikas Baluni that these are the documents placed on record on
behalf of the prosecution, and so, can be relied upon by the
accused persons. Even, A-13 Vikas Baluni while deposing
under Section 315 CrPC as well as in his statement recorded
u/S 313 CrPC claimed that after he and A-14 Sanjay Rawat
had reached Ladpur forest, both of them were sent to Kanak
Chowk, Dehradun, to bring eatables from a restaurant '
S C No.01/11 94/139
-95-
Countdown'. Deposition of A-13 Vikas Baluni as well as of
other witnesses, mostly interested one, being a friend or the
mother cannot be relied upon to hold that A-13 Vikas Baluni
was not there alongwith A-3 Rajesh Bisht on 03.07.09 on the
basis of conversation on mobile phone since, he himself is
claiming that he was once sent to Kanak Chowk for bringing
eatables. He himself is also proving the fact that some of the
police officials, were willing to be approver in the case. It is
also unreasonable to believe that they were sent to Kanak
Chowk for bringing meals and other eatables, as it is not
disputed that many people had gathered there, media was in
attendance, there were several senior police officers present, a
person is lying dead and then, someone would like to bring
eatables on the spot. It is not that, it was late night, the timing
for sending A-13 and A-14 to bring eatables, if at all true,
must be around 5.00 PM, not a meal time. The story put up by
A-13 Vikas Baluni, is something, which a reasonable person
would not believe in the circumstances.
91. Similar is the case as regard A-14 Sanjay Rawat,
who on his behalf has examined one witness DW-2 Kuldeep
S C No.01/11 95/139
-96-
Rawat in addition to the common witnesses examined for him
and A-13 Vikas Baluni. A-14 Sanjay Rawat is claiming that on
03.07.09, he was living in a rented accommodation in H. No.
225, Nehru Colony in the house of one H.S. Bisht, and had
come to reside there in April/ May 2009. A-14 Sanjay Rawat
used to visit DW-2's house to get cold water as he was not
having fridge in his house and deposed that A-14 had come to
his house on 03.07.09 to get cold water around 11.30/12.00
noon. DW-2 deposed that he had gone to house of A-14
Sanjay Rawat in the evening around 9.30/10.00 PM, to make
inquiries for a driving licence, and on being questioned, it was
told by A-14 Sanjay Rawat that he was not involved in the
encounter, and had reached the place of encounter only later
on. Another witness examined on behalf of A-14 Sanjay
Rawat, is DW-5 Ms. Preeti Rawat, his wife, who had also
deposed that on 03.07.09, her husband A-14 Sanjay Rawat had
left the place at about 2.15/2.30 PM telling her that his SO
Rajesh Bisht(A-3) had called him through Vikas Baluni(A-13)
to Pullia no.6. DW-5 also deposed that he was told by her
husband A-14 Sanjay Rawat that he was forced to sign the
S C No.01/11 96/139
-97-
documents under pressure by senior officers despite the fact
that he had reached the place of incident later on, after being
called by SO Rajesh Bisht(A-3). Not much reliance can be
placed on the deposition of DW-2 and DW-5, examined by
A-14 Sanjay Rawat in his defence because apart from being
the interested witnesses, it has not been the case of A-14
Sanjay Rawat or A-13 Vikas Baluni, till their statements under
Section 313 CrPC were recorded that they had in any way been
forced to sign the documents.
92. A-10 Chadner Pal and A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal,
have taken the stand that they were present in the SOG office
throughout the day on 03.07.09, had not accompanied A-5
Nitin Chauhan, Incharge, SOG, Dehradun, and were forced to
sign the documents Ex. PW-36/A, Ex. PW-38/G and Ex.
PW-38/H at P.S. Raipur by the senior officers.
93. On behalf of A-10 Chander Pal, one witness
DW-3 Ram Krishan a relative of A-10, was examined, who
had deposed that on 03.07.09, he had taken his cousin Deepa
Kashyap to Dehradun for treatment by Dr. Shashendra Saxena
of Rahat Clinic, Dehradun, as the doctor was known to A-10,
S C No.01/11 97/139
-98-
Chander Pal. His cousin Deepa Kashyap was suffering from
some neuro problem. The witness has deposed that A-10
Chander Pal had reached at Subhash Road, Dehradun where
Rahat Clinic was situated, at 12.00 noon, when they reached
there. From Subhash Road, they had accompanied Chander Pal
to Rahat Clinic. However, Chander Pal had to leave as the
doctor was late in reaching Rahat Clinic. Another witness is
DW-4 Mangat Ram, also a relative, who has also deposed that
he had taken the treatment for some neuro problem from Dr.
Shashendra Saxena of Rahat Clinic, Dehradun, and had
recommended the cousin of DW-3, to be taken to Dr.
Sashendra Saxena for treatment. Another witness examined on
behalf of A-10 Chander Pal is DW-10 Prashant Sharma, who
was an Assistant of Dr. Shashendra Saxena, and has deposed
that Chander Pal had come to their clinic on 03.07.09 for
treatment of Ms. Deepa Kashyap around noon. Another
witness examined on behalf of A-10 Chander Pal is DW-15
Pawan Kashyap, who is a brother of Ms. Deepa Kashyap, who
was taken to Rahat Clinic of Dr. Shashendra Saxena on
03.07.09, and has also deposed that A-10 Chander Pal had
S C No.01/11 98/139
-99-
accompanied them to the clinic. DW-18 is Dr. Alka Ahuja,
who had proved the report Ex. DW-18/A in regard to the MRI
of Ms. Deepa Kashyap on 03.07.09 at their lab. DW-20 is Dr.
Shashendra Saxena, himself, who has testified that he had
given the prescription to Ms. Deepa on 03.07.09, after he was
told by his Assistant that Chander pal had reached. No fees
was charged by the doctor and there was no document as
regard the treatment of Ms. Deepa Kashyap from Rahat Clinic
on 03.07.09. The witness examined on behalf of A-10
Chander Pal, proves nothing as A-10 Chander Pal, was not
there in the clinic when DW-20 Dr. Shashendra Saxena had
examined her. No document as regard the treatment or any
prescription given by DW-20 Dr. Shashendra Saxena on
03.07.09 has been produced. It cannot be held on that basis that
he was not there with A-5 Nitin Chauhan, the incident relates
to around 1.00 PM, at Mohini Road and around 3.00/3.30 PM
in Ladpur forest, Dehradun.
94. A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, had examined himself in
his defence under Section 315 CrPC as DW-27. A-11, Saurabh
Nautiyal has also relied upon the Call Detail Records placed on
S C No.01/11 99/139
-100-
record on behalf of the prosecution to prove his conversation
with SI Nitin Chauhan(A-5) being In-charge of SOG group on
03.07.09. A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, has claimed that on
03.07.09, he had reached SOG office around 10.00 AM, was
present in the office throughout the day, and left SOG office
around 8.00/8.30 PM. A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, has also claimed
that it was around 9.00 PM, he got a missed call from A-5
Nitin Chauhan on his mobile, and when he called back, he had
asked him to reach PS Raipur, telling that he had to sign the
seizure memo as certain articles had been recovered in an
encounter in the area of Ladpur forest, and when he told that it
was late night and he was not present at the place, he was told
by SI Nitin Chauhan( A-5) that those were the directions of the
senior officers and he had to sign the documents, and on
04.07.09, he had gone to PS Raipur to sign the documents,
which were with Munshi Ct. of P.S. Raipur. A-11 Saurabh
Nautiyal, has claimed that after the chargesheet was filed and
he was arrayed as an accused, he had gone to SSP, Dehradun
that his name was included falsely, and SSP had assured him
that no harm shall visit him, since it was a genuine encounter.
S C No.01/11 100/139
-101-
In his defence, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, has examined DW-6
Mrs. Neha Nautiyal, his wife, who has deposed that on
03.07.09, she had gone to SOG office in the lunch time around
2.00/2.30 PM, and both, her husband and A-10 Chander Pal
were present in the SOG office. She also deposed that it was
after persistent questioning that her husband Saurabh
Nautiyal(A-11) after his return to house disclosed that he was
being pressurized by his seniors to sign the documents relating
to a police encounter, wherein a person had been killed and he
was not there at the time of said encounter. DW-17 is Radhey
Shyam Shukla, examined on behalf of A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal
as well as A-10 Chander Pal, and has only proved as the
mobile phone numbers issued to them, and has proved the
Customer Application Form Ex. DW-17/A, regarding mobile
phone of A-10 Chander Pal, and another Customer Application
Form Ex. DW-17/C, regarding mobile phone of A-11 Saurabh
Nautiyal. No conclusion can be drawn from the deposition of
DW-6 Mrs. Neha Nautiyal, as she being an interested witness,
wife of A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, and is only deposing that at a
particular time, she had visited SOG office, when he (A-11)
S C No.01/11 101/139
-102-
and A-10 Chander Pal were present. The witness examined in
their defence and evidence adduced is not sufficient to
conclude that they were not there at the time of alleged
encounter, which was stated to be around 3.00 P.M. It was not
a genuine encounter, and so, their being a party to the
conspiracy, is clearly discernible from the circumstances.
95. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, was a driver on the
vehicle of A-1 S.K. Jaiswal on 03.07.09 being no.
UA-08B-9981 TATA SUMO, but he has taken the stand that
he was driving the vehicle on 03.07.09, as per the directions of
SHO, P.S. Dalanwala, and had taken the vehicle to Mohini
Road, Near Gurudawara, when a message was received from
City Control Room that two boys were fighting with a
policeman there. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana also claimed that he
was not familiar with the internal roads of the colonies and by
the time, they reached at Mohini Road, they saw a crowd. A-1
S.K. Jaiswal asked him to stop the vehicle, who got down and
returned after sometime telling that senior officers were calling
him. He returned to PS alongwith A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, and found
senior officers reaching PS, and there was a crowd. After the
S C No.01/11 102/139
-103-
senior officers had left, he was asked by A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, to
bring the vehicle which he brought to the gate of SHO, and
then A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, SI Bhuvan Chand
Joshi, SI Arjun Singh Parmar and A-9 Sunil Saini, sat in the
vehicle, taken to places as per the directions of SHO being A-1
S.K. Jaiswal, and ultimately they reached Kashmira Petrol
Pump. SI Bhuvan Chand Joashi and SI Arjun Singh Parmar,
were dropped on way. In short, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, is
claiming that he had not seen anything. He was asked to stop
the vehicle near Kacha path in Ladpur forest, where he
continued sitting in the vehicle. After a while, he heard the
sound of firing in jungle and senior police officers were
passing by that road. The defence being taken by A-15 is too
good to be believed, he being the official driving the vehicle
carrying other accused persons, and claiming ignorance
'whether it was a case of encounter or killing'.
96. A-16 Inderbhan Singh, has not disputed the fact
that he was driving the vehicle of A-3 Rajesh Bisht, SO, PS
Nehru Colony, being no. UA-07A-3846, and had claimed that
A-13 Vikas Baluni and A-14 Sanjay Rawat were also with
S C No.01/11 103/139
-104-
him. So, there is enough ground to believe that A-16 Inder
Bhan Singh was also a party to the conspiracy, to abduct and to
kill deceased Ranbir Singh ultimately.
97. As per seizure memo Ex.PW79/A, after the place
of incident in Ladpur forest in Dehradun was inspected by CBI
team on 02.08.2009, 11 fired bullets were recovered by CFSL
team after digging the upper layer of soil about 7” -8” in depth.
It has been deposed by PW-79, Dr. A.R.Arora, who was a
member of the CBI CFSL team and had accompanied the CBI
team to Ladpur forest on 02.08.2009 that A-1, S.K.Jaiswal,
A-2 G.D.Bhatt and other members of FSL team were
instructed to leave the place, after the spot was identified. It is
difficult to understand why they were asked to leave, as it
would have led more credence to the case of CBI as regards
the recovery of fired bullets after digging the place in case the
members of FSL team and A-1 and A-2 were allowed to
remain present there. There is also an issue raised on behalf of
defense as regards the preparation of the seizure memo
Ex.PW79/A itself, as there is no evidence on record to prove
that the computer or the printer for preparing Ex.PW79/A was
S C No.01/11 104/139
-105-
with CBI team at the spot in Ladpur forest and there is also
issue as regard the signing of memo by S.K.Pandey, Sub
Inspector CBI, SPE, Dehradun, as the name of all other
witnesses are computer typed, but his name has been added
later on by writing the same by hand. Circumstances had made
the recovery of fired bullets from the soil and digging etc.
doubtful, and it is not clearly established by whom the digging
was done and from where the instruments for digging were
brought.
98. There is no issue as regards the identification of
the deceased, as the blood samples were taken by PW-109, Dr.
Anupama Raina, Department of Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi and same were sent to Biology
Division, CFSL on 28.08.2009. The DNA profile were
generated by PW-82, B.K.Mahapatra and the identity of the
deceased, being the son of complainant and his wife, has been
proved by him vide his report Ex.PW82/A.
99. Issue was also raised on behalf of defence that the
form prescribed by National Human Rights Commission was
not used for conducting the postmortem of the deceased, which
S C No.01/11 105/139
-106-
as per the guidelines of National Human Rights Commission,
needed to be followed in the cases of custodial death. The
present proceedings are not related to any custodial death, as
deceased Ranbir Singh was never shown to be in the custody
of the police officials, and he was not shown to have been
arrested in case Crime No.143/09 of P.S Dalanwala. Even
otherwise, merely because the postmortem report has not been
prepared, as per the guidelines of National Human Rights
Commission, that in any way, does not dispute the correctness
or genuineness of the postmortem report Ex.PW92/A.
100. It was also argued on behalf of A-1 to A-9, A-12,
A-16, A-17 and A-18 by Sh. R.M.Tufail, Advocate that three
crucial witnesses in the case have not been examined on behalf
of prosecution. First is SP City (Panther) in whose name the
entry at Pt. Q-4 in Ex.PW16/B was inserted later on, as per the
case of the prosecution and it is argued that SP City would
have been the right person to explain whether or not such
information was given by him to the City Control Room,
which was recorded by A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain. It is
difficult to say at this stage, whether the deposition by SP City,
S C No.01/11 106/139
-107-
Dehradun, would have made the case of prosecution in any
way strong or weak, unless the same was supported by some
record, where the information, which are given by SP City to
City Control Room, are recorded. Otherwise, it was just the
statement of one witness and the case would remain as it is
now, even after the deposition by SP City, Dehradun in one
way or another. Similarly, it is argued that Ct. Karunesh was
also not examined on behalf of prosecution and he was the
person, who would have made the things clear, whether or not
he was apprehended on 03.07.2009 from Mohini Road near
Gurudwara, Dehradun by Cheeta-6 officials, being A-8, Satbir
Singh and Ct. Jitender Joshi. Similarly, it is also argued that
Ct. Jitender Joshi has also not been examined on behalf of
prosecution. Be that, as it may, it was open for the accused
persons also, to summon and examine SP City, Dehradun, Ct.
Karunesh as well as Ct. Jitender Joshi in their defense, in case
they were of the opinion, that their deposition was in any way
beneficial for them, to prove their defense.
101. Sh. R.M.Tufail, Advocate has also argued that the
accused persons had acted in self defence and it is clear from
S C No.01/11 107/139
-108-
the fact that deceased Ranbir Singh had snatched the service
pistol of a police official on duty, it was a case of sudden
provocation, when the police team, which was chasing Ranbir
Singh in Ladpur forest, had warned him to stop, he by sudden
firing, provoked the police party to fire at him in self defence,
as same is mentioned in the log book of City Control Room at
2.50 P.M, vide memo Ex.DW16/B. Since, it has already been
concluded that it was not a case of genuine encounter,
deceased Ranbir Singh already in custody of the police
officials and the custody being illegal, as he was not shown to
have been arrested in case Crime No.143/09 P.S Dalanwala,
there is no question of firing by police officials in self defence.
102. The allegations proved against A-17, Jaspal Singh
Gosain are that he made a false entry at 1.15 P.M on
03.07.2009 in the log book of City Control Room being Q-4 in
Ex.PW16/B and the entry was inserted later on. So, there is no
evidence of A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, being a party to the
conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh and it is
only proved to the extent that the questionable entry was made
by A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, only to protect the other
S C No.01/11 108/139
-109-
accused persons involved in the case from legal punishment
and it was a false entry made by him as a public servant.
Accordingly, A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain cannot be held liable
for an offence punishable Under Section 120-B r/w Section
364/302/201/218 IPC, for which he has been charged
alongwith other accused persons in the case.
103. Secondly, A-1 to A-7 have been charged for
offence punishable Under Section 302 I.P.C and they have
been charged with the allegations of killing deceased Ranbir
Singh in a fake encounter by firing 29 bullets from a close
range in furtherance of the conspiracy to kill him. Though, the
allegations of conspiracy are proved against all the accused
except A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, but others have not been
charged for offence punishable Under Section 302 I.P.C, the
substantive offence for which A-1 to A-7 have been charged.
In a similar way only A-1 to A-7 have been charged for
substantive offence punishable Under Section 364 I.P.C of
abduction in the circumstances that deceased Ranbir Singh,
who was abducted may be killed, which was in furtherance of
criminal conspiracy. Charge for substantive offence
S C No.01/11 109/139
-110-
punishable under Section 364 I.P.C has not been framed
against A-8 to A-18.
104. Section 364 I.P.C reads as under:-
364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder-
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that
such person may be murdered or may be so disposed
of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The allegations proved are that deceased Ranbir
Singh was apprehended by police officials of P.S Dalanwala
from Mohini Road near Gurudwara, was taken to P.S, but he
was not shown to have been arrested in case Crime No.143/09,
P.S Dalanwala, U/S 394 I.P.C etc., which was registered in
regard to the incident involving A-2, G.D.Bhatt wherein his
service pistol was robbed and he was disposed of to be put in
danger of being murdered and so, ingredients of the offence
punishable Under Section 364 I.P.C r/w Section 120 I.P.C are
made out against accused A-1 to A-7.
105. As per the deposition of PW-64, Gopal Singh
Negi, PW-49 Ct. Parmod Singh and PW-53, SI Mahipal Singh
Rawat, 30 number of bullets were used in the alleged
S C No.01/11 110/139
-111-
encounter by A-1 to A-7. Murder has been defined in Section
300 I.P.C which reads as under:-
300. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death
is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or-
Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that is is
so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
Thus, from the circumstances it is clear that death
of deceased Ranbir Singh, was caused with the intention of
causing his death by the indiscriminate filing by A-1 to A-7
and the offence of murder is made out against A-1 to A-7 as
defined under section 300 firstly I.P.C. The cause of death as
opined by doctors, as per report Ex. PW-92/A, was shock and
hemorrhage caused by the injuries to the vital organs as a
result of fire arms.
S C No.01/11 111/139
-112-
106. Then, A-1 to A-14 have been charged for offences
punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C and
302 I.P.C. Section 201 I.P.C reads as under:-
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of
offence, or giving false information to screen
offender- Whoever, knowing or having
reason to believe that an offence has been
committed, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear, with
the intention of screening the offender from
legal punishment, or with that intention gives
any information respecting the offence which
he knows or believes to be false;
So, what is punishable is that a person knowing or
having reason to believe that an offence has been
committed, cause evidence of commission of that
offence disappear. The facts, as per the charge Under
Section 201 I.P.C r/w section 364 I.P.C and 302 I.P.C
against A-1 to A-14 is that in furtherance of said
conspiracy, knowing that offences of abduction and
murder had been committed, they prepared a false Fard
showing that deceased Ranbir Singh had been killed in
an encounter and same was done by them with the
intention of screening themselves from legal
S C No.01/11 112/139
-113-
punishment. There is no evidence that A-1 to A-14 have
caused any evidence of the commission of the offence
disappear. It is only a case of their defence, which has
been found to be incorrect. They have not caused any
evidence to disappear. The commission of offence
itself, as killing of deceased Ranbir Singh, was duly
reported. No effort was made to dispose of the body or
to remove any other evidence, which could have been
found by investigation. So, ingredients of offence
punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364
I.P.C or Section 302 I.P.C are not made out against any
of the accused being A-1 to A-14.
107. Further, A-1 to A-14 have been charged for
offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C that being public
servant, they framed false Fard in case Crime No.98/09 U/S
307 I.P.C, P.S Raipur, Dehradun knowing the same to be false.
Section 218 I.P.C reads as under:-
218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing
with intent to save person from punishment or property
from forfeiture- Whoever, being a public servant, and
being as such public servant, charged with the preparation
of any record or other writing, frames that record or
S C No.01/11 113/139
-114-
writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with
intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person,
or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely
that he will thereby save, any person from legal
punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is
likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or
other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Thus, the ingredients of offence punishable Under
Section 218 I.P.C are-(i) that person is a public servant, (ii) he
is charged with preparation of any record or writings, (iii) he
frames that record or writings in a manner which he knows to
be incorrect, (iv) he does the same with intent to cause that he
will thereby save any person from legal punishment. Thus,
A-1 to A-14 were not charged for the preparation of any record
or other writings. They had simply given their statement
making a complaint to the police officials of P.S Raipur,
Dehradun, and in the situation, it is the police officials of P.S
Raipur, Dehradun, who were charged for the preparation of
record and other writings, being recording of FIR in the case
and so, offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C, is not
made out against A-1 to A-14.
S C No.01/11 114/139
-115-
107. Then, A-8, Satbir Singh, is charged for offence
punishable Under Section 201 r/w Section 364 and 201 I.P.C
r/w Section 302 I.P.C with the facts that he had brought Ct.
Karunesh and a false GD entry to that effect was made by A-18
Manoj Kumar, who was the GD Munshi at P.S Dalanwala on
03.07.2009 and same has been done by A-8, Satbir Singh to
screen accused persons from legal punishment of abduction
and murder of deceased Ranbir Singh. As discussed earlier, it
is only a case of preparation of false defence and in no way,
can be termed as causing of the disappearance of the evidence
of the offence. Ingredients of offence punishable Under
Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section 364 and Section 201 I.P.C r/w
Section 302 I.P.C are not made out against A-8, Satbir Singh.
108. A-18, Manoj Kumar, is charged for offence
punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. He was working as a GD
Munshi at P.S Dalanwala on 03.07.2009 and at 1.10 P.M, he
made a false entry to the effect that a person was brought to the
P.S by Cheeta-6, Ct. Satbir (A-8) and Ct. Jitender Joshi with
revolver, being the entry Ex.PW64/E-3 and again another
entry at 1.20 P.M Ex.PW64/E-4 to the effect that the person
S C No.01/11 115/139
-116-
brought was Ct. Karunesh, gunner of MLA, having his service
revolver. It has already been held that both the entries,
Ex.PW64/E-3 and Ex.PW64/E-4 were false entries. Same
have been made by A-18, Manoj Kumar acting as a public
servant, entrusted with making entries in GD register and the
entries were written by him with the intent that thereby, he will
save other accused from legal punishment. So, the ingredients
of offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C are made out
against A-18, Manoj Kumar.
109. A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, has been charged for
the offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. The
allegations proved against him are that he made a fake entry in
the City Control Room log book at 1.15 P.M on 03.07.2009 to
the effect that Panther (SP City) has given the information of
three miscreants running towards Nehru Colony on a
motorcycle No. HR-06G-9093 and that checking was to
continue. He was a public servant on 03.07.2009, posted as
Head Operator (Constable) in City Control Room, Dehradun
and was charged for the preparation of the record/writings in
the log book of City Control Room and a false entry was made
S C No.01/11 116/139
-117-
by him with intent to save the accused persons in the case from
legal punishment. Thus, ingredients of offence punishable
Under Section 218 I.P.C are made out against A-17, Jaspal
Singh Gosain.
110. A-15, Mohan Singh Rana, has also been charged
for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. He was a
driver of vehicle No.UA-08B-9981 TATA SUMO, P.S
Dalanwala on 03.07.2009 and was a public servant and was
charged for preparing the record/writings of the log book of
the vehicle and making false entry not showing the actual
places visited by him alongwith A-1 S.K.Jaiswal on
03.07.2009. As has been held earlier, that the prosecution has
not been able to prove the movement of the vehicle through the
admissible evidence relating to the Global Positioning System
Ex. PW-17/B, Ex. PW-17/C, Ex.PW-17/G or Ex. PW-17/E and
the CCTV footage at Sahastradhara crossing vide report Ex.
PW-111/A. So, the ingredients of offence punishable under
Section 218 I.P.C. Is not made out against him.
111. Lastly, A-16, Inderbhan Singh has also been
charged for offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C. He
S C No.01/11 117/139
-118-
was a driver on vehicle No.UA-07A-3846 Gypsy of P.S Nehru
Colony, Dehradun on 03.07.2009 and was charged for
preparing the record/writings of the log book of the vehicle and
the allegations are that he made false entry in the log book of
the vehicle. As already held, the prosecution has not been able
to prove the fact that he had taken the vehicle at the places
other than what was recorded in the log book as the
information as per Ex. PW-17/B, Ex. PW-17/C, Ex. PW-17/G
or Ex. PW-17/E of Global Positioning System and CCTV
footage at Sahastradhara crossing vide report Ex. PW-111/A
could not be proved through legally admissible evidence, so
offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C is not made out
against A-16, Inderbhan Singh.
112. In view of above discussions, it is held that
prosecution has been able to prove the charge for offence
punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C against A-17, Jaspal Singh
Gosain. Prosecution has also been able to prove the charge for
offence punishable Under Section 120-B I.P.C r/w Section 302
I.P.C, 364 I.P.C against A-1 to A-16 and A-18. Prosecution
has also been able to prove the charge for offence punishable
S C No.01/11 118/139
-119-
Under Section 302 I.P.C r/w Section 120B I.P.C as well as
Under Section 364 I.P.C r/w Section 120B I.P.C against A-1 to
A-7. Further, prosecution has been able to prove the charge for
offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C against A-18,
Manoj Kumar.
113. Prosecution has not been able to prove the charge
for offence punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section
364 I.P.C and Section 302 I.P.C as well as for substantive
offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C against A-1 to
A-14. Prosecution has also not been able to prove the charge
for offence punishable Under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Section
364 and 201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C against A-8, Satbir
Singh. Prosecution has also not been able to prove the charge
for the offence punishable Under Section 120-B I.P.C r/w
Section 302 I.P.C, 364 I.P.C, 201 I.P.C and Section 218 I.P.C
against A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain. Prosecution has also not
been able to prove the charge for offence punishable Under
Section 218 I.P.C against A-16, Inderbhan Singh and A-15,
Mohan Singh Rana .
114. Accordingly, A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain is held
S C No.01/11 119/139
-120-
guilty and convicted for offence punishable Under Section 218
I.P.C, but he is acquitted of charge for offence punishable
Under Section 120-B I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C, 302 I.P.C,
201 I.P.C and 218 I.P.C.
115. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal,
A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas
Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana,
A-16 Inderbhan Singh and A-18 Manoj Kumar, are held guilty
and convicted for offence punishable Under Section 120-B
I.P.C r/w Section 364 I.P.C and 302 I.P.C.
116. Further, A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal
Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, are held guilty and convicted for substantive offence
punishable Under Section 302 I.P.C r/w Section 120-B I.P.C
and for substantive offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C
r/w Section 120-B I.P.C.
S C No.01/11 120/139
-121-
117. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal,
A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas
Chander Baluni and A-14 Sanjay Rawat are acquitted of
charge Under Section 201 of I.P.C r/w Sections 302/364 I.P.C
and substantive offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C.
118. A-8, Satbir Singh is acquitted of charge Under
Section 201 r/w Section 364 and Charge under Section 201 r/w
Section 302 I.P.C.
119. A-18, Manoj Kumar is held guilty and convicted
for substantive offence punishable Under Section 218 I.P.C.
120. A-15, Mohan Singh Rana and A-16, Inderbhan
Singh are acquitted of charge for offence punishable Under
Section 218 I.P.C.
Announced- in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 06.06. 2014 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI-03 (PC Act)
DELHI
S C No.01/11 121/139
-122-
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI-03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Sessions Case No.-01/11
RC Number : 6(S)/2009 CBI/SCB/Lucknow
CBI Vs (1) Sh. S.K. Jaiswal,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Bahadur Singh
R/o. Civil Lines, Kutub Khana
Road,Opp. Telephone Exchange,
PS Kotwali, Barreilly.
(2) Sh. Gopal Dutt Bhatt
S/o Sh. Puran Chandra Bhatt
R/o Village Matola, PS Jageshwar,
Tehsil Bhanauti, Distt.: Almora,
Uttrakhand.
(3) Sh. Rajesh Bisht
S/o Sh. Jhoon Singh
R/o House no. 7, Type III,
PS Raipur, Dehradun.
(4) Sh. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o. Type-III, Near PS Raipur,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
(5) Sh. Nitin Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh Chauhan
R/o. H.No. 19, Vivek Vihar,
Pocket-II,GMS Road, Dehradun.
(6) Sh. Chander Mohan Singh Rawat
S/o Late Sh.Shobha Singh Rawat,
S C No.01/11 122/139
-123-
R/o Deepnagar, Near Water Tank,
Ajabnpur, Kalan, Dehradun.
(7) Sh. Ajeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Om Pal Singh
R/o Village Gadarjudda,
Post Manglore, Haridwar.
(8) Sh.Satbir Singh
S/o Shri Rakam Singh
R/o. 5, Cement Road, Kanranpur,
PS Dalanwala, Dehradun.
(9) Sunil Saini
S/o Shri Kadam Singh
R/o Village Kurdi, PS Manglore,
Haridwar.
(10) Chander Pal
S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram
R/o Village Kankhal Barakothi,
Pahari Bazar, Haridwar.
(11) Saurabh Nautiyal
S/o Shri Hiramani Nautiuyal ,
R/o Village Kairada, Post Nagraja
Dhar, Distt. Tehri Garhwal.
(12) Nagendra Rathi
S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh ,
R/o. Village Narsangh Kalan,
PS Manglar, Haridwar.
(13) Vikas Chandra Baluni
S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Baluni,
R/o Village Baluni Banek,
PO Banek, Distt.:Pauri,Garhwal.
S C No.01/11 123/139
-124-
(14) Sanjay Rawat
S/o Shri Sain Singh Rawat ,
R/o. Village Kundali, PS Satbuli,
Ekeshwar Block,Tehri Garhwal.
(15) Mohan Singh Rana
S/o Shri Pratap Singh Rana
R/o. Village Reni , PS Joshimath,
Chamoli.
(16) Inder Bhan Singh
S/o Shri Janmadeo Singh
R/o.Village Saga Rai, PS Darauli,
District Seewan (Bihar).
(17) Jaspal Singh Gosain
S/o Late Shri Manbar Singh Gosain ,
R/o. Village Kamoldi, Post Kwalli,
Tehsil Agast Muni,Rudraprayag.
(18) Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri Tej Pal Singh
R/o. Village & Post Chunsa,
APS Bhorakalan, Mujjafar Nagar.
Under Section: 120-B r/w 364, 302 & 201 IPC and substantive
offences u/s 364, 302 & 201 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Arguments were heard on the quantum of sentence to
convicts A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt,
S C No.01/11 124/139
-125-
A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6
Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit Singh, A-8 Satbir
Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh
Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni,
A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan
Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar.
2. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3
Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6
Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit Singh, A-8 Satbir
Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh
Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni,
A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan
Singh and A-18 Manoj Kumar, have been held guilty and
convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w
Section 302 and Section 364 IPC.
3. Further, A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, have been held guilty and convicted for offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC.
S C No.01/11 125/139
-126-
4. Also, A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, have been held guilty and convicted for offence
punishable under Section 364 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC.
5. A-18 Manoj Kumar, in addition has been held guilty and
convicted for offence punishable under Section 218 IPC.
6. A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain, has been held guilty and
convicted for offence punishable under Section 218 IPC.
7. On behalf of prosecution, submissions were made by Sh.
Brajesh Shukla, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh. A.T. Rao, Ld.
Counsel for the complainant.
8. Sh. R.M. Tufail, Ld. Defence Counsel for A-1 to A-9,
A-12, A-14, A-16 to A-18, made the submissions.
9. Sh. Anupam Sharma, Ld. Counsel for A-10, A-11, A-13,
A-14 and A-15, made the submissions.
10. It has been urged on behalf of the
prosecution/complainant that the case qualifies to be put in the
category of 'Rarest of rare cases' since, life of an innocent
young boy has been terminated by the policemen, who had
S C No.01/11 126/139
-127-
been entrusted with the duty to protect the society and innocent
lives.
11. On behalf of prosecution, reference has been made to a
case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Prakash
Kadam & etc. Vs. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta and
Anr., wherein in para 19 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:
“ 19. This is a very serious case and cannot be treated like
an ordinary case. The accused who are policemen are
supposed to uphold the law, but allegation against them is
that they functioned as contract killers. Their version that
Ramnarayan Gupta was shot in a police encounter has
been found to be false during
investigation...................................”
12. The bail granted to the accused persons in Prakash
Kadam's case (supra) had been cancelled by Hon'ble High
Court and the order was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. On behalf of prosecution, reliance has also been placed
on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as
Mehboob Batcha and others Vs. State (2011) 3 Supreme
Court Cases( Cri) 70, which was a case of custodial death
wherein policemen wrongfully detained the deceased and
beating him death, but charge of murder was not framed. In
S C No.01/11 127/139
-128-
para 12 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:
“ 12. We are surprised that the accused were not charged
under Section 302 IPC and instead the Courts below treated
the death of Nandgopal as suicide. In fact, they should have
charged under that provision and awarded death sentence,
as murder by policemen in police custody is in our opinion
falls in the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving
death sentence...................”.
14. On behalf of accused also, attention has been drawn to
several cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court setting out
the guidelines for awarding death penalty or imprisonment
when the choice is between the two, notably Bachan Singh
Vs. State of Punjab(1980) 2 Suprem Court Cases 684,
Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar and
Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 2
Supreme Court Cases ( Cri) 409. In Rajendra Singh's
case(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to another
case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, being Ram
Naresh's case SCC pages 284-77, wherein in Para 77 Hon'ble
Supreme Court concluded, after referring to Bachan Singh's
case (supra) and Machi Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 SCC
(Cri) 681:
S C No.01/11 128/139
-129-
“77. While determining the questions relatable to
sentencing policy, the Court has to follow certain
principles and those principles are the loadster besides the
above considerations in imposition or otherwise of the
death sentence
Principles
(1) The Court has to apply the test to determine,
it was the 'Rarest of rare' case for imposition of a death
sentence.
(2) In the opinion of the Court, imposition of
any other punishment, i.e., life imprisonment would be
completely inadequate and would not meet the ends to
justice.
(3) Life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception.
(4) The option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be cautiously exercised
having regard to the nature and circumstances of crime
and all relevant circumstances.
(5) The method(planned or otherwise) and the
manner( Extent of Brutality and inhumanity etc), in
which the crime was committed and the circumstances
leading to commission of such heinous crime.
15. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, and
the case law referred to on behalf of prosecution and the
accused, I am of the opinion that the case does not fall in the
category of rarest of rare cases and it is for the reasons:
(1) The case is based on the circumstantial evidence.
(2) Conviction is based on conspiracy between the
S C No.01/11 129/139
-130-
convicts.
(3) Policemen of P.S Dalanwala, P.S. Nehru Colony
and Special Operation Group, all of Dehradun City, were
involved. A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-13
Vikas Chander Baluni and A-14 Sanjay Rawat, were of P.S.
Nehru Colony, A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-10 Chander Pal and
A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, were of Special Operation Group,
and rest of P.S. Dalanwala, what was the common thread
between the three, has not been revealed.
(4) Do not think they would be a menace to the
society
(5) Many of the convicts particularly the subordinates
staff, i.e., constables, are of young age and were not armed
at the time of incident.
(6) The place of incident in Ladpur forest is within the
jurisdiction of P.S. Raipur, Dehradun. Dehradun is a small
city compared to Metro cities. The President of India, is
visiting the city on 03.07.09. The city is on high alert, but
policemen of P.S. Raipur are nowhere.
S C No.01/11 130/139
-131-
16. The convicts are sentenced as under:
(1) A-1 S.K. Jaiswal ,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI
for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
364 r/w Section 120-B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one
month in case of default in payment of fine.
(2) A-2 G.D. Bhatt
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
S C No.01/11 131/139
-132-
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI
for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
364 r/w Section 120-B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one
month in case of default in payment of fine.
(3) A-3 Rajesh Bisht,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI
for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
S C No.01/11 132/139
-133-
364 r/w Section 120-B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one
month in case of default in payment of fine.
(4) A-4 Neeraj Kumar,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI
for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
364 r/w Section 120-B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one
month in case of default in payment of fine.
(5) A-5 Nitin Chauhan
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
S C No.01/11 133/139
-134-
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI
for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
364 r/w Section 120-B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one
month in case of default in payment of fine.
(6) A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI
for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
S C No.01/11 134/139
-135-
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
364 r/w Section 120-B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one
month in case of default in payment of fine.
(7) A-7 Ajit Singh,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine
of Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. He shall undergo SI
for 3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Further, he is sentenced to RI for 4 years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
364 r/w Section 120-B IPC. He shall undergo SI for one
month in case of default in payment of fine.
(8) A-8 Satbir Singh,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
S C No.01/11 135/139
-136-
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(9) A-9 Sunil Saini,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(10) A-10 Chander Pal, is sentenced to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 302 and
364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of
default in payment of fine.
(11) A-11 Saurabh Nautial is sentenced to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 302 and
364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of
default in payment of fine.
S C No.01/11 136/139
-137-
(12) A-12 Nagender Rathi, is sentenced to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 302 and
364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of
default in payment of fine.
(13) A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, is sentenced to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 302 and
364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of
default in payment of fine.
(14) A-14 Sanjay Rawat, is sentenced to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 302 and
364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of
default in payment of fine.
S C No.01/11 137/139
-138-
(15) A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, is sentenced to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 302 and
364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of
default in payment of fine.
(16) A-16 Inder Bhan Singh, is sentenced to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 302 and
364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for 3 months in case of
default in payment of fine.
(17) A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain, is sentenced to SI
for two years for offence punishable under Section 218 IPC.
He shall have the benefit of provisions of Section 428
CrPC.
(18) A-18 Manoj Kumar,
(i) is sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 120-B
S C No.01/11 138/139
-139-
IPC r/w Sections 302 and 364 IPC. He shall undergo SI for
3 months in case of default in payment of fine.
(ii) Further, he is sentenced to SI for two years for
offence punishable under Section 218 IPC. He shall have
the benefit of provisions of Section 428 CrPC.
17. The entire amount of the fine recovered shall be
given to the complainant, Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the father of
the deceased, as compensation under Section 357 CrPC. I also
feel that the compensation awarded to the complainant under
Section 357 CrPC, the recovered fine amount shall not be
adequate or required for their rehabilitation, the case is also
referred to Delhi Legal Services Authority under Section
357A(1) CrPC. and recommended for compensation.
18. Copy of Judgment and Order on sentence be given to the
convicts free of cost. Custody warrants be sent to the
Superintendent Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.
Announced- in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 09.06. 2014 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI-03 (PC Act)
DELHI
S C No.01/11 139/139

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful