You are on page 1of 123

State Vs D. S.

Rana and others


1

In the Court of Anubhav Sharma


Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
Police Challan no: 4607/2013
Case Code: 205900086692013
Date of Institution : 5-4-2004
Date of decision: 11-8-2015
STATE
Vs
1.

Dalbir Singh Rana son of Sh. Jagdish Singh, aged about 57 years,
Ex. Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh, R/O 281, Sector
22A, Chandigarh.

2.

Dalbir Singh Sandhu son of Sh. Kashmir Singh, aged about 59


years, Ex. Deputy Superintendent (Designated), R/O r/o house
no.45, Model Jail, Chandigarh.

3.

Paramjit Singh Rana son of Sh. Jaswant Singh, aged about 38


years, Ex. Assistant Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh, r/o
House No.1388-A, Sector 20B, Chandigarh.

4.

Inder Singh son of Sh. Hawa Singh, aged about 47 years, Ex.
Warder, Model Jail, Chandigarh, r/o village Bad Sikari, PS
Kalayat, District Kaithal, Haryana.

5.

Narain Singh Chaura son of Sh. Chanan Singh, aged about 56


years, R/O House No.70, Ward No.3, Mohalla Sahib Singh, Dera
Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

6.

Ms. Baljit Kaur wife of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, aged about 42


years, r/o Village Dera Mian Mir, PS Sirhind, District Fatehgarh
Sahib, Punjab. (Proceedings dropped vide order dated 4-9-2009
on receipt of death report).

7.

Nissan Singh Son of Sh. Baru Ram, aged about 55 years, Ex.
Head Warder, Model Jail, Chandigarh, R/O village Khizrabad,
PS Kurali, District Ropar, Punjab.

8.

Kashmir Singh son of Sh. Balwant Singh, aged about 40 years,


Constable 30th Battalion, CRPF, R/o village Rasalpur, PS Sarai
Amant Khan, District Amritsar, Punjab. (Already discharged vide
order dated 11-4-2005).

9.

Jagir Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, aged about 44 years,

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


2

Constable 30th Battalion CRPF, R/o Village Dalampur, PS Raja


Sansi, District Amritsar, Punjab. (Already discharged vide order
dated 11-4-2005).
10.

Ved Mitter Gill son of Sh. Bhalle Ram, aged about 66 years, Ex.
Deputy Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh, r/o V.
Khizrabad, District Mohali, Punjab.

11.

Subeg Singh son of Sh. Sewa Singh, aged about 45 years, r/o
village Surrol, PS Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab.

12.

Nand Singh son of Sh. Khushal Singh, aged about 38 years, r/o
Village Surrol, PS Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab.

13.

Sher Singh son of Sh. Gurbax Singh, aged about 53 years, r/o
Village Ror, PS Safiddon, District Jind, Haryana.

14.

Abid Mohammad son of Mohammad Tayyad, aged about 38


years, R/O House No.3, Mohalla Hakimabad, Tehsil Liakatpur,
District Rahimyar Khan, Suba Punjab, Pakistan. (Already
convicted vide judgment dated 11-11-2009).

15.

Lakhwinder Singh son of Sh. Didar Singh, aged about 42 years,


r/o village Dera Mir Miran, PS Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib,
Punjab.

16.

Gurnam Singh son of Sh. Gian Singh, aged about 55 years, r/o
village Hajipur, PS Julkan, District Patiala, Punjab.

17.

Gurvinder Singh @ Goldy son of Sh. Jeet Singh, aged about 34


years, r/o Gali No.6, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Handiyaya Road,
Barnala, District Sangur, Punjab. (Already declared proclaimed
offender).

18.

Jagtar Singh Hawara son of Sh. Sher Singh, r/o village Hawara,
PS Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

19.

Jagtar Singh Tara son of Sh. Sadhu Singh, r/o House No.226/3,
Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, Permanent resident of village Dekwala,
PS Sadar, Ropar, Punjab. (Already declared proclaimed
offender now proceedings separated).

20.

Paramjit Singh Bheora son of Sh. Jagjit Singh, R/O House No.B50, Vishwakarma Park, Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi, Permanent
Resident of Village Bheora, PS Sadar, Ropar, Punjab.

21.

Devi Singh son of Sh. Madan Singh, r/o village Samaiya, PS


Chameli, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand. (Already declared
proclaimed offender)

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


3

22.

Gurdeep Singh @ Rana son of Sh. Babu Singh, r/o village


Alampur, PS Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

23.

Harmohinder Pal Singh son of late Sh. Gurcharan Singh, aged


about 56 years, r/o House No.1722, Sector 34, Chandigarh.
FIR No. 17 dated 22-1-2004
U/S 121, 121A, 123,217,221, 223,224,452, 457 IPC
r/w section section 120B IPC
Police Station: Sector 34, Chandigarh

Present: Sh. J.P.Singh, APP for the State.


Accused Gurvinder Singh @ Goldy, Devi Singh already
declared proclaimed offenders.
Accused Narain Singh Chaura in custody with counsel Sh. Balbir
Singh Saini.
Accused Abid Mahmood already convicted.
Accused Baljit Kaur died.
Accused Paramjit Singh Bheora and Jagtar Singh Hawara in
custody in some other case (They are already released from
custody in this case).
Accused Subeg Singh, Sher Singh and Nand Singh on bail in this
case but in custody in some other case with counsel Sh. Amar
Singh Chahal.
Sh. Amar Singh Chahal counsel for accused Gurdeep Singh
(presence exempted).
Accused Gurnam Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and H.P. Singh on
bail with counsel Sh. Amar Singh Chahal.
Accused D.S. Sandhu and Paramjit Singh Rana on bail with
counsel Sh. Terminder Singh.
Accused D.S. Rana on bail with counsel Sh. A.S. Sukhija.
Accused V.M. Gill on bail with counsel Sh. Amit Chaudhary.
Accused Nishan Singh on bail with counsel Sh. Ravindra Pandit.
Accused Inder Singh on bail with counsel Sh. S.P.S.Bhullar.
Accused Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh already stand
discharged.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment culminates the trial of police report filed under
section 121, 121A, 123,217,221, 223,224,452,457 r/w section
120B of Indian Penal Code by the S.H.O. Police Station Sector

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


4

34, Chandigarh in which after supplying copy of challan to the


accused, charges against the accused, except Kashmir Singh and
Jagir Singh, were framed on 11-4-2005 and 5-12-2008 for offence
under section 217, 222 (Part 3), 224 r/w section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code. Charges were explained to the accused and the
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Accused Kashmir Singh
and Jagir Singh were discharged by Sh. Balbir Singh, the then
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated
11-4-2005.
2. In its evidence, the prosecution has examined the following
witnesses:PW1

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh,


Junior Engineer, Office of Electricity (Operation)
Sub Division No. 10, Sector 40, Chandigarh who was
posted as lineman at Sub Division No.9, Sector 43,
Chandigarh at relevant time.

PW2

Gurnam Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh, AAE,


Electricity Operation Sub Division No.5, Industrial
Area, Phase I, Chandigarh who was also posted as
lineman at relevant time.

PW3.

Sh. Charanjit Singh Gujral son of Sh. Beant Singh,


who was posted as SDO at relevant time of removing
wires from the supply line.

PW4

Sub Inspector Karanil Singh, Incharge Photo Section,


Sector 19, Chandigarh who took the photographs of

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


5

jail and barrack.


PW5

Sh. Samunder Lal son of Sh. Balwant, r/o House


No.2557, Sector 52, Chandigarh.

PW5/A

Sh. Avnee Kumar son of Sh. Yash Pal Verma, who


was working as a pharmacist at jail premises.

PW6

Sh. Kala Singh son of Sh. Ajmer Singh who was


working as leading Fireman with Fire Department,
UT, Chandigarh.

PW7

Sub Inspector Tarsem Singh who is witness to


seizure memos Ex PW7/A and Ex PW7/B.

PW8

Constable Yash Pal, Draftsman, Police Head Quarter,


Sector 9, Chandigarh who prepared the scaled site
plans Ex PW8/1 to Ex PW8/3.

PW9

Inspector Kehar Singh, Operation Cell, UT,


Chandigarh who registered FIR Ex PW9/B.

PW10

Head Constable Sewa Singh, who got verified the


ownership of vehicle no. PIQ-927.

PW11

Karam Singh, Junior Engineer who had joined the


investigation of case at relevant time.

PW12

Sub Inspector Rajdeep Singh, crime branch, sector


11, Chandigarh

PW13

Sub Inspector Ranjit Singh

who had arrested

accused Narain Singh Chaura on the basis of secret


information.
PW14

Sh. Sukhpal Singh Rana who was posted as SHO,

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


6

Police station sector 34, Chandigarh at relevant time.


PW15

Sh. Tarsem Chand son of Sh. Madho Ram, who was


working as driver in public health department.

PW16

Sh. Darshan Singh son of Sh. Kundan Lal, who was


working as sweeper in public health department.

PW17

Sh. Neetu son of Sh. Madan Lal who was also


working as sweeper in Public Health Department.

PW18

Inspector Poonam Dilawari, SHO Police station


sector 3, Chandigarh.

PW19

Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar, who remained partly


Investigating Officer of this case.

PW20

Sub Inspector Pyare Lal who was posted as Incharge,


Police Post, Burail, Chandigarh at relevant time.

PW21

Sh. Jagbir Singh, DSP, Operation Cell, Chandigarh


who was posted as SHO Police station sector 3,
Chandigarh at relevant time and was entrusted the
work of inspection of tunnel.

PW22

Inspector Diwan Singh, Operation Cell, Chandigarh


who had joined investigation of this case.

PW23

Head Constable Lakhmir Singh who produced FIR


register pertaining to month of January, 2004.

PW24

Sh. Jagtar Singh son of S. Sarwan Singh, Trade mate


office of Electrical Sub Division No.1, Sector 35,
Chandigarh.

PW25

Sh. Mohinder Singh son of S. Lal Singh who was

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


7

registered owner of vehicle no. PIQ 927 and later on


sold the same to one Gurbachan Singh son of Chajju
Singh.
PW26

Sh. Kulwinder Pal Singh, Jr. Assistant, office of


Secretary, RTA, Patiala who produced record regard
vehicle no. PIQ 927.

PW27

Sh. Ashween Singh, Proprietor of M/S J.S.


Marketing, SCO No.2449, Sector 22C, Chandigarh
and SCO No.39, IInd Floor, Phase V, Mohali,
distributor of prepaid connection and recharge
coupons of Bharti Airtel Mobile Limited.

PW28

Sh. Rajesh son of Sh. Hans Raj, Proprietor of M/S


Narinder Enterprises who produced record regarding
recharge of phone numbers by cash coupons.

PW29

Constable Ashok Kumar, posted at Burail Jail at


relevant time.

PW30

Constable Jagtar Singh who was also posted at Burail


Jail at relevant time.

PW31

Constable Vinod Kumar who was posted as Warder


at Burail Jail, Chandigarh.

PW32

Constable Ram Mehar who was

also posted as

Warder at Burail Jail, Chandigarh.


PW33

Sh. Pargat Singh son of Sh. Charanjit Singh who was


working as Generator Operator at Burail Jail,
Chandigarh.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


8

PW34

Head

constable

Nirmal

Singh

who

joined

investigation of the case and witnessed the recovery


memo Ex PW22/5 regarding recovery of cars.
PW35

Ms. Anu Swami, Junior Assistant, Office of


Additional I.G. (Prisons), UT, Chandigarh who
produced record regarding prosecution sanction of
accused Inder Singh and Nishan Singh.

PW36

Ms. Promila, Sr. Assistant in the office of Home


Department, UT, Chandigarh who produced
prosecution sanction order of accused D.S. Rana,
D.S. Sandhu, Paramjeet Singh Rana, Inder Singh,
Baljit Kaur, Narain Singh Chaura, Nissan Singh, Ved
Mitter Gill, Subeg Singh, Nand Singh, Sher Singh,
Abid Mehmood, Lakhwinder Singh, Gurnam Singh
and Gurvinder Singh.

PW37

Sh. Amandeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Burail


Jail, Chandigarh who witnessed the recovery memo
Ex PW37/A.

PW38

Sub Inspector Pala Ram who witnessed the recovery


memo Ex PW38/C.

PW39

Gurmukh

Singh,

retired

Sr.

Assistant,

Jail

Department, Punjab who produced the record


regarding prosecution sanction of accused D.S. Rana.
PW40

Sh. Balwan Singh, retired police Inspector who


joined the investigation.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


9

PW41

Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Executive Engineer


(Projects) Public Health, Haryana, Panchkula who
produced record regarding complaints of sewerage
blockage received in his office.

PW42

Ms. Charanjit Kaur, Junior Assistant, Office of DTO,


Jalandhar who produced record regarding ownership
of vehicle no. PIQ-927.

PW43

Sh. R. Chandra, A.G.E.Q.D., Central Forensic


Science Laboratory, Shimla who proved his report
Ex PW43/19.

PW44

Assistant Sub Inspector Ajaib Singh (Retired) who


had arrested the accused Gurvinder Singh @ Goldy
in some other FIR.

PW45

Sh. Deep Kumar, Welfare Officer, Model Jail,


Chandigarh who produced permissions of various
articles sanctioned in favour of accused.

PW46

Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Junior Assistant, Office of


DTO, Barnala who produced record of vehicle no.
PB19B-2823.

PW47

Inspector Sarwan Singh who remained partly


Investigating Officer of present case.

PW48

Inspector Balhar Singh who also remained partly


Investigation Officer of present case.

PW49

Sh. Surinder Singh, Clerk, Office of RTA, Ludhiana


who produced ownership record of vehicle no.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


10

PB10U-1957.
PW50

Sh. Hira Nand Mishra son of Sh. Parmanand Mishra,


r/o village Jigna Mishra, Post Bhatni, District Deoria,
UP.

3. In documentary evidence, the prosecution has relied on Ex PW2/1


seizure memo, parcels Ex P5 to Ex P8, seizure memo of wires Ex
PW3/1, parcels Ex P9 to Ex P11, Ex PW3/2 seizure memo of
register of electricity department, Ex.PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/35
negatives, Ex PW4/36 to Ex PW4/70 photographs, Ex PW6/A
seizure memo emergency light, Ex PW7/A seizure memo of
computer, key board etc., Ex PW7/B seizure memo of documents,
Ex PW8/1 & Ex PW8/2 site plans, Ex PW8/3 copy of site plan, Ex
PW9/A endorsement regarding registration of DDR No.15 dated
22-1-2004, Ex PW14/A complaint made by Superintendent of
Model Jail, Chandigarh to police, Ex PW14/B endorsement made
on the complaint, Ex PW9/B FIR, Ex PW10/A application moved
to Registration Authority, Jallandhar to supply particulars of car
no. PIQ-927, Ex PW10B report made thereon, Ex PW11/A
personal search memo of accused Narain Singh Chaura, Ex
PW11/B disclosure statement of Narain Singh Chaura, Ex
PW12/A seizure memo of mobile phone set, Ex PW18/A
disclosure statement of accused Baljit Kaur, Ex PW18/B recovery
memo of vehicle no. PIQ-927, Ex. PW18/C disclosure statement
of Baljit Kaur, Ex PW18/D recovery memo of mobile hand set,
Ex. PW17/A disclosure statement of accused Narain Singh

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


11

Chaura, Ex PW19/B seizure memo of mobile phone and sim


cards, Ex.PW19/I disclosure statement of accused Gurnam Singh,
Ex PW19/N rough site plan of place of seizer of electricity wire
pieces, Ex PW20/A seizure memo of clothes, Ex PW20/B seizure
memo of various articles like rope, Pagri etc., Ex. PW20/C seizure
memo of various articles recovered from the barrack no.7 of
Model jail, Ex PW21/A seizure memo of bulb and holder, Ex
PW21/B seizure memo of wooden stick, Ex PW21/C seizure
memo of soil samples, Ex PW21/D seizure memo of plastic bag
etc., Ex PW21/E seizure memo of soil samples, Ex. PW22/1 bill
issued by Narinder Enterprises, Sirhind Mandi, Ex. PW22/2
seizure memo of documents, Ex. PW22/3 request made to DTO,
Patiala for supplying photo copies of file of RC No.PIQ-927, Ex.
PW22/4 report made thereon, Ex. PW22/5 seizure memo of cars,
Ex. PW22/6 rough site plan of place of recovery of cars, Ex.
PW22/7 request made to Court for obtaining specimen signature
and handwriting of accused Baljit Kaur, Ex. PW22/K rough site
plan of place of recovery, Ex. PW22/L delivery challan issued by
M/S Spice Communications Limited, Mohali, Ex PW22/L
disclosure statement of accused Baljit Kaur, Ex PW22/M personal
search memo of accused Gurnam Singh, Ex PW2/N personal
search memo of accused Baljit Kaur, Ex PW22/P rough site plan
of place of recovery of mobile phone handset, Ex PW22/Q & Ex
PW22/R certificates issued to M/S Narinder Enterprises being
authorized dealer of Spice communications Limited, Ex PW22/S

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


12

certificate dated 5-2-2004 issued by M/S Rattan Telecoms in


favour of M/S Narinder Enterprises, Ex PW22/T certificate of
registration issued under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and
Turnover) Rules 1947 to Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/S
Narinder Enterprises, Ex PW22/U Form ST-IV, Ex PW22/W, Ex.
PW22/X, Ex PW22/Y delivery challans issued by M/S Spice
Communications, Ex PW22/Z delivery challan issued by M/S
Narinder Enterprises, Ex PW27/A invoice-cum-delivery challan
issued by J.S. Marketing, Ex PW35/A order dated 2-4-2004 issued
by Prison Department of Chandigarh Administration granting
sanction to launch prosecution against accused Inder Singh, Ex
PW35/B order dated 2-4-2004 issued by Prison Department of
Chandigarh

Administration

granting

sanction

to

launch

prosecution against accused Nishan Singh, Ex PW36/A order


dated 1-4-2004 issued by Home Department of Chandigarh
Administration granting sanction to launch prosecution against
accused D.S.Rana, Ex PW36/B order dated 1-4-2004 issued by
Home Department of Chandigarh Administration granting
sanction to launch prosecution against accused D.S.Sandhu, Ex
PW36/B1 order dated 3-4-2004 issued by Home Department of
Chandigarh

Administration

granting

sanction

to

launch

prosecution against accused Dalbir Singh Sandhu, Ex PW36/C


order dated 1-4-2004 & Ex PW36/C1 order dated 3-4-2004 issued
by Home Department of Chandigarh Administration granting
sanction to launch prosecution against accused P.S.Rana, Ex

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


13

PW36/D order dated 1-4-2004 issued by Home Department of


Chandigarh

Administration

granting

sanction

to

launch

prosecution against accused Inder Singh, Ex PW36/E order dated


1-4-2004

issued

by

Home

Department

of

Chandigarh

Administration granting sanction to launch prosecution against


accused Baljit Kaur, Ex PW36/F order dated 1-4-2004 issued by
Home Department of Chandigarh Administration granting
sanction to launch prosecution against accused Narain Singh
Chaura, Ex PW36/G

order dated 1-4-2004 issued by Home

Department of Chandigarh Administration granting sanction to


launch prosecution against accused Nishan Singh, Ex PW36/H
order dated 1-4-2004 & Ex PW36/H1 order dated 3-4-2004 issued
by Home Department of Chandigarh Administration granting
sanction to launch prosecution against accused V.M.Gill,

Ex

PW36/I order dated 1-4-2004 issued by Home Department of


Chandigarh

Administration

granting

sanction

to

launch

prosecution against accused Nand Singh, Ex PW36/J order dated


1-4-2004

issued

by

Home

Department

of

Chandigarh

Administration granting sanction to launch prosecution against


accused Subegh Singh, Ex PW36/K order dated 1-4-2004 issued
by Home Department of Chandigarh Administration granting
sanction to launch prosecution against accused Sher Singh, Ex
PW36/L order dated 1-4-2004 issued by Home Department of
Chandigarh

Administration

granting

sanction

to

launch

prosecution against accused Abid Mehmood, Ex PW36/M order

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


14

dated 1-4-2004 issued by Home Department of Chandigarh


Administration granting sanction to launch prosecution against
accused Lakhwinder Singh, Ex PW36/N order dated 1-4-2004
issued by Home Department of Chandigarh Administration
granting sanction to launch prosecution against accused Gurnam
Singh, Ex PW36/O order dated 1-4-2004 issued by Home
Department of Chandigarh Administration granting sanction to
launch prosecution against accused Gurvinder Singh, Ex. PW36/P
& Ex. PW36/Q letters dated 3-4-2004 sending sanction to
prosecute accused persons, Ex PW37/A seizure memo of
documents /letters, Ex. PW38/A disclosure statement of accused
V.M.Gill, Ex PW38/C seizure memo dated 27-1-2004, Ex.
PW39/A prosecution sanction of accused D.S.Rana, Ex. PW39/B
letter dated 31-3-2004 conveying prosecution sanction of accused
D.S.Rana, Ex PW40/A personal search memo of accused Paramjit
Singh Rana, Ex PW40/B personal search memo of accused Dalbit
Singh Rana, Ex PW40/C personal search memo of accused Jagir
Singh, Ex PW40/D personal search memo of accused Dalbir
Singh, Ex PW40/E personal search memo of accused Nishan
Singh, Ex PW40/F personal search memo of accused Inder Singh,
Ex PW40/G personal search memo of accused Kashmir Singh, Ex
PW40/H personal search memo of accused V.M.Gill, Ex PW40/I
seizure memo of documents, Ex PW40/J seizure memo of photo
stat copies of record, Ex. PW41/A to Ex PW41/C complaints, Ex
PW41/D to Ex PW41/F log book of vehicle no.CH01G1-0377, Ex

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


15

PW43/1 to Ex PW43/17 letters and documents sent for examiner


by the Expert, Ex PW43/18 reasons for opinion given by
Document expert, Ex. PW43/9 Opinion of expert, Ex PW43/20
forwarding letter sending the opinion, Ex PW44/A disclosure
statement of accused Gurvinder Singh @ Goldi, Ex PW45/A to
Ex PW45/L extract of register, Ex PW45/M request made to
Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh by accused, Ex PW45/N
order passed on the request, Ex PW45/O request made by accused
to Superintendent Jail and Ex PW45/P order, Ex. PW46/A letter
dated 31-3-2004 written by Registering Authority (MV) Barnala,
Punjab supplying the requisite information, Ex. PW47/A seizure
memo of record, Ex PW47/B, Ex PW48/A, Ex PW48/B, Ex
PW48/C, Ex PW48/D,Ex PW48/E, Ex PW48/F seizure memos,
Ex. PW48/A18 duty chart of jail officials, Ex PW48/A17 letter
dated 1-2-2004 regarding supply of record, Ex PW49/A report of
office of RTA, Ludhiana, Ex. PX/X2 copy of FIR, Ex. PX/X3
copy of FIR no.206/05 registered at PS Central, DBG Road,
Delhi, Ex.PX/X4 copy of FIR No.287 dated 22-5-2005 registered
at PS Patel Nagar, Delhi, Ex PX/X5 copy of FIR No.227/2005
registered at Delhi, Ex PX/X6 copy of FIR no.144 of 2005
registered at PS Kharar, Ropar, Ex PX/X7 copy of FIR No.73
dated 9-6-2005 registered at PS Samrala, Ex PX/X8 copy of FIR
No.76 dated 11-6-2005 registered at PS Samrala, Ex PX/X9 copy
of FIR no.77 dated 12-6-2005 registered at PS Samrala, Ex
PX/X10 copy of FIR no.78 dated 13-6-2005 registered at Samrala,

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


16

Ex PX/X11 copy of FIR No.79 dated 13-6-2005 registered at PS


Samrala, Ex PX/X13 copy of FIR no.82 dated 17-6-2005
registered at PS Samrala, Ex PX/X14 copy of FIR No.83 dated
17-6-2005 registered at PS Samrala, Ex PX/X15 copy of FIR no.5
dated 10-1-2005 registered at PS Noonpur Bedi, Ropar, Ex
PX/X16 copy of FIR No.118 dated 30-9-2004 registered at PS
Bassi Pathana, Ex PX/X17 copy of FIR No.333 dated 18-6-2005
registered at PS Sadar Patiala, Ex PX/X18 copy of FIR No.247
dated 17-6-2005 registered at PS Sadar Hoshiarpur, Ex PX/X19
copy of FIR No.43 dated 5-6-2005 registered at PS Goh, Ex
PX/X20 copy of FIR No.45 dated 7-6-2005 registered at PS Goh,
Ex. PX/X21 copy of FIR No.153 dated 19-6-2005 registered at PS
Dhoori, Ex. PX/X22 copy of FIR No.50 dated 18-6-2005
registered at PS Phool, Ex. PX/X23 copy of FIR No.52 dated 216-2005 registered at PS Phool, Ex. PX/X24 copy of FIR No.10
dated 18-2-2005 registered at District Moga, Ex PX/X25 copy of
FIR No.130 dated 3-9-2005 registered at PS City Rajpura, Ex
PX/X26 copy of FIR No.394 dated 15-7-2005 registered at PS
Sadar Patiala, Ex.PX/X27 copy of FIR No.256 dated 10-7-2005
registered at PS Kotwali Sangroor, Ex. PX/X28 copy of FIR
No.153 dated 19-6-2006 registered at PS Dhuri, Ex PX/X29 copy
of FIR no.113 dated 6-7-2005 registered at PS Garhshankar, Ex.
PX/X30 copy of FIR No.67 dated 15-7-2005 registered at PS
Kartarpur, Ex. PX/X31 copy of FIR No.127 dated 25-6-2005
registered at PS Byas, District Majitha, Ex PX/X32 copy of FIR

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


17

no.53 dated 21-6-2005 registered at PS Dhilwan, Ex. PX/X33


copy of FIR No.90 dated 9-7-2005 registered at PS Khamano, Ex.
PX/X34 copy of FIR No.91 dated 9-7-2005 registered at PS
Khamano, Ex PX/X35 copy of FIR no.152 dated 29-6-2005
registered at PS Bassi Pathana, Ex PX/X36 copy of FIR No.180
dated 30-6-2005 registered at PS Sirhind, Ex. PX/X37 copy of
FIR No.143 dated 25-6-2005 registered at PS Sadar Ropar, Ex.
PX/X38 copy of FIR no.172 dated 24-6-2005 registered at PS
Sirhind, Ex PX/X39 copy of FIR No.202 dated 16-7-2005
registered at PS Sirhind, Ex. PX/X40 copy of FIR No.24 dated 203-2006 registered at PS Special Cell, Rohini, Delhi, Ex PX/X41
disclosure statement of accused Paramjit Singh Bheora, Ex
PX/X42 copy of FIR No.130 dated 3-7-2005 registered at PS City
Rajpura, Ex PX/X43 copy of FIR No.65 dated 1-4-2006 registered
at PS Sadar Rajpura, Ex PX/X44 copy of FIR No.41 dated 1-42006 registered at PS Banur, Ex. PX/X45 copy of FIR No.42
dated 1-4-2006 registered at PS Banur, Ex. PX/X46 copy of FIR
No.33 dated 3-4-2006 registered at PS Sadar Kapurthala, Mark
PW7/A & Mark PW7/D application forms for spice connection,
Mark PW7/B and Mark PW7/C copy of ration card of Lakhwinder
Singh.
4. In cross examination of prosecution witnesses documents Ex.
PW35/D1 letter dated 25-3-2004 regarding prosecution sanction
to accused Nishan Singh and Inder Singh, Ex PW35/D2 letter
dated 1-4-2004 written by Home Secretary, Chandigarh to

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


18

Inspector General of Prisons regarding prosecution sanction of


Nishan Singh, Ex PW35/D3 Law Department note dated 26-32004, Ex PW37/D1 night report dated 21/22-1-2004 given by
PW37 Amandeep Singh, deputy Superintendent of Burail Jail, Ex.
D39 Rules of Punjab Jail Mannual, Ex. D39/1 rules, Ex. D39/2
provisions of jail manual, Ex PW21/DA copy of visitors register,
Ex. D1 statement of Sh. Karam Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.,
Ex D1 extract of visitors' register of jail, were tendered.
5. Incriminating evidence as appearing in the prosecution evidence
was explained to the accused by recording their statements under
section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and alleged false
implication.
6. In defence evidence, the accused have produced Sh. Naresh
Kumar, Warden, Model Jail, Chandigarh as DW1. ASI Kulbir
Singh, Reader to DIG, UT, Chandigarh has appeared as DW2. Sh.
Harjit Singh, Heard Warden, Model Jail, Chandigarh has appeared
as DW3. Sh.Naresh Kumar, Warden, Model Jail, Chandigarh has
appeared as DW4, Sh. Deep Kumar, Welfare Officer, Burail Jail,
Chandigarh has appeared as DW5. Accused Narain Singh Chora
has appeared as DW6. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
In documentary evidence, the accused have tendered certain
documents which will be discussed at appropriate stage of
discussion, wherever relevant.
7. Heard the learned APP for the State and learned defence counsels
and perused the matter on record. Here itself the Court needs to

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


19

mention and recognize the efforts of learned APP SH. J.P. Singh
in diligently handling the case and assisting the Court as the
Prosecutor and not a persecutor. He has been able to bring out best
out of the witnesses, attempting to fill up the deficiencies in
investigation.
8. Brief facts as put up in the police report are that accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara and Paramjit Singh Bheora were
facing trial in Beant Singh murder cases titled State Vs Gurmeet
Singh etc. and State Vs Paramjit Singh Bheora in case FIR
(RC) No.9(S)/95-STU.V u/s 302, 307 IPC, 25/27/54/59 of Arms
Act and 3,4,5 of Explosive Substances Act, PS CBI/SIC New
Delhi and were in custody in Model Jail, Chandigarh. Movement
of the accused in Beant Singh murder case was restricted within
the premises of Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh as per Notification
issued by the Chandigarh Administration u/s 268 of Cr.P.C.
Model Jail, Chandigarh was converted into a high security jail.
Apart from the jail authorities, local police as well as paramilitary
forces were looking after the security of jail. On the intervening
night of 21/22-1-2004, above named three accused escaped from
the jail by digging a 94 feet long tunnel. Initially, a case was
registered in this regard u/s 223, 224, 452, 457 IPC at Police
Station Sector 34 Chandigarh under FIR No.17 on 22-1-2004 on
the basis of report received from Sh. Dalbir Singh Rana, the then
Superintendent, Model jail, Chandigarh, and now an accused.
During course of investigation, Dalbir Singh Rana Superintendent

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


20

Model Jail, Dalbir Singh Sandhu Deputy Superintendent, Paramjit


Singh Rana Assistant Superintendent, V.M. Gill Deputy
Superintendent, Inder Singh Warder, Nissan Singh Head Warder
were arrested alongwith other accused including Narain Singh
Chaura, Baljit Kaur, Kashmir Singh, Jagir Singh, Subeg Singh,
Nand Singh, Sher Singh, Abid Mehmood, Gurnam Singh and
Gurvinder Singh. Accused Abid Mehmood, Lakhwinder Singh,
Subeg Singh, Nand Singh and Sher Singh were in custody in
Model Jail, Chandigarh in some other case. One Devi Singh
accused in case FIR No.151 of 2002 u/s 302, 449, 308 IPC, PS
Sector 39, Chandigarh, who was provided as cook to the under
trials of Beant Singh murder case, also escaped from the jail
alongwith other accused. Allegations against the jail officials are
that accused were able to escape from the prison with their help
and escape of prisoners could be possible due to some
unnecessary facilities provided to them in violation of the
provisions of Jail Manual. Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara etc.
were provided the facility of colour TV with excessive electrical
equipments, curtains covering the windows, weight lifting
equipments, wire tubes, multipurpose extension board, bulbs,
three Khurpas etc. Jail officials did not take proper precautions in
connection with the accused who escaped from the prison. No
action was taken when information regarding noise of sharpening
and suspicious activities in barrack no.7 were given. Similarly, no
action was taken on switching off inside lights in the barrack

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


21

during night hours, playing TV on high volume. No personal


physical checking of the inmates of barrack no.7 was carried out.
The windows were covered with curtains to stop complete inside
visibility. Kirtans and religious get together were permitted in
Gurudwara barrack. Abid Mehmood, a Pakistani spy undertrial in
another case was allowed to meet Jagtar Singh Hawara frequently.
Dev Singh was provided as cook on permanent basis. Jagtar Singh
Hawara was allowed to keep huge money and no action was taken
when mobile phone and cash amount was found with the accused.
No action was taken when sewer of barrack no.7 was found
blocked twice in a month. Escapees were shifted to barrack no.7
which was closer to the boundary wall of jail from where it was
convenient to dig the tunnel. Escapees were allowed to receive
number of turbans. Technical knowledge, how to dig tunnel, was
provided to the escapees by accused Ved Mittar Gill through the
book titled True stories of Great Escape which was later on
recovered from his possession. Accused Lakhwinder Singh and
his wife Baljit Kaur played active role in commission of offence
and providing mobile phone to the escapees. Accused Baljit Kaur
used to come to jail to meet her husband Lakhwinder Singh who
was in custody as convict and she was one of the main conspirator
in the case. She purchased two mobile phone connections having
number 9814326684 and 9814484265 from a spice dealer at
Sirhind and passed sim card no.9814326684 to accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara through Lakhwinder Singh. Jagtar Singh Hawara

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


22

used to contact Baljit Kaur through this mobile connection.


Gurnam Singh provided his car to Baljit Kaur alongwith driver on
12-1-2004, but on that date, plan to escape from prison could not
materialize due to some reason. On 17-1-2004, as per conspiracy,
Baljit Kaur had a meeting with Narain Singh Chaura at
Gurudwara Amb Sahib, Mohali and Narain Singh Chaura
arranged an amount of Rs.10,000/- on her demand. Thereafter,
Gurdeep Singh also participated in the conspiracy and his car no.
PIQ-927 was used. On 21-1-2004, accused Narain Singh Chaura
and Baljit Kaur made rackee of the area where main feeder line of
electricity to Burail Jail was passing through.

After receiving a

telephone call, accused Narain Singh Chaura and Baljit Kaur left
that place in three wheeler of Vijay Kumar. Baljit Kaur got down
on the way for arranging transport and met Gurdeep Singh who
provided his car no. PIQ 927 at a place pointed by Jagtar Singh
Hawara through his mobile phone. It is alleged that this car was
used by Jagtar Singh Hawara and other escapees to go towards
Fatehgarh Sahib where they stopped on road side, changed their
clothes and left for some unknown destination. Gurnam Singh
accompanied Baljit Kaur and travelled in said car upto Model Jail,
Chandigarh. Baljit Kaur was arrested on 31-1-2004 and on the
basis of her disclosure statement, a mobile phone set was
recovered from her house. Subscriber application forms, filled in
her hand, regarding purchase of mobile connection, were also
taken in possession. Gurnam Singh was arrested on 5-2-2004 who

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


23

was named by Baljit Kaur for providing logistic support in the


escape plan. Gurnam Singh had also given a mobile hand set to
Baljit Kaur which after utilization was returned to him and same
was recovered from the house of Gurnam Singh at Patiala and was
taken in possession. From scrutiny of print outs of calls made
from mobile numbers, it was found that on 20th and 21st of
January 2004, Jagtar Singh Hawara had made 10 calls to Narain
Singh Chaura and most relevant calls were made on 21-1-2004 at
2018 hours, 2045 hours and 2133 hours. Last call was made at
0218 hours. Baljit Kaur was also constantly in touch with Jagtar
Singh Hawara from mobile phone no. 9814484265. Jagtar Singh
Hawara made telephone calls 52 times to Baljit Kaur from 12-12004 to 21-1-2004. Narain Singh Chaura contacted Jagtar Sigh 13
times on telephone. Narain Singh Chaura disrupted the electricity
supply to the jail premises on 21-1-2004 by putting iron chains on
the electricity wires. Maruti car no. PIQ 927 owned by Jagdeep
Singh, was provided by him to take the escapee accused away
after their escape from the prison. This car was taken to Model
Jail, Chandigarh on 13-1-2004, but on that date, the accused could
not escape due to certain reasons. This car was used on
intervening night of 21/22-1-2004 also to take away escapee
accused towards Fatehgarh Sahib. Maruti car bearing registration
no.PB10U-1957 and Cielo car bearing old no.DL-3-CJ 1690 new
no. PB19B 2823 belonging to Gurvinder Singh @ Goldy were
used to send money to Model Jail to the accused in Beant Singh

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


24

murder case which was being received through Hawala etc. and
other organizations. Cielo car was also parked near the jail at the
time of occurrence. Abid Mehmood, a Pakistani spy who was
lodged in Model jail in some other criminal case, used to meet
Jagtar Singh Hawara and discuss the issue of revival of terrorism.
On 21-1-2004 at about 11:00 a.m. accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Abid Mehmood had a meeting in dispensary of Model Jail,
Chandigarh where he wished him success in their mission.
Accused Subeg Singh, Nand Singh and Sher Singh, other jail
inmates also disclosed during investigation that they were close
confidants of Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara and Paramjit
Singh Bheora.

Escapee accused had told Subeg Singh, Nand

Singh and Sher Singh that after their escape, they would revive the
terrorism by killing top leaders and would paralyse the State
machinery. One wooden net seat frame of the chair plastered with
soil, four pieces of clothes made into the ropes, one weight lifting
iron rod, electric extension cord, electric switch board, 38 bundles
of soil filled in different clothes and other connected items were
taken in police possession from barrack no.7. An emergent light
was found lying inside the tunnel. Apart from it, quilts, pillow, 27
blankets, two TV sets, radio set, tape recorder with cassettes, two
wooden tables, plastic buckets, utensils, two kirpans, iron dumble,
carpets, bundle of news papers and magazines were found lying in
said barrack and were taken in possession. A tunnel was detected
in the month of June 2002 which started from Gurudwara barrack.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


25

This fact was brought to the notice of all the senior officers of jail
and D.S.Rana, Dalbir Singh Sandhu, Ved Mittar Gill, Paramjit
Singh Rana and Inder Singh. However, these accused intentionally
and willfully concealed this fact and hushed up the case by filling
up this tunnel themselves. Sh. D.S. Rana, the then Superintendent
of Model Jail, Chandigarh misrepresented the facts to senior
officers of Chandigarh Administration. Despite detection of tunnel
and recovery of mobile phones and huge amount from the accused
from Gurudwara barrack, same staff continued to be on duty at
barrack no.7. Accused also used to raise pro Khalistan slogans and
make sedition inside jail. Accused D.S.Rana, D.S. Sandhu, Ved
Mittar Gill used to help the accused in meeting other inmates of
jail, other relatives and friends in the office of Superintendent.
D.S. Rana and other jail official accused hatched a conspiracy
with escapee accused Jagtar Singh Hawara etc. and helped them in
digging the tunnel. They also took part in a criminal conspiracy to
wage war against the State by illegal acts of commission and
omission concealing the existence of such designs.

All the

remaining accused also took part in a criminal conspiracy and


resultantly accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara,
Paramjit Singh and Dev Singh were able to escape from jail.
Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh, two CRPF constables, were found
to be negligent in performance of their duties resulting in escape
of accused from jail.
9. Before discussion of the evidence , though not necessary to

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


26

be mentioned in every case, it has to be mentioned that


presumption of innocence of accused is a fundamental right. In
police report and also during argument it has been mentioned for
investigating agency and by prosecution that its a Sensational
Case. This word may find place in a writings of newspaper
scribe but before Courts of Law there can be Sensitive Cases,
but not Sensational Cases. The said cases are sensitive not
because of parties involved but repercussions on the faith of
public upon the the criminal justice administration system
However, the basic principles of law with regard to burden of
proof and appreciation of evidence do not stand diluted or molded
and this court will prefer to stick to them.
10.At the same time only because of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Ved Mitter Gill V. Union Territory
Administration, Chandigarh. 2105 AIR(SC)1796 there is
no presumption against accused jail officials. That case had arisen
out of challenge of termination of services under Article 311(2)(b)
Constitution of India arising out of proceedings where no enquiry
was conducted and whatever evidence was collected in the
investigation of this case was made basis of the impugned orders
and same were found Constitutional. However, here court has
opportunity to appreciate the evidence on parameter of proving
beyond reasonable doubt.
11.Appreciating the evidence of prosecution, it can be
observed that in regard to offence of conspiracy as a settled

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


27

proposition of law, a meeting of minds explicit in the form of a


crime or stages of it is necessary to be proved. However, when the
matter on record and the alleged allegations against each accused
are considered, this Court needs to ascertain if the conspiracy
involved all the accused or there were different sets of
conspiracies beaded together by a common conspirator. The
accused before the Court are jail officials, escapees and people
who allegedly assisted the escapees from outside the jail before
their escape and after their escape. Thus, the conspiracy as such is
alleged between the jail officials and the escapees, between the
escapees themselves and some other fellow inmates, between
escapees and accused Narain Singh Chaura and Baljit Kaur,
between accused Baljit Kaur and Gurnam Singh and Gurdeep
Singh and also between the jail officials themselves and also with
Baljit Kaur and Narain Singh Chaura. Particularly with regard to
accused Baljit Kaur, now deceased, it can be mentioned that her
role is to be examined in context to the fact that her husband
Lakhwinder Singh is now facing trial and if her conspiracy is
proved, then natural consequence would be proof of involvement
of Lakhwinder Singh in the crime.
12.The manner in which the alleged incident occurred and the
allegations against each accused have been narrated in the police
report go to show that all the above sets of conspiracies between
the accused were simultaneously functional and there must have
been a master mind either inside the jail or amongst the jail

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


28

officials or outside, though no such master mind has been


specifically mentioned. Theory of conspiracy of prosecution rests
upon the fact that escapees and inmates were given opportunity by
the accused jail officials to meet and stay in a common barrack.
They were aided by circumstances and articles which were used
for the purpose of digging tunnel. They were allowed to meet
people from outside the jail who were their sympathizers or who
actively supplied articles which were converted for being used for
digging tunnel. As such, whole of the prosecution case rests upon
the fact that accused Narain Singh Chaura, Baljit Kaur, Gurnam
Singh were in constant touch with escapees and accordingly they
were designing the whole plot. But strangely enough non of the
accused has narrated whole of the conspiracy as hatched and
particularly how the tunnel was dug. Not even the escapee
Paramjeet Singh Behora whose discloser EX PX/41 has been
tendered in prosecution evidence, though not proved discloses all
of it.
13.In this regard, it will be appropriate to discuss the evidence
collected by the investigating agency to show the complicity of
accused who can primarily be considered to be the main
conspirators. Basic evidence collected during investigation and
which was certainly made foundation of investigation was the
recovery of mobile handsets and sim cards at the instance of
accused Baljit Kaur, Narain Singh Chaura and Gurnam Singh
which were being allegedly used to be in contact with escapee

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


29

accused Paramjit Singh.


14.To begin with and without going into the elaborate and extensive
contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the accused in
recovery of these mobile handsets and sim cards and their
connection with the accused, it can be observed that there is not a
word from the mouth of Investigating Officer witnesses or learned
APP for the State as to if the call details and other particulars
about the location and forensic examination of mobile phones
were taken up. This Court is of considered view that the only
method of proving communication between two persons by
mobile phone can be by proving their call records and since the
record of their calls could also point out their locations, in the
present case that would have been more convenient to link all the
prosecution evidences and the theory of conspiracy as made. This
Court absolutely fails to understand as to what could be the
reasons and as to why the call details were not taken and if taken
why the same have not been made part of the police report and
then proved. Why witnesses from the concerned mobile service
provider have not been joined to prove the calls, locations and
other aspects of continuous communication. At appropriate stage,
this Court may also discuss the possible reason for either of the
two, but as far as the conspiracy part is concerned, a major link
evidence which was substantive in natu;re to prove that main
conspirators accused Baljit Kaur, Narain Singh Chaura, Gurnam
Singh and escapee were in constant touch with each other, has not

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


30

been proved before the Court. The disclosure statements of


confessional nature mentioning that these accused were in talking
terms with each other using the allegedly recovered phones for the
conspiracy, is of no consequence whatsoever.
15.Taking up the question of alleged arrests and recoveries at the
instances of the accused Narain Singh, Baljit Kaur, Gurnam Singh
and Gurdeep Singh. The evidence in this regard can be discussed
both about recovery of Car PIQ 927 at instance of Baljit Kaur and
Mobile phones at the instance of accused Baljit Kaur, Gurnam and
Narain Singh. So in this regard it is with statement of PW12 SI
Rajdeep Singh, the prosecution intends to establish the fact that
disclosure statement of accused Gurnam Singh was recorded. He
has not proved the disclosure statement, however, has only proved
that recovery of mobile was effected from House No.4/8, Shekhan
Wala Mohalla, Patiala. He deposed that mobile sim card being
recovered was in the mobile phone itself. These proceedings were
said to be conducted in his presence by SI Diwan Singh who has
appeared as PW22 and SI Surinder Kumar who has appeared as
PW19. SI Surinder Kumar has deposed that he joined
investigation with SI Diwan Singh and accused Gurnam Singh
who was already in police custody was got interrogated by SI
Diwan Singh in his presence and during his interrogation, he
voluntarily suffered disclosure statement stating that he used the
Nokia Mobile Phone for talking with Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Baljit Kaur to help them escaping from Burail Jail and he had kept

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


31

the said mobile phone at the residence of his known lady


Krishana. He has proved the disclosure statement as Ex.PW19/I.
PW22 SI Diwan Singh has deposed that the disclosure statement
of accused Baljit Kaur was recorded by Inspector KIP Singh
which is Ex. PW22/L and as per disclosure statement of Baljit
Kaur, accused Gurnam Singh, present in the Court, was arrested
and searched on 5-2-2004 by personal search memo Ex.PW22/M.
He deposed that accused Gurnam Singh was interrogated by him
and during his interrogation, he voluntarily suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW19/I vide which he admitted that mobile phone
used for having talk with co-accused Baljit Kaur and Jagtar Singh
Hawara has been kept by him at the residence of his known lady
Krishana and he can produce the same from there. Thereafter,
recovery has been proved by him by memo Ex. PW12/A. He
deposed that with regard to sim card Ex.PW22/D, he took into
possession documents from Rajesh Kumar witness pertaining to
mobile phone of Spice company.
16.Now as with regard to this accused Gurnam Singh, first and
foremost thing that can be considered is that he was arrested at the
identification of co-accused Baljit Kaur. In cross examination,
PW22 SI Diwan Singh has deposed that Gurnam Singh met the
police party near bus-stand Patiala and volunteered that he was
identified by Baljit Kaur. He deposed that they left for Patiala on
5-2-2005 early in the morning and reached there at 4:30/5:00 a.m.
First they went to the house of Gurnam Singh as pointed by Baljit

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


32

Kaur located at Sikhanwala Mohalla, Patiala, where he was not


available and thereafter at the asking of Baljit Kaur they went to
bus-stand where accused Gurnam Singh was arrested. The
prosecution was unable to explain as to how Baljit Kaur who was
already in custody for last four days, could have known when and
where Gurnam Singh will be found. It is strange that on the asking
of Baljit Kaur, police officials reached bus-stand and arrested
accused Gurnam Singh.
17.As with regard to conspiracy between Gurnam Singh and other
accused, there seems to be no evidence collected about Gurnam
Singh and Baljit Kaur being regularly seen together or coming to
meet escapees together. As was discussed earlier, no call details
have been proved. PW28 Rajesh who was said to have joined for
enquiry with regard to Spice Company Sim Card found in Nokia
Mobile Phone allegedly recovered from accused Gurnam Singh,
has not deposed that mobile phone was sold to Gurnam Singh.
The case prosecution has tried to put up is that accused Baljit Kaur
had purchased mobile phones and sim cards and handed over to
Gurnam Singh. Link evidence in that regard is quite missing and
merely disclosure statement of Baljit Kaur in that regard is
insufficient.
18.Coming to the recovery of Nokia mobile phone at the instance of
Gurnam Singh. It comes up that place of recovery was house of
one Krishana. How Krishana was related to Gurnam Singh has not
been explained. PW22 SI Diwan Singh, Investigation Officer, has

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


33

deposed in cross examination that Krishna met the police party on


9-2-2004 and remained at that place for about two and half hours.
Why she was not joined in the alleged recovery as a witness or
examined, has not been explained to the Court. In regard to this
lady Krishana, PW19 SI Surinder Kumar has deposed that
landlady Krishana was present in the house when police party
reached there and thereafter she went away from the house on
seeing the police party. They remained there for hour and a half
and landlady came back when police party was still there at about
2:30 p.m., thus, contradicting the statement of PW22. Then PW12
SI Rajdeep Singh has also deposed that Krishana was found
present in the house when police party reached there, but
thereafter she had left. Rather PW22 deposed that when Krishana
past by police party, then Gurnam Singh disclosed that she was
Krishana who had gone by side of police. In regard to mobile
phone recovered, he deposed that he or the Investigating Officer
did not try to see whether the mobile phone was operational or
not. They also did not check the mobile phone so as to see what
calls were received and what were dialed numbers. Similarly
PW18 deposed that SI Diwan Singh did not test as to whether the
mobile in question was functional or not. Investigating Officer
PW22 SI Diwan Singh has deposed that none was present in the
house and it was found open when they went inside. As such, with
this sort of statements of police officials, how the prosecution can
expect this Court to believe that whatever they are deposing is

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


34

truthful. As generally, so in regard to this recovery also, it can be


observed that none of the witness was able to explain if necessary
entries were made in police record with regard to leaving the
police station for recovery, returning back after recovery, making
entries in concerned police station or proving the extracts of
deposit of case property on the said date and time. There is no
explanation of not joining any independent witness specially this
lady Krishna.
19.In regard recoveries from accused Baljit Kaur, it can be
appreciated that PW22 SI Diwan Singh has proved the fact that
disclosure statement of accused Narain Singh Chaura was
recorded, in furtherance of which he alongwith Inspector KIP
Singh and other police officials reached Gurudwara Amb Sahib
where at the instance of accused Narain Singh Chaura and on his
identification, accused Baljit Kaur was personally searched and
arrested. PW18 Inspector Poonam Dilawari has deposed about this
fact of 1-2-2004. In regard to this arrest also this court wonders
how Narayan Singh Chaura, who was already in custody
demarcated the place and time of visit of Baljit Kaur at said
Gurudwara. If it was that it was already decided that Narain Singh
and Baljit Kaur were already scheduled to meet there, then would
she have still come there knowing well that Narain Singh as
already been caught.
20.PW18 Poonam Dilawari, deposed that accused Baljit Kaur had
suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PW18/A whereby she disclosed

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


35

that she along with Gurdeep Singh used maruti car no. PIQ-927 to
escape the accused persons from Burail Jail and said car was lying
at residence of Gurdeep Singh at village Alampur, District
Fatehgarh Sahib. She deposed that thereafter this recovery of car
was made from the house of Gurdeep Singh by memo
Ex.PW18/D. She deposed that thereafter on 4-2-2004, accused
Baljit Kaur suffered another disclosure statement Ex. PW18/C
and as per disclosure statement she got recovered black colour
Motorola handset from her village Miyamir, District Fatehgarh
Sahib at her residence and phone was taken in possession by
memo Ex.PW18/D. At the time of examination of this witness,
case property could not be produced despite the Court giving 45
minutes and without production of case property and cross
examination was allowed.
21.Similar to accused Gurnam Singh, with regard to this accused
Gurdeep Singh also, it can be observed that there is no proved
relationship or other evidence of prosecution to show that these
two accused Gurdeep Singh and Baljit Kaur were in constant
touch and use to meet.
22.As with regard to recovery of car no.PIQ-927, PW22 SI Diwan
Singh has deposed that as per disclosure statement Ex. PW18/A,
car driven by accused Gurdeep Singh was recovered at the
instance of Baljit Kaur from the house of accused Gurdeep Singh.
Cross examination of PW18 Inspector Poonam Dilawari being
witness of this recovery, shows that she was unable to give quite

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


36

relevant facts with regard to the house from where the recovery
was made as she was unable to tell if the house where the
recovery was made was having boundary wall and entry gate. In a
case like this, there should have been a eidetic memory in the
minds of police officials. She deposed that she can not tell if
Inspector verified from the villagers as to who is owner of the
house. She deposed that when they visited the house, lot of
persons were present who included old persons. PW22 SI Diwan
Singh who claims to have made recovery of this car, seems to
have been also caught in cross examination as he was unable to
disclose many relevant facts about the place of recovery and the
time of recovery. He deposed that local police was not called at
village Alampur and he requested the father of accused Gurdeep
Singh to call some respectables of the village, but he did not call
anyone. It is quite surprising that instead of himself looking for
independent witnesses to join, he asked father of accused Gurdeep
Singh to call respectable persons and explained that father of
Gurdeep Singh did not sign any paper. He deposed that the house
from where recovery was made was having a gate which was open
when they reached it and no other person was present in the house
except Gurdeep Singh. Keys of the car were inside the car. There
was no dust on the car and it was appearing to be used in normal
way. He deposed that he does not know if car was having petrol in
it or not and when it was started. He deposed that he does not
remember if he mentioned of the documents and the keys in the

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


37

memo of seizure. Strangely, he explains that he does not know


whether the car was brought to Chandigarh with the police party
or not. As with regard to this recovery also, no link evidence in
the form of relevant entries in the register have been proved. This
statement, as discussed above, also does not inspire confidence as
it is required to be proved when the police officials making
recovery of a car to connect the accused with the crime, depose
that he does not know whether the car was brought to Chandigarh
with the police party or not, so that itself is a fatal statement to the
recovery proceedings being genuine and as canvased before the
Court.
23.In regard to the recovery of mobile phones at the instance of
accused Narain Singh Chaura, it can be picked up that PW19 SI
Surinder Kumar has deposed about the fact that on 3-2-2004,
accused Narain Singh Chaura who was already in police custody
was got interrogated by SI Diwan Singh in his presence and
proved the interrogation of accused Narain Singh that he
voluntarily suffered a disclosure statement stating that he used the
mobile phone to talk with jail inmate Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Baljit Kaur to prepare plans for escaping from Burail Jail and the
used mobiles and sim cards are in his possession and he can get
the same recovered from backside Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib
backside Burail Jail. He deposed that SI Diwan Singh recorded the
disclosure statement of accused Narain Singh Chaura and same is
Ex.PW19/A. He deposed that he had signed the disclosure

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


38

statement and as per disclosure statement of accused Narain Singh


Chaura, he got recovered two mobile phones make Samsung and
Siemens and three sim cards of Spice company from the above
said disclosed destination. Thereafter, he proved the recovery. He
deposed that SI Diwan Singh had joined independent witness
Samunder and after the parcels were sealed, seal was handed over
to independent witness Samunder by SI Diwan Singh.
24.The prosecution when examined Samunder as PW5, he did not
support the prosecution. PW5 Sh. Samunder Lal is an independent
witness to the alleged recovery of mobile phones on disclosure of
Narain Singh on 3-2-2004. He deposed that he had merely come
to milk dairy, colony no.5 when some policemen present there
enquired him about his presence and asked him to come to Police
station sector 11, Chandigarh by disclosing that some mobiles
have been recovered and they asked him to put signatures on some
papers. He denied the suggestion that in his presence recovery was
made at the instance of Narain Singh Chaura.
25.It has been suggested to him that he has been won over by the
accused or is under some pressure. Now that suggestion is alone
not sufficient to rescue prosecution. In a case which it calls
sensational more independent witnesses have not supported than
those who supported. It is duty of Administration to take care of
witnesses. If accused are influencing witnesses court should be
informed so that accused can be put on warning that their bails
will be got canceled. But at final stage prosecution can not take

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


39

shelter of this plea and expect court to read into evidence of


hostile witness, as to what the witness would have said and how
he would have supported the prosecution. Rather in such cases an
adverse inference has to be drawn why witness from same place
were not joined who were in charge of the place or were visiting it
then.
26.Continuing the discussion about this recovery at instance of
Narain Singh PW19 SI Surinder Kumar has deposed that he does
not remember whether on 3-2-2004 Inspector KIP Singh was
present at that time or not and SI Diwan Singh recorded the
statement at about 11:00 a.m. As with regard to place of recovery,
Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib, he deposed that there was no person
present and the bricks were scattered. It is not acceptable to the
Court that place like Gurudwara will be completely unoccupied so
as to find no witness. At least it could have been said that being
sympathiser none joined as witness. Place of recovery is a public
place and as such can not be considered to be one where only
accused Narain Singh had access. There is no evidence to show
that accused Narain Singh Chaura was frequently visiting this
Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib.
27.PW22 SI Diwan Singh who has allegedly made recovery at the
behest of Narain Singh, was cross examined at length by learned
counsel for the accused to claim that disclosure statement
recorded on 3-2-2004 has no sanctity in the eyes of law as
fundamental principles of joining accused in investigation have

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


40

not been followed. Reference was made at bar by learned counsel


for the accused to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in case
of

D.K.Basu

V.

State

1997(1)RCR(Criminal)372,

that

of

West

interrogation

Bengal
was

not

conducted according to law. This IO has deposed that he can not


tell what was the material before him on the basis of which he was
interrogating accused Narain Singh and deposed that he has never
heard of anything like interrogation register to be kept in police
station at the time of interrogation or right of accused to be silent.
PW22 SI Diwan Singh when cross examined with regard to
disclosure statement Ex.PW19/A, stated that Ex.PW19/A is not in
his own handwriting, while PW19 SI Surinder Kumar has deposed
that it is recorded by SI Diwan Singh. PW22 SI Diwan Singh was
even unable to tell in whose handwriting it was recorded.
Similarly, with regard to disclosure statement Ex.PW11/B

of

accused Narain Singh recorded on 31-1-2004, SI Diwan Singh


was unable to tell in whose handwriting it was recorded. So
actually the disclosure isn't proved by scribe. As with regard to
this recovery of mobile phones, it can be discussed that there is no
explanation as to what was done for examination of sim cards
allegedly recovered. Merely recovery of mobile phones is of no
consequence unless its connection with crime is proved. However,
link evidence in that regard is absent. Again, at the cost of
repetition, it has to be observed that link evidence about entries in
the police records with regard to going for recovery and

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


41

depositing of case properties, have not been proved.


28.Again taking up discussion about recovery of car PIQ 927, PW25
is an independent witness Sh. Mohinder Singh who has been
examined with regard to the fact that Maruti car no.PIQ-927 was
purchased by him from Rajbir Singh in the year 1995 and he had
got the vehicle registered in his name with registration authority,
Patiala. He deposed that in the month of October 2003 he had sold
this car to Gurbachan Singh son of Sh. Chajju Singh, r/o Village
Neelpur, Rajpura. In cross examination, he deposed that he had
given forms no.29 and 30 under Motor Vehicles Rules to the
purchaser and copies were also given to SI Diwan Singh, though
same are not proved. It is suggested to him that he never owned
this car and making false statement. PW26 Sh. Kulwinder Pal
Singh, Jr. Assistant from the office of Secretary, RTA, Patiala has
deposed that in the year 2004 on police request Ex.PW24/3, he
had given report that vehicle no. PIQ-927 has been transferred in
the name of Mohinder Singh son of Lal Singh who happens to be
PW25 and who deposed that in the year 2003 itself he had sold the
vehicle to one Gurbachan Singh. PW42 Charanjit Kaur, Jr.
Assistant from the office of DTO Jalandhar, was summoned with
registration record of vehicle no. PIQ-927 and she deposed on 85-2014 that as per record of their office on that day also, said
vehicle has been registered in the name of Rajbir Singh Dhaliwal.
This vehicle was allegedly used by accused Gurdeep Singh and
Baljeet Kaur to pick the escapees immediately after the escape.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


42

However, evidence of these witnesses does not provide any link,


rather is self conflicting and the recovery at the instance of Baljeet
is already found suspicious and not proved beyond doubt.
29. Further more for prosecution PW46 Ravinder Sharma, Jr.
Assistant office of DTO Barnala was summoned with record of
vehicle no.PB19B-2823 and deposed that vehicle was originally
registered in the name of Rajesh Malhotra and later on it was
transferred in the name of Balbir Kaur. PW49 Sh. Surinder Singh,
clerk, office of RTA, Ludhiana has deposed about the vehicle
no.PB10U-1957 that it stands in the name of Yogesh Gupta of
District Ludhiana.
30.Prosecution case rests that these vehicles were used by the
escapees on their run. Strangely except for placing on record the
fact of ownership of these vehicles by these persons, no evidence
has been led by the prosecution to show that as to how the said
vehicles reached the hands of escapees and the alleged
conspirators. There is no explanation from the Investigating
Officers why these owners were not joined as witnesses to
indicate in what manner the vehicles may have reached the hands
of escapees or their alleged accomplices.
31. Moving to statements of PW27 Ashween Singh who has been
examined by the prosecution as he was joined as witness of the
fact that being distributor of prepaid connection of Bharti Airtel
Mobile Limited, Mobile No.9815643019 was sold by M/S Indira
Enterprises to Ms. Neelam Punia and identity proof of Neelam

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


43

Punia was deposited with the company. It was deposed by the


witness that mobile number 9815643019 was later on sold to
Deepak Sharma and the identity proof of Deepak Sharma was
obtained. This witness was cross examined and cross examination
depicts that many particulars on the forms of purchase were not
mentioned giving identity of the purchasers. Case of prosecution
is that under fictitious names the phone numbers were purchased.
However, it was a matter of fact to be proved by the evidence.
There is nothing on record to show as to what efforts were made
to discover identity of Deepak Sharma son of Baldev Raj Sharma
on whose identity proof the purchase was made. PW28 Rajesh has
been examined by the prosecution for the fact that mobile phone
numbers 9814326684 and 9814484265 were recharged from his
proprietorship shop Narinder Enterprises by way of cash coupons
in the name of Baljit Kaur. In cross examination, he admits that in
the cash memo where column of sold to is mentioned, name of
customer, his/her parentage or address is written, but the same are
not mentioned in it and he explained that it was a cash payment.
He admitted that there are no particulars given of both the bills
about the sim cards recharged. It is suggested to the witness that
these are forged documents. These are orphan statements and no
purpose is served due to absence of evidence that these sim cards
were used by these very accused.
32.Coming to the allegations against accused Narain Singh Chaura
particularly, being functional to disrupt the electricity supply

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


44

facilitating escape, it can be observed from the matter on record in


the form of allegations made in police report and the evidence led
by the prosecution that he was made chief conspirator and with
active assistance of him the alleged escapists could dig the tunnel
and escape. As form the matter on record in the form of visitor's
register and other evidence including a letter dated 17.1.2004
produced on behalf of the jail official accused in defence as Ex
DW1/E, it can be observed that he was very frequently visiting the
escapists in the jail and even soon before the escape he had met
the escapists. However, the CBO (Crime Branch Operation)
officers seems to have willingly or unwillingly not taken note of
the complaints given by the Superintendent Jail about Narain
Singh Chaura along with some other persons meeting the escapees
in suspicious circumstances. One thing that can be observed with
regard to this accused is that the escapees were allowed to meet
people whose antecedents had been checked and meeting whom
escapees were not found to be in any risk or conspiracy. Thus,
what can be assumed is that before the incident accused Narain
Singh Chaura was found to be having good antecedents so as to be
permitted to meet escapists in the jail and while they appeared in
the Jail Court for trial.
33.As per the prosecution case, this accused Narain Singh was found
be involved in the alleged conspiracy on secret information.
Certainly that would not have been made part of police report.
PX/X41 is disclosure statement of Parmamjeet Singh Behora

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


45

recorded on 20.3.2006 after his arrest. This should have been a


star document of the prosecution to prove the story of
conspiracies. However, it was not proved by any witness and Ld.
APP only tendered it in evidence. In this document Paramjeet
Singh Bheora has claimed that before November 2002 itself they
had conspired to dig tunnel. However, with regard to role of
Narain Sigh Choura he mentioned that Narain Singh was only
asked to disconnect the electricity supply when they escape. Apart
from that no role is attributed to Narain Singh. There is no
mention of receiving any phone and using it to conspire with
Narain Singh or updating him of every activity inside jail.
34.Then as per statement of PW 13 S.I Ranjeet Singh on 30.1.2004
upon a secret information this accused was arrested by laying a
nakka at back side of Punjab School Education Board, Mohali.
Surprisingly at time of arrest nothing incriminating was recovered
from possession of this accused although he was arrested as a
surprise to him. He was found to be carrying a mobile phone but
that has not been subject to any scrutiny to know with whom he
was in contact soon before the arrest or little before that. He was
the first person to be arrested, apart from the jail staff. There is
nothing to allege that it was at instance of jail officials that Narain
Singh was arrested. Thus discovery of facts as per his disclosure
statements PW11/B and PW19/A are the only evidences to
connect him to conspiracy.
35.The Court can now discuss the evidence of prosecution led to

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


46

establish that at the instance of accused Narain Singh Chaura and


in furtherance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/A, the place
where electricity was disrupted, was identified and some
recoveries were made. PW1 Sukhwinder Singh, lineman with
electricity department has been examined by the prosecution to
depose that on 31-1-2004 he alongwith one independent
person and fellow electricity officials had removed iron chains
which were hanging with the supply lines. However, with regard
to accused Narain Singh Chaura being present there, he resiled
and did not support the prosecution, rather clarified that a Sikh
gentleman was there whose face was wrapped with some cloth.
PW2 Sh. Gurnam Singh has deposed as per his fellow electricity
official PW1 that Sukhwinder Singh, lineman had climbed up and
from the specified place he removed the iron chains. He deposed
that all the three pieces of iron chains were removed from there
and were handed over to SDO Sh. C.S. Gujral and that apart from
this, one another piece of iron chain was also recovered from heap
of sands and bricks which was lying adjacent the wall of the
Model Jail, Burail and it was also having weight tied on both ends
and its length was in total 10 feet and 9 inches. Said to be used to
create earthing and disrupt electricity. These articles were handed
over to the Investigating Officer of the case, who prepared
separate parcels and same were sealed. This witness has also not
supported the prosecution as with regard to the fact that this
recovery was at the instance of accused Narain Singh Chaura.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


47

Similar to PW1, he deposed that recovery was at the instance of a


Sikh Gentleman, however, his face was wrapped with blanket all
over his body. As with regard to presence of independent person,
he deposed that he can not tell if any person named Vijay Kumar
was also present, rather he denied that Vijay Kumar son of
Banarasi Dass was also present at the time of removing of iron
chains. Thus contradicting PW1. Learned APP for the State had
mentioned that this witness was won over. This witness admitted
that Ex. PW2/1 is the memo which bear his signatures. But in
cross examination, he stated that he does not know who had
scribed this document and where it was scribed. PW3 Sh.
Charanjit Singh Gujral posted as lineman has also deposed similar
to PW1 and admitted the recovery of iron chains. He deposed that
all these four articles were handed over to him and he then handed
over the same to the Investigating Officer. He also did not support
the prosecution as far as the identity of the accused Narain Singh
Chaura is concerned and deposed that person was standing 15
meters away from him. In his cross examination, learned APP for
the State has suggested to him and he admitted that on 17-2-2004
again he had visited the spot along with ASI Surinder Kumar and
one main blue electricity wire measuring 7 feet and half inch was
removed from main wire which was having burnt carbon spots on
it. One electricity earth wire measuring 4 feet and seven inches
was also removed from there. One earth guard of measuring 6 feet
and 6 inches was also removed from there. These articles were

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


48

taken in possession by ASI Surinder Kumar and memo Ex.PW3/1


was prepared. PW11 Karam Singh has not deposed about the date
of recovery but has deposed that in the year 2004 while he was
posted as J.E. Electricity, he joined the investigation in present
case with ASI Surinder Kumar and he alongwith police officials
and SDO came near Burail Jail and the electricity supply was off
at that time from that area. The police officials asked about the
conductor with whom the electricity was got off. Accordingly,
they took the piece from the feeder line with whom the electricity
was got off which was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW3/1. In cross examination, he mentioned that no entry was
made by them in the official record as to what was done on that
date.
36.Thus, what can be gathered from the statements of these witnesses
is that on 31-1-2004 and on 17-2-2004, some iron chains and
wires were taken into possession. Whether the same was at the
instance of accused Narain Singh Chaura has not been established
by these witnesses. Learned APP for the State has submitted that
quite likely these witnesses were threatened or they have
compromised with the accused. Even if, this aspect is kept in
mind, prosecution could have led more worthy evidence of the
said recoveries at the instance of these witnesses. All these
witnesses have repeatedly deposed that these proceedings were
got photographed and videographed, however, same have not been
produced before the Court. There is mention of one person Vijay

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


49

Kumar present at the time of recovery, but he has not appeared to


support the prosecution. While defence as suggested that he was a
stock witness. Then there is strange statement of PW19 SI
Surinder Kumar who had partly conducted the investigation. He
has deposed that on 17-2-2004, Inspector KIP Singh deputed him
to join the officials of Electricity Department and CFSL Experts
for spot verification from where the main supply to jail was
disconnected by the accused Narain Singh Chaura by using iron
chains. He deposed that electricity officials, CFSL Experts and he
reached the said place and inspected the spot in his presence and
in the presence of police officials. The electricity officials by
using the boom ladder scaled the height of the main electricity
wires passing through there and cut down three electricity wires
from the main line and handed over to SDO Sh. C.S.Gujral who
handed over the same to him. These facts have not been certainly
reflected and narrated in the statement of PW3 Sh. Charanjit
Singh Gujral. Rather this witness PW3 Charanjit Singh Gujral has
deposed that he was posted as Lineman on 31-1-2004 and he had
deposed only about incident of recovery of 31-1-2004 and it is in
cross examination by learned APP for the State when he did not
support the prosecution case, he was made to speak of recovery of
17-2-2004. PW22 Inspector Diwan Singh has deposed that on 311-2004, he had joined the investigation of the present case with
Inspector KIP Singh, crime branch, Chandigarh and accused
Narain Singh Chaura who was already in custody of Crime

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


50

Branch was interrogated by Inspector KIP Singh in his presence


and witness Vijay Kumar. During this interrogation, accused
Narain Singh Chaura had suffered a disclosure statement Ex.
PW11/B wherein he had mentioned that he helped the escapees by
disconnecting the main electricity supply connected to Burail Jail
by putting iron Sanglis[iron chains] on the main line. He
deposed that disclosure statement Ex. PW11/B bears his
signatures alongwith signature of Vijay Kumar, witness and as per
disclosure statement of accused Narain Singh Chaura, police party
joined the officials of Electricity Department and alleged recovery
of chains was made. He also deposed that this recovery was
photographed and videographed.
37.As far as this statement Ex. PW11/B

is concerned, learned

counsel for accused Narain Singh Chaura has heavily stressed that
it was illegally recorded and has not been proved in accordance
with law. Since the scribe of this document remained unexamined
and with regard to Inspector Diwan Singh it remained unexplained
as to if he was just a witness to it or he had himself recorded the
disclosure statement. Learned counsel for the accused was able to
impress this Court with the fact that none of the witnesses of the
prosecution has specifically deposed that signatures on disclosure
statement are of Narain Singh Chaura and same are voluntary in
nature. In this regard, here itself the statement of Narain Singh
Chaura can be discussed who appeared in defence as DW6 and he
has submitted in his defence certain documents like application he

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


51

had made upon his arrest that he was being unnecessarily framed
in the case and was made to sign disclosure statement and he
never made disclosure statement to any police official. Since the
accused had taken risk of appearing in own evidence and deposed
on oath, it happens to be a case of oath against oath with regard to
the fact if the disclosure statement Ex PW11/B was voluntarily in
nature. Thus, it requires independent corroboration which would
have been with the statement of witness Vijay Kumar who has not
appeared for prosecution or the statements of electricity
department, who have resiled.
38.In regard to these recoveries it can be observed that the incident of
escape allegedly occurred in the intervening night of 20/21-12004, however, said recoveries have been shown to be of 31-12004 and 17.2.2004. It remained unexplained as to in between this
period whether the electricity remained disconnected.
39.Statement of PW13 tells another story. He mentioned that on 301-2004, he was posted as ASI at crime branch and was witness to
arrest of Narain Singh and thereafter on 5-2-2004, he alongwith
ASI Surinder Kumar and other police officials, C.S.Gujral, Karam
Singh and other staff of electricity department, CFSL Team and
photographer came near Burail Jail. From this place, the
electricity was put off at the time of jail break. From this spot,
three pieces of wire were taken out by the staff of electricity
department after inspection by CFSL team and photographs and
videography was done. These were sealed with seal of SK at five

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


52

places vide memo Ex. PW3/1. The witness introduced new date 52-2004 for this recovery. It does not appear to be mere mistake in
mentioning the date to be 5-2-2004 instead of 17-2-2004.
Ex.PW3/1 is shown to be dated 17-2-2004. Witness PW13 SI
Ranjit Singh seems to be quite unaware of many facts which he
must have known had he been actual witness to the facts. He
deposed nothing as to who had given information to the IO to the
effect that this was the place which was used by Narain Singh,
accused to stop the main supply. While the case of prosecution is
that it was Narain Singh Chaura himself who had identified the
place. He deposed that he does not know the name of worker of
electricity department who had climbed up the electric pole
through wooden ladder brought by them.

PW1 Sukhwinder

Singh, lineman, PW2 Gurnam Singh, lineman do not depose


anything about the recoveries on 17-2-2004 or of 5.2.2004. PW3
C.S. Gujral is said to be SDO. He himself has not removed the
said wires. Fourth person said to be present PW11 Karam Singh,
J.E. who also does not mention that he had removed the wires.
PW13 SI Ranjit Singh further stated that one officer from CFSL
party had pointed out the place from where the pieces were to be
taken and the laboratory team inspected the spot for 10-15
minutes. However, to this recovery proceedings, no person from
CFSL has been made a witness either of the documents or a
witness in the Court. Leaned APP has tendered CFSL report Ex.
PX/X1 dated 23-3-2007 on record, but the same is with regard to

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


53

articles recovered from the barrack and examined or the impact


aspects of the tunnel. This CFSL report mentions date of
examination of scene of crime from 8-4-2004 followed by
laboratory examination upto 23-3-2007. It has not mentioned of
the examination of place where electricity was found to be
disconnected.
40.Then PW33 is a witness Sh. Pargat Singh who was working as
generator operator at Burail Jail on the intervening night of 21/221-2004 and he deposed that he started generator for supply of
electricity to the Burail Jail from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on that
date and entry of the same was made in the log book. Thus, what
can be understood is that only for this short time electricity was
disconnected. He was confronted with copy of log book Ex. D1
and he admitted that entry dated 21-1-2004 encircled at point X
wherein time has been changed from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.,
wherein in the last column, only 0.30 has been mentioned. He also
admitted that in the last column where total quantity of diesel
utilized is mentioned, number 7 has been tempered and has been
made 14. He admitted that there was electric cut on 20-1-2004 and
night of 21-1-2004 and the date 20-1-2004 has been tempered and
made 21-1-2004. He admitted that he can not tell who tempered
with the log book and log book was taken into police custody on
22-1-2004 from the jail authorities and he was present at that time.
He mentioned that he was not joined into police investigation by
the police in the matter nor his statement was recorded. Statement

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


54

of this witness when read with the witnesses of electricity


department and the investigating officers who were doing the
investigations about the fact that accused Narain Singh had played
some trick with the electricity wires on 21st, thus disconnecting
the electricity supply, becomes quite ambiguous with the evidence
as such led.
41.This court is also constrained to observe as to how the Court
should believe the prosecution case that once the incident had
come into the knowledge of police and quite likely being
sensational case, Senior police officials must have been
involved. The place from where electricity was disconnected by
use of alleged chains, did not come into the knowledge of any one
of them and on demarcation of Narain Singh these facts were
discovered. Rather discussion of the above evidence indicates that
there has been attempt of investigating officers of backward
integration of evidence and to connect it with the accused Narain
Singh by creating subsequent disclosure statement and recoveries.
Quite likely these recoveries of fact and articles were prior in time
than mentioned by the aforesaid witnesses and as reflected in the
documents.
42.This court can now discuss evidence of some witnesses and see if
they have make any worthy contribution to prosecution case .PW4
SI Karnail Singh has appeared to prove the photographs he had
taken of the scene of crime. Photographs which he had taken can
be considered to understand quite many facts which otherwise

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


55

have not come in the prosecution evidence from the mouth of any
witness. Ex. PW4/36, Ex.PW4/39 are the two photographs
showing that in a field having green crop on some part dry stocks
in the form of fodder are lying. This was the place which was
outlet to the tunnel and it becomes quite interesting to note that
how a person owning this land escaped noticing dry brown colour
fodder stocks lying amidst green vegetation crop which was quite
distinguishable. Ex. PW4/50 is the photograph of wooden plank
on which green leaves have been pasted in some form to create
camouflage. Ex.PW4/53 is the opening inside the barrack and it
appears that this opening was covered with the camouflage as
shown in Ex.PW4/50. Scene inside the barrack as depicted by the
photographs Ex. Pw4/52, Ex.PW4/54, Ex.PW4/62 and Ex.PW4/63
goes to show that several articles and wood fuel was scattered in
such a way that it camouflage and cover the opening in a very tidy
manner. These photographs Ex.PW4/54, Ex. PW4/61 and
Ex.PW4/64 show that mud parcels were in wooden cloths and
neatly kept in shelfs with no stains of any mud nearby. These
photographs have been simply tendered by this witness.
43.However, any of the Investigating Officers have not deposed as to
what were the circumstances the Investigating Officers wanted to
bring before the Court by way of these photographs to support the
case of prosecution as on the contrary these photographs show that
inside the barrack as the escapees had assistance of a cook and
they had sufficient amount of wood fuel and food to store, they

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


56

had stored the same around opening of the tunnel inside the
barrack and camouflage it and likely to deceive anyone and
particularly when the escapees were over sensitive to their articles,
claiming themselves to be different from other prisoners, certainly
the accused jail officials or other police officials deputed for
checking the same must have over looked or stood deceived.
Cross examination of this witness as photographer also reflected
one thing that as he reached the place of occurrence, scene of
crime was changed to lot of extent. He specifically admits that no
curtains were hanging inside the grill doors. This Court fails to
appreciate the reason for change in crime scene circumstances if at
all the photographs were to be taken for proving any fact.
44.SI Tarsem Singh from Police Station Mani Majra Chandigarh has
been examined by the prosecution as PW7 to depose the fact that
in his presence one computer key board, CPU and speaker was
taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A from Guru
Asra Trust, Village Palsora, UT, Chandigarh. ASI Surinder Kumar
had conducted these seizure proceedings. He appeared as PW19
and has deposed the same and has mentioned that these articles
were handed over to Inspector KIP Singh, Crime Branch. Now
why these seizures were made and how they are relevant with
regard to charges against the accused, has not been narrated by
any of the witness and he also says he doesn't know why they
were seized. How these articles have any bearing to any other
evidence collected, has not been brought before the Court and is

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


57

merely superfluous piece of evidence.


45.PW8 Constable Yash Pal has deposed that at the request of
Inspector Vijay Kumar, he had visited the place of occurrence i.e.
barrack no.7 and on 12-2-2004 he took rough notes of barrack
no.7 and on the basis of those rough notes he prepared site plans
Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/3. In cross examination, he deposed that he
had destroyed the rough notes on the evening of the day when he
prepared the scaled plans. He admitted that he did not meet any
jail official so as to know the facts of the incident and location. He
admits that Inspector concerned gave him oral directions and no
memo of handing over of scaled plans was made. The incident is
of 22-1-2004 and no site plan was prepared on the same day
inspite of the fact that the witness deposed that rough notes were
given by the Inspector Vijay Kumar on 22-1-2004. Site plan as
such of particular place is not of much consequence unless it is
used to corroborate any fact, however, discussion of this evidence
of PW8 indicates that either Investigating Officers were casual in
approach or these proceedings of preparation of site plan and the
photographs of scene of crime were done only to link the evidence
by padding while the relevant videography of recoveries at
instance of Narain Singh have been withheld. Thus with regard to
these three accused, Narain Singh, deceased Baljeet Kaur and
Gurnam Singh prosecution fails to bring home evidence of
conspiracies.
46.Taking up discussion with regard to recoveries made inside the

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


58

jail it can be appreciated that PW6 Kala Singh is a witness who as


a fireman with the Fire Department, UT, Chandigarh had visited
the Model Jail on 22-1-2004 at 12 noon and he deposed that he
was called to inspect the tunnel as some persons were entrapped
there. He deposed that police officials were already present there
and very reluctantly he went inside by means of rope tied around
his waste. He mentioned that one existing bulb and one torch were
recovered by him in the tunnel and the same were handed over by
him to police. He has not supported the prosecution in terms the
prosecution wanted and was declared hostile. He denied the
suggestion that recovered articles were converted into sealed
parcels in his presence. PW21 Sh. Jagbir Singh, DSP, Operation
Cell has deposed that on 22-1-2004, he was posted as SHO, Police
Station Sector 36, Chandigarh and on that date, he was called by
SSP to reach Burail Jail for investigation of Burail jail break case.
He was entrusted with the work of inspection of tunnel. This
witness has deposed about the articles which he had recovered.
Important being one weight lifting iron rod, one multi purpose
electricity extension board, turbans, several bags filled with soil
were recovered from beneath TV trolley and 38 cloth parcels
containing soil in them were also recovered from the barrack. He
deposed that from inside the tunnel, one sitting Patri, one Gurmala
for leveling the surface area of the tunnel, one plastic bucket, one
iron dumbbell were recovered and were sealed separately. He
deposed that on 27-1-2004 from inside the tunnel during search by

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


59

CFSL, one black colour electricity holder which was nailed inside
the tunnel wall having one electricity bulb fixed on it and
connected with electricity wire of two meters was recovered
which was taken into possession. On the same day, one wooden
stick which was installed inside the tunnel on the top entry point
was recovered. The witness produced original articles and PW20
SI Pyare Lal deposed about the fact that these articles were
received by him being Incharge of Police Post Burail. This Court
fails to understand if PW6 Kala Singh was first to enter the tunnel
and he had found only two articles therein, one bulb and one
torch, then how on later occasion some more articles were
recovered from inside the tunnel. This witness PW21 DSP Jagbir
Singh has mentioned of recoveries being effected on 22-1-2004
and 27-1-2004 and 30-1-2004. However, when he was cross
examined with regard to other aspects of investigation, he deposed
that he did not verify the factum of duty of warden who was
posted to said barrack and he mentioned that it was not part of his
investigation. As from the statement of this witness, it can be
picked up that investigation was being conducted in fragments by
number of police officials but for the reason best known to some
senior police officers who must have made the teams, but those
senior officers have not joined the investigation nor appeared in
the Court to depose how they connected the evidence and
concluded about conspiracy. Here itself a mention can be done of
PW22 SI Diwan Singh who has deposed about the prosecution

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


60

case of recoveries being effected in furtherance of disclosure


statements, but casually mentions in cross examination that he did
not visit the jail during investigation. PW21 Jagbir Singh, DSP
mentioned about presence of other officials Inspector Vijay
Kumar, SHO PS-34 and Sukhpal Rana being present on the spot
when he reached Burail jail on 22-1-2004 and made recoveries.
Insp. Vijay Kumar is reported to be dead but important witness
Insp. K. P Singh has failed to appear for prosecution and he seem
to a key investigation officer who was given task of interrogation
and recording disclosure. This witness DSP Jagbir Singh has been
cross examined on some aspects about the safety and surveillance
being in hands of Operation cell and he admitted that officials of
Operation Cell were regularly deputed at Burail Jail for the
purpose of surveillance and verification of the Mulakatis/visitors.
He admitted that barracks mentioned were to be checked and
inspected by other wings of Chandigarh police. This witness had
mentioned of the fact that earlier also it came to notice of
Chandigarh police that some soil inside the jail got pressed near
the Gurudwara barrack but the matter was hushed up by the jail
authorities. He admitted that he visited the jail at that time
alongwith Sh. HGS Dhaliwal the then SP, Operation, but the jail
authorities told them that no such earth was pressed and said
portion was recently leveled by them. He mentioned that they did
not proceed further believing the jail authorities. Like all other he
too shifts blame of jail official accused though himself was

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


61

actively involved in security and surveillance of jail. He does not


depose anything inculpatory except the seizures. It appears that
the investigation was conducted in very crude manner by many
police officials at the same time and due to interpolation of facts
same got mixed up.
47.In regard to accused jail officials, learned counsels
representing them have vehemently argued on the basis of cross
examination of witnesses produced from the jail staff PW5 Avnee
Kumar, PW29 Constable Ashok Kumar, PW30 Constable Jagtar
Singh, PW31 Constable Vinod Kumar, PW32 Constable Ram
Mehar, PW33 Pargat Singh, generator operator, PW37 Amandeep
Singh, Deputy Superintendent, PW45 Deep Kumar, Welfare
Officer, Model Jail and PW50 Hira Nand, Warder, that these
witnesses have not specifically deposed anything which can show
complicity of jail officials with the escapees or the alleged
conspirators outside the jail. Particularly with regard to witness
PW29 Constable Ashok Kumar, PW30 Constable Jagtar Singh,
PW31 Constable Vinod Kumar and PW32 Constable Ram Mehar,
it was contended that they themselves were on duties outside the
barrack no.7 and were themselves responsible for securing the
safe

custody

of

the

escapees

and

observe

suspicious

circumstances. It has been contended that along with jail officials


accused these persons had also been joined in the investigation
immediately after the incident as has been mentioned in Tafteesh
register, but on what basis they were spared and the jail official

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


62

accused found involved, has not been brought up before the Court.
It was contended that as per the Tafteesh register, no statement of
these witnesses was recorded in between 22nd and 24th. As from
the statement of these witnesses summoned for prosecution from
the jail, a lot of their evidence was discussed at bar to contend that
these witnesses in fact helped the jail official accused in their
defence that they were very vigilant and surveillant and security of
barrack no.7 was not only with the jail officials but with Operation
Cell of Chandigarh Police. It was contended by learned counsel
for the accused jail officials that they would not have risked their
job for any reason unless they were either sympathetic to the
escapees, sharing their ideology or were benefited in any way
including corruption and if it was out of fear they received, they
themselves are victim. It was contended that inspite of keeping the
jail official accused in police custody and interrogating for several
days, nothing was discovered from their possession so as to show
that they shared any mind in the alleged conspiracy. Specially
with regard to accused Paramjit Singh Rana, it was mentioned that
in August 2002 only he had joined and just completed probation
period, so he lacked that experience.
48.Immediately the arguments appeals any prudent mind but the
court has to consider that merely due to bad investigation or only
for the reason that some other person liable to be prosecuted has
not been made accused or made witness instead cannot absolve
the accused facing trial if the evidence establishes the ingredients

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


63

of offenses they are charged.


49.The charge against these jail officials is for offences of conspiracy
u/s 120B Section 217 and 222 / 120B IPC. The definitions of
these offences are reproduced below to understand what exactly
the law requires to be prove.
50.Section 217. Public servant disobeying direction of law
with intent to save person from punishment or property
from forfeiture. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly

disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to


conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save,
or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person
from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than
that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that
he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any
charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 222 IPC. Intentional omission to apprehend on
the part of public servant bound to apprehend person
under sentence or lawfully committed. Whoever, being a
public servant legally bound as such public servant to apprehend
or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a court of
justice for any offence (or lawfully committed to custody),
intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally
suffers such person to escape or intentionally aids such person in

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


64

escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be


punished as follows, that to say:with (imprisonment for life) or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or
without fine, if the person in confinement or who ought to have
been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement
or who ought to have been apprehended is subject by a sentence of
a Court of Justice to imprisonment for a term not extending to ten
years (or if the person was lawfully committed to custody).
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. - -(1) Whoever
is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such
a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted
such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy
other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or
with both.
51.This court has gone thoroughly of the Punjab Jail Manual
1996 to understand as to what is the philosophy of jail
administration and to consider how these accused jail officials

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


65

have been put to trial for the said offences. Same are reproduced
for convenience.
Chapter V
52.Inspection of Jails by Inspector General - It shall be the
duty of the Inspector General, as far as may be, personally to visit
and inspect every jail atleast once in each year, and to satisfy
himself that the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894 and all rules,
regulations, directions and orders made or issued thereunder
applicable to such jail, are duly obeyed and enforced, and that the
management of each jail is in all respects efficient and
satisfactory. A note recording the result of each visit and
inspection shall be made in a register (Visitors' Book)
to be maintained by the Superintendent for the purpose
or otherwise communicated.
Duties of the Inspector General at inspections(f)

satisfy himself that the management for guarding both by


day and night are satisfactory.

27. A copy of minute when to be submitted to


Government- A copy of any part of the minute required by the
preceding paragraph which deals with matters which should in the
opinion of the Inspector General be brought to the notice of
Government, shall be forwarded by the Inspector General to the
State Government.
34

Districts Magistrates to visit and inspect jails - (1)

it shall be the duty of the Magistrate of the district from time to

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


66

time to visit and inspect every jail situated within the limits of his
district and to satisfy himself that the provisions of the Prisons
Act 1894 and of all rules, regulations, directions and orders made
or issued thereunder, applicable to such jail, are duly observed
and enforced. (2) In all matters relating to the discipline
maintained in and the management of jails, the District Magistrate
or other Magistrate visiting and inspecting any jail under the
provisions of these rules shall discharge his duties subject to the
general control of the Inspector General. (3) A record of the
result of each visit and inspection made, shall be
entered in a register (Visitor's book) to be maintained
by the Superintendent for the purpose or otherwise
communicated in the form of a note.
General

directions-General

directions

under

sub

section (2) of Section 11, of the Prisons Act, 1894,


issued by the State Government(a)

The District Magistrate's order should ordinarily be issued


in the for of an entry in the Visitor's Book or through an
official communication. The District Magistrate is not
required to interfere in matters of details affecting the
management of a jail. He should beware of action
having a tendency to weaken the authority of the
Superintendent over subordinate jail officers and
prisoners.

(b)

In matters of an emergent and important character, affecting

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


67

the safety of the public, the jail or the prisoners, it is open to


the District Magistrate to take all such measures as may be
necessary in the special circumstances of the case, and all
action taken should be promptly reported to higher
authority.
(c)

If the District Magistrate gives an order to which the


Superintendent takes exception, the latter officer may
represent the matter to the Inspector General, but he shall
forthwith obey any order which is not clearly inconsistent
with the Prison's Act or any rule made thereunder and does
not involved any immediate risk or danger. In the event of
his hesitating to obey any order on any of these grounds, he
shall, in case of urgency, obtain the Inspector General's
orders by telegraph.

In cases, which are not urgent, the Superintendent will refer, in the
ordinary course, to the Inspector General and will communicate
that officer's reply, without delay to the Magistrate.
Duties of Superintendent generally stated.
(1)

Subject to the orders of the Inspector General, the


Superintendent shall manage the prison in all matters
relating to discipline, labour, expenditure, punishment and
control.

(2)

Subject to such general or special directions as may be


given by the State Government, the Superintendent of a
prison shall obey all orders not in consistent with the

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


68

prisons Act 1894 or any rule thereunder which may be


given representing the prison by the District Magistrate, and
shall report to the Inspector General all such orders and the
actions taken thereon.
53.Thus what can be understood is that Superintendent is an officer
of prison whose authority is required to be unimpaired by any
external command. At the same time it mentions that District
Magistrate and Inspector General are two supervising authority
and in case of conflict of any directions of District Magistrate and
Wisdom of Superintendent, the matter has to be referred to
Inspector General.
54.However, here was a scenario where District Magistrate himself
was Inspector General. There is also nothing on record to suggest
that during investigation any attempt was made to consider as to if
as per jail manual there were regular visits of the District
Magistrate in his dual capacities. If the question is only of fixing
criminal responsibilities on the basis of Jail Manual there should
have been something to show that Superintendent did something
on his own volition in breach of Jail Manual and same were
sought to be corrected in these supervisory visits of District
Magistrate but still same were not done. It was quite a relevant
fact and could have been established by evidence but has not been
done so.
55.A narration of their duties as per Jail Manual is also necessary to
see how elaborate was the command of law for safety and

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


69

surveillance of jail.
Chapter VII (62)
Superintendent of Jail
64

It shall be the duty of every Superintendent of a jail

to:(a)

provide for the support, care and custody of and control


over, all prisoners, at any time confined in the jail;

(b)

maintain order and discipline amongst the prisoners


confined, and the Subordinate officers employed in the jail;

(c)
(d)

enquire into and adjudicate upon all alleged prison offences


and breaches of discipline and to punish all those who are
found guilty of having committed any such prisons offence
or breach of discipline in due course of law;

(e)

generally to take all such measures as may be necessary or


expedient for the proper protection and management of the
jail and of all prisoners at any time confined therein and for
the purpose of giving effect to and enforcing the provision
of the Prisons Act 1894, and all rules, regulations, orders
and directions made or issued thereunder, as may be
applicable thereto or to any prisoner confined therein or any
officer thereof;

(f)

provides suitable facilities for the recreation of inmates and


members; of staff; and

(g)

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


70

70

Jails to be inspected and maintained in an

efficient state- The Superintendent shall frequently visit and


inspect every barrack, yard, cell, workshop and latrine, as well as
the armory, warders lines and every other part of the jail and its
precincts and all premises belonging or attached thereto, or
connected therewith, and shall satisfy himself that all buildings,
structures, enclosing walls and the like, are secure and are
maintained in the best possible state of repairs, and that every part
of the said jail precincts and premises is kept clean and in an
efficient sanitary condition.
Deputy Superintendent; Deputy Superintendent Grade
I;

Senior

Assistant

Superintendent;

Assistant

Superintendent, Persons included in the word Deputy


Superintendent- For the purpose of duty, the expression
Deputy Superintendent shall be deemed to include Deputy
Superintendent Grade I, Senior Assistant Superintendent,
Assistant

Superintendent,

Welfare

Officer,

Sub Assistant

Superintendent and every person for the time being performing all
or any of the functions or duties of a deputy Superintendent, in
regard to the functions or duties so performed.
95.

Deputy Superintendent to be present at night - The

Deputy Superintendent shall not be absent from the prison for a


night without permission in writing from the Superintendent, but
if absent without leave for a night from unavoidable necessity, he
shall immediately report the fact and the cause of it to the

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


71

Superintendent.
98.

Deputy

Superintendent's

Journal -

The

Deputy

Superintendent shall regularly maintain a journal in which he


shall from time to time record, as they occur, all events of
importance effecting the jail and shall daily record the general
state of the jail. He shall enter in his journal all reports and
representations which it may be his duty to make to the
Superintendent and all other matters which by any of the
provisions of the rules, regulations, directions and orders from the
time being in force, he is required to enter therein.
105. Deputy

Superintendent

to

search

weekly

for

prohibited articles- The Deputy Superintendent shall, at


uncertain times, at least once a week, cause each prisoner and all
clothing and bedding and all wards, cells and other compartments,
workshops, latrines and other places frequented by prisoners, to
be thoroughly searched for prohibited articles.
106 Deputy Superintendent to regulate interviews and
communications- It shall be the duty of the Deputy
Superintendent to regulate all interviews and communications
between prisoners and persons who are not prisoners and to
prevent all persons who are not duly authorized in that behalf by
competent authority from entering the jail premises or having any
access of any kind to, or communication with, any prisoner, and
to arrange that the proper office of the jail is present during all
interviews held.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


72

110. Deputy

Superintendent to hold parade every

Sunday- The Deputy Superintendent shall hold a parade of all


the prisoners for the time being confined in the jail on every
Sunday Evening and shall,
(a)

carefully inspect every prisoner;

(b)

examine the clothing, bedding and utensils etc. of every


prisoner;

check the muster roll and satisfy himself that every prisoner is
present or accounted for and satisfy himself generally that
everything is in proper order. He shall enter a report of his
inspection in his journal, noting therein the state of the clothing,
cleanliness, numerical strength and other matters of importance
relating to the prisoners.
118. Other matters of importance to be noted in
Deputy

Superintendent's

Journal -

The

Deputy

Superintendent shall enter in his journal all instances in which he


may have found it necessary to use restraint to any prisoner, any
violent outbreak or serious offence, accident, death or other
occurrence out of the ordinary routine, appellation for the
Superintendent's sanction for the employment of prisoners in any
special manner or for any unusual expenditure and whenever it is
proposed to draw money from the Treasury for manufactory or
jail purposes, a note showing the necessity for the same.
119. Disposal

of

entries

in

the

Deputy

Superintendent's Journal The Deputy Superintendent's

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


73

journal shall be placed daily (or oftener if necessary) before the


Superintendent, who shall endorse this orders against each entry,
or if no orders or comments are necessary, append his initials.
120. Deputy

Superintendent

responsible

for

the

efficiency of the guard- (1) The Deputy Superintendent shall


satisfy himself that a sufficient strength of the guard to meet all
emergencies is at all times present at the jail and ready to be
armed, and that the warders sleep in the quarters allotted to them
and do not leave the jail premises without permission.
The Deputy and the Assistant Superintendents shall at least once a
week in addition to their routine night round search in relieved
and relieving night guards between the gates.
Head warders
241 Summary of duties of head warders- It shall be the duty of
every head warder to(a)

superintend the warders subordinate to him in the discharge


of their duties;

(b)

assist in every possible way in the management of the jail,


the prevention of escapes and the maintenance of order and
discipline generally amongst subordinate officers and
prisoners;

(c)

comply with the requirements of all laws, rules, regulations,


directions and orders for the time being in force as to the
duties which he is to perform and the manner in which he is
to perform them;

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


74

(d)

obey the orders of all officers superior to him in rank;

(e)

assist the Deputy Superintendent in all routine duties;

(f)

open

in

the

presence

of

the

Deputy/Assistant

Superintendent the sleeping wards, cells and other


compartments each morning and count the prisoners;
(g)

distribute the prisoners, who are liable to labour each


morning to their respective work gangs;

(h)

cause the name and prison number of every prisoner placed


in charge of any warder to be entered in the proper gangbook;

(i)

collect all such articles, together with the produce, if any of


the prisoners labour, after the period prescribed for work is
over each evening;

(j)

collect all such articles, together with the produce, if any, of


the prisoners labour after the period prescribed for work is
over each evening;

(k)

satisfy himself that all articles issued have been duly


returned to him or accounted for;

(l)

measure or check the task (if any) performed by each


prisoner and note the same in the labour register;

(m)

superintend the use of the latrines and all bathing and


feeding parades;

(n)

check the prisoners at each change of guard;

(o)

cause all gratings, doors and like to be secured and satisfy


himself from time to time that they are secure;

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


75

(p)

cause all bamboos, scantlings, poles, ladders, ropes, well


gear and other articles likely to be used for, or to facilitate
the escape of any prisoner to be removed and placed
beyond the reach of the prisoners in the places prescribed
for storing or keeping the same;

(q)

keep constantly moving about while on day duty, amongst


the prisoners, supervising the work and discipline of the jail
and keeping the warders and convict officers on the alert;

(r)

in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent to count,


search and lock the prisoners up in their respective wards,
cells and other compartments, at the prescribed time each
evening; and

(s)

give the warders half-an-hour's drill daily.

Warder
271 It shall be the duty of every warder(a)

not to take off any portion of his uniform or lie or sit down
whilst on duty;

(b)

to know the number of prisoners in his charge, to count


them frequently during his turn of duty and to satisfy
himself that he has in his custody, not alone the correct
number, but the particular prisoners for whom he is
responsible;

(c)

to search all prisoners he receives I his charge or makes


over to the charge of any other officer, at the time of
receiving and making over charge respectively;

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


76

(d)

to report every prisoner in his charge who has been idle or


who has not completed his task or who has committed any
other jail offence;

(e)

to see that any prisoner who has to go to the latrine at


unauthorized times is made over to the charge of a
responsible officer whilst away from the gang;

(f)

to bring to the notice of the Deputy Superintendent any


prisoner appearing to be ill or complaining of sickness;

(g)

to report any plots for the purpose of escaping or of assault


or outbreak or of obtaining forbidden articles;

(h)

to prepare prisoners for muster and parades and to see that


each prisoner comes to his proper place in proper order and
behaves well;

(i)

to follow the procedure laid down for his guidance when


any prisoner is missing; and

(j)

to keep his arms and accouterments clean, in good order


and fit for immediate use.

273 Duties of warder on being relieved - A warder on


bring relieved shall explain to his successor what the duties of the
charge are, and shall bring to notice any long terms or dangerous
prisoners. The relieving officer shall, before taking charge, satisfy
himself that the property and the number of prisoners made over
to him are correct.
Miscellaneous Provisions
CHAPTER XVII

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


77

517 Unlocking wards and counting prisoners at daybreak- When the bell or gong is sounded at day break, the
convict watchman on duty inside the wards shall wake the
prisoners and superintend the folding of the bedding. The
prisoners each having neatly arranged his bedding on his sleeping
berth shall then sit in double file down the centre of the wards. On
the arrival of the Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent
and head warders, the wards shall be opened, the prisoners
marched out in pairs, searched, counted and their numbers
checked with the entries in the lock up register.
528 Prisoners not to leave their berths- No prisoner shall
be allowed to go to the bed of any other prisoner without
sufficient cause and without informing the convict watch on duty.
After 9:00 p.m. no prisoner shall leave his sleeping place except
to go to latrine.
535 Matters affecting caste or religion- (1) No undue
(2)

Every prisoner shall be allowed to perform his


devotions, in a quite and orderly manner during
the mid-day

rest and when locked up for the

night.
(3)

The superintendent may, in his discretion, permit gathering


together of prisoners for the purpose of holding any
religious or national functions which has been declared as a
jail holiday.

(4)

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


78

540 List of prohibited articles:- The articles specified or


included in any of the descriptions contained in the list annexed to
this rule, shall be deemed to be prohibited articles, within the
meaning of section 42 and clause (12) of section 45 of the
Prisoners Act, 1894, unless any such article shall be(a)

introduced into any jail,

(b)

removed from any jail,

(c)

supplied to any prisoner outside the limits of any jail, or

(d)

received, possessed or transferred by any prisoner, with the


permission of the Superintendent or other officer
empowered by him in this behalf.

List of prohibited articles


(1)

Spirituous liquors of every description.

(2)

Tobacco and all other substances except cigarettes and


biddies whatsoever which are or may be intended to be used
for the purpose of smoking, chewing or snuffing and all
instruments and appliances whatsoever, which may be used
for or in connection with smoking, chewing or snuffing.

(3)

All explosive, poisonous, intoxicating or sedative


substances whether in the form of herbs or chemicals and
whether fluid or solid of whatever description.

(4)

All arms and weapons and articles which are capable of


being used as weapons, of whatever description.

(5)

All bullion, metal, coin, jewellery, ornaments, currency


notes, securities and articles of value of every description.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


79

(6)

All books, paper and printed or written matter and materials


and appliances for printing or writing, of whatever
description, unless permitted by the Superintendent.

(7)

Strips, rope, chains and all materials, which are capable of


being converted into string or rope or chains, of whatever
description.

(8)

Wood, bricks, stones and earth of every description.

(9)

Hand tools which may be used for digging, breaking and


cutting etc.

545. Reference to Magistrate. - When in the opinion of the


Superintendent any of the following offences are established
against any prisoner, he shall refer the case to the Magistrate
exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973:(1)

offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 152 of the


Indian Penal Code;

(2)

offences punishable under sections 222, 223 and 224 of the


Indian Penal Code;

(3)

offences punishable under sections 304A, 309, 325 and 326


of Indian Penal Code, and

(4)

any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session.

546. Powers of Superintendent .- A prisoner who has


committed any of the offences enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs shall be put up before the Deputy Superintendent by
the executive officer incharge of the prisoner alongwith his

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


80

History ticket in which the offence committed is recorded. The


Deputy Superintendent after holding a preliminary enquiry will
record his

observation in the case and present the prisoner

alongwith his history ticket, witnesses and other relevant records


before the Superintendent who shall hold an enquiry and punish
such offences as given below:
a formal warning;
Explanation: A formal warning shall mean a warning personally
addressed to a prisoner by the Superintendent and recorded in the
punishment-book on the prisoner's history ticket;
Change of labour to some more irksome or severe form for such
period as may be prescribed by rules made by the GovernorGeneral in Council;
Hard labour for a period not exceeding seven days in the case of
convicted

criminal

prisoners

not

sentenced

to

rigorous

imprisonment;
Such loss of privileges admissible under the remission system for
the time being in force as may be prescribed by rules made by the
Governor-General in Council;
Stopping from recreational facilities.
Stopping for canteen facilities.
Recovery from wages from material loss, caused willfully.
Transfer to special prison.
Postponement of leave.
Imposition of hand-cuffs of such pattern and weight, in such

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


81

manner and for such period, as may be prescribed by rules made


by the State Government subject to the provision of paras 352 and
354.
Imposition of fetters of such pattern and weight in such manner
and for such period, as may be prescribed by rules made by the
State Government subject to the provision of paras 352 and 354.
Separate confinement for any period not exceeding three months.
Cellular confinement for any period not exceeding fourteen days;
provided that after each period of cellular confinement, an interval
of not less duration than such period must elapse before the
prisoner is again sentenced to cellular or solitary confinement.
CHAPTER XX
594. An officer to be within hearing of prisoners in
cells.- During the day time an officer of the jail shall always
remain within hearing of every prisoner confined in a cell to
ascertain and attend to his lawful requirements. A strict watch
shall be kept over all such prisoners to prevent them committing
any act which is forbidden.
597. The search of prisoners in cells. - Every prisoner shall
before being placed in a cell, be carefully searched and all articles
likely to aid escape or suicide shall be taken from him; the cell
shall also be searched. All cells and prisoners confined therein
shall be carefully searched at lock up time each day, and oftener if
necessary.
56.The prosecution sanctions proved on record in fact describe the

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


82

alleged culpable intention and culpable negligence of these


accused jail officials. The same are reproduced to understand how
these accused were found to be worthy of prosecution and trial
and not just to be let of by departmental proceedings of
termination of services.
57.Dalbir Singh Rana
Whereas Dalbir Singh Rana son of Jagdish Singh, resident
of Government House in the jail premises, Model Jail,
Chandigarh, while functioning as Superintendent, Model
Jail, Chandigarh, was required to be fully aware of his
duties as prescribed in the Punjab Jail Manual as adopted
for the Union Territory, Chandigarh for the enforcement of
laws, rules, regulations, directions and orders concerning
the management of the jail and the prisoners confined
therein.
.The investigations have revealed that the escaped under
trials were planning to revive terrorism by killing top
political leaders and disturbing the functioning of the
Government. From the evidence obtained during the course
of investigation of the case, it is apparent that the said
D.S.Rana was involved in the conspiracy to facilitate the
escape of the aforesaid under trials by not only willfully
neglecting his duties but also by providing them support in
different forms to facilitate their escape to carry out their
nefarious design for waging war against the State.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


83

58.Dalbir Singh Sandhu


Whereas Dalbir Singh Sandhu son of Sh. Kashmira Singh,
resident of House No.34, Model Jail, Chandigarh (now
dismissed from service), while functioning as Welfare
Officer, designated as Deputy Superintendent Jail,
Chandigarh was required to be fully aware of his duties as
prescribed in the Punjab jail Manual and the duty orders
passed by the Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh dated
29-5-2001 and 21-8-2002 read alongwith paras 92,93 and
97 of the Punjab Jail Manual, for the enforcement of laws,
rules, regulations, directions and orders concerning the
management of the jail and the prisoners confined therein.
The said D.S.Sandhu by virtue of his duties as such was
required to ensure the total security arrangements in the
Model Jail and do all acts and things necessary or expedient
for ensuring the safe custody of all the prisoners at any time
received into or confined in the jail as well as for enforcing
and maintaining discipline and order amongst such
prisoners and all subordinate officers of the jail. The said
D.S.Sandhu was fully aware of his duties that he was
required to, at uncertain times, cause each prisoner and all
clothing and bedding and all wards, cells and other
compartments, workshops, latrines and other places
frequented by the prisoners, to be thoroughly searched for
prohibited

articles;

to

regulate

all

interviews

and

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


84

communications between the prisoners and persons who


were not prisoners and to prevent all persons who were not
duly authorized by the competent authority from entering
into the jail premises or having any access of any kind to, or
communication with any prisoner, and to arrange that the
proper officer of the jail was present during all the
interviews held and to ensure that prohibited articles are not
allowed to be passed on to the prisoners and to be kept by
the prisoners. The said D.S.Sandhu was required to
particularly and directly supervise the work of P.S. Rana,
Assistant Superintendent Jail, who had been assigned the
specific duties of being in-charge security officer of the
barrack occupied by the accused under trials of the
assassination case of S.Beant Singh, the then Chief
Minister, Punjab and to keep strict vigil on the activities of
these under trials and ensure that nothing objectionable or
illegal was possessed by them and that they do not wander
in the jail without the supervision of jail guard and attend
lock up and lock out daily and make night rounds to check
the safe custody of the prisoners as well as to check from
time to time each and every barrack during day time and
ensure that the warders on duty were alert and prisoners
were safe.
....The investigations have revealed that the escaped
under trials were planning to revive terrorism by killing top

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


85

political leaders and disturbing the functioning of the


Government. From the evidence obtained during the course
of investigation of the case, it is apparent that the said
D.S.Sandhu was involved in the conspiracy to facilitate the
escape of the aforesaid under trials by not only willfully
neglecting his duties but also by providing them support in
different forms to facilitate their escape to carry out their
nefarious design for waging war against the State.
59.Ved Mittar Gill
Whereas Ved Mittar Gill son of Sh. Bhalle Ram, r/o
House No.2, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh (now
dismissed from service), while functioning as Deputy
Superintendent Jail , Chandigarh was required to be
fully aware of his duties as prescribed in the Punjab Jail
Manual as adopted for the Union Territory, Chandigarh and
the duty orders passed by the Superintendent, Model Jail,
Chandigarh dated 29-5-2001 read alongwith paras 92 and
132 of the Punjab Jail Manual, for enforcement of laws,
rules, regulations, directions and orders concerning the
management of the jail and the prisoners confined therein.
The said V.M. Gill by virtue of his duties as such was
required to do all acts and things necessary or expedient for
ensuring the safe custody of all the prisoners at any time
received into or confined in the jail as well as for enforcing
and maintaining discipline and order amongst such

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


86

prisoners and all subordinate officers of the jail. The said


V.M. Gill was fully aware that he was required to see for
himself every prisoner once in every 24 hours and to visit
every barrack, ward, cell, compartment and every other part
of the jail and premises thereof every 24 hours. It was
therefore his duty to be present every evening when the
prisoners were locked up for the night and every morning
when the prisoners were taken out of the sleeping wards,
cells or other compartments, satisfy himself both by night
and morning that all the prisoners were present and in safe
custody and to forthwith report every unusual occurrence of
a serious nature to the Superintendent of the Model Jail.
The said V.M. Gill was fully aware of his duties and he was
required at uncertain times, atleast once a week to cause
each prisoner and all clothing and bedding and all wards,
cells and other compartments, workshops, latrines and other
places frequented by the prisoners, to be thoroughly
searched for prohibited articles; to regulate all interviews
and communications between the prisoners and persons
who were not prisoners and to prevent all persons who were
not duly authorized by the competent authority from
entering into the jail premises or having any access of any
kind to, or communication with any prisoner, and to arrange
that the proper officer of the jail was present during all the
interviews held.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


87

....The investigations have revealed that the escaped


under trials were planning to revive terrorism by killing top
political leaders and disturbing the functioning of the
Government. From the evidence obtained during the course
of investigation of the case, it is apparent that the said V.M.
Gill was involved in the conspiracy to facilitate the escape
of the aforesaid under trials by not only willfully neglecting
his duties but also by providing them support in different
forms to facilitate their escape to carry out their nefarious
design for waging war against the State.
60.Paramjit Singh Rana
Whereas Paramjit Singh Rana son of Sh. Jaswant Singh,
resident of House No.1388-A, Sector 20B, Chandigarh
(now dismissed from service), while functioning as
Assistant Superintendent Jail, Chandigarh was detailed
vide orders of the Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh
bearing endorsement no.2050-62 dated 21-8-2002 read
alongwith paras 92,93 and 97 of the Punjab Jail Manual as
adopted for the Union Territory, Chandigarh for the
enforcement of laws, rules, regulations, directions and
orders concerning the management of the jail and the
prisoners confined therein and was Incharge Security
Officer of the barrack occupied by S.Beant Singh, Ex.
Chief Minister, Punjab Assassination case. He was required
to sit in the office of the Chakkar Head Warder for the

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


88

whole day and to keep strict vigil on the activities of these


under trials and ensure that nothing objectionable or illegal
was possessed by them and ensure that they did not wander
in the jail without the supervision of jail guard for any
purpose i. e. interview, medical purposes, canteen or at the
time of attending court, visiting the main gate and office for
any work or at the time of playing volley ball. Said P.S.
Rana was to work under the direct supervision and
guidance of Shri D.S.Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent Jail
and to attend lock up and lock out daily and make night
rounds to check the safe custody of prisoners etc. in
routine. He was to check from time to time each and every
barrack during daytime and ensure that warders on duty
were alert and prisoners were safe.
....The investigations have revealed that the escaped
under trials were planning to revive terrorism by killing top
political leaders and disturbing the functioning of the
Government. From the evidence obtained during the course
of investigation of the case, it is apparent that the said
P.S.Rana was involved in the conspiracy to facilitate the
escape of the aforesaid under trials by not only willfully
neglecting his duties but also by providing them support in
different forms to facilitate their escape to carry out their
nefarious design for waging war against the State.
61. Nishan Singh

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


89

Whereas Nishan Singh son of Biru Ram, resident of


village Khizrabad, PS Kurali, District Ropar, while
functioning as Head Warder (now under suspension),
Model Jail, Chandigarh, was required to check the security
of barracks and keep strict vigil on the activities of the
under trials and ensure that nothing objectionable and
illegal was possessed by them and that they did not wander
in the jail without the supervision of jail guard for any
purposes i.e. interview, medical purposes, canteen, visiting
the main gate and office for any work or at the time of
playing games. He being I/C of the Agriculture Implement
Store was require to ensure that the implements issued to
the prisoners were deposited back in the store after
completion of work. He was to check from time to time
each and every barrack during day and night times and
ensure that warders on duty were alert and prisoners were
safe.
.From the evidence obtained during the course of
investigation of the case, it is apparent that the said Nishan
Singh while functioning as Head Warder, Model Jail,
Chandigarh, in furtherance of his common intention
alongwith others and with his acts of omission and
commission, hatched a criminal conspiracy for facilitating
the escape of the four under trial prisoners.
62. Inder Singh:-

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


90

Whereas Inder Singh son of Sewa Singh, r/o Village Bad


Sikari, PS Kalayat, District Kaithal, while functioning as
Warder (now under suspension), Model Jail, Chandigarh,
Incharge Barrack no.7 where four under trials namely
Jagtar Singh Hawara son of Sher Singh, Paramjit Singh son
of Jagjit Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara son of Sadhu Singh &
Dev Singh son of Madan Singh were lodged in the Model
Jail, Burail, was required to guard the barrack and ensure
their safe custody. He was required to keep check on the
illegal facilities being enjoyed by the aforesaid under trials
in the barrack and to keep strict vigil on the activities of
these under trials and ensure that nothing objectionable and
illegal was possessed by them and that they did not wander
in the jail without the supervision of jail guard for any
purposes i.e. interview, medical purposes, canteen, visiting
the main gate and office for any work or at the time of
playing games. He was also require to cheque the lock up
and lock out daily and make night rounds to check the safe
custody of the prisoners.
.The investigations have revealed that the escaped under
trials were planning to revive terrorism by killing top
leaders and disturbing the proper functioning of the
Government. From the evidence obtained during the course
of investigation of the case, it is apparent that the said Inder
Singh

while

functioning

as

Warder,

Model

Jail,

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


91

Chandigarh, in furtherance of his common intention


alongwith others and with hjis acts of omission and
commission, hatched a criminal conspiracy for facilitating
the escape of the four under trial prisoners.
63. The gist of two offences, Section 217 and 222 IPC is that there
should be some sort of culpable intention or culpable negligence
and not just dereliction of duty in the form of misconduct as
understood under administrative law. There should be some
element of being unfaithful to the duty and not merely
indifference. There should be resolve or design and not just
carelessness out of disheartened mind. It was held in Durga
Prashad Vs. Emperor (1910) 11 Cr.LJ 478, 7 IC 411
that before a person can be convicted under section 223 IPC, it
must be shown not only that he was guilty of negligence, but that
the escape was at least the natural and probable consequence of
his negligence. It is not a logical corollary of a person escaping
from custody that the same should have been through negligence
of the public servants in question. Negligence requires proof
which

has

not

been

led.

(As

relied

by

CENTRAL

ADIMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW


DELHI; OA NO.1560/2012 on 22ND DAY OF JANUARY,2013
in Raj Singh VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through
Commissioner of Police PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.)
64.Taking up discussion of evidence in this regard it can be observed
from statement of PW29 Constable Ashok Kumar, that he has

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


92

been examined by the prosecution as he was deputed as Guard of


barrack no.7. This witness has deposed that barrack was covered
with curtains and light of said barrack used to remain off by
inmates and in the said barrack TV was always on in high
volume. Tap of bathroom of said barrack remained open due to
which water kept on flowing from the tap. He deposed that he had
informed accused Sh. P.S. Rana, Assistant Superintendent Jail
regarding the above said activities taking place at barrack no.7
when he came to visit there. He deposed that P.S. Rana replied
that he will look into the matter and directed him to keep doing
his duty. He deposed that on 20-1-2004, he had heard the noise of
hitting something hard / scratching from inside the barrack for
which he had informed accused Sh. P.S.Rana and Nishan Singh.
He deposed that it was noticed that gutters were blocked due to
flow of water and he informed Inder Singh, I/C of officials of jail.
Then PW30 Constable Jagtar Singh has deposed that he was
posted as Guard outside barrack no.7 with Constable Ashok
Kumar, PW29 and Tejinder Singh. He made similar deposition as
PW29. He, however, added that accused Nishan Singh did not
inform other police officers nor any checking was got conducted
by them. However, in cross examination by learned APP for the
State, once he was declared hostile, he admitted that he had
informed the jail officials D.S. Rana, PS.Rana, Inder Singh and
Nishan Singh about the activities being taken place in barrack
no.7 and also blocking of gutter due to flow of tap. PW31

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


93

Constable Vinod Kumar, posted as Warder, has deposed that on


21/22-1-2004, he was posted as Warder. He deposed like PW29
and PW30 about the barrack being kept covered, running of water
from tap and TV kept on by the inmates. He deposed that
regarding the activities, he had informed the officials namely
Charan Singh (not accused in the case), Incharge Inder Singh,
PS.Rana. He deposed that these officials further informed D.S.
Rana, Superintendent Jail. PW32 Constable Ram Mehar was
posted as Warder outside the barrack and his deposition is also
similar to PW31. He, however, deposed that he had not disclosed
the above said activities to any other official of the jail except to
duty officer on patrolling.
65.These were the four witnesses of the prosecution who were joined
from the jail administration in investigation in such a sensational
case to establish the alleged roles of jail officials. In regard to
statements of these witnesses, it can be picked up that these
witnesses have deposed something that occurred on the night of
escape. Something strange that Investigating Officers could have
no clue of the activities before the alleged escape. The disclosure
statements of non of the witness had complete narration of
conspiracy or how the tunnel was dug with such precision. Length
of the tunnel was so massive that one can not imagine, volume of
mud that must have been excavated and disposed of and precision
that must have taken to dig the tunnel with direction and safety. It
seems that the witnesses were joined by investigation officers and

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


94

have been examined in trial only to bring a fact as if over night


the tunnel was dug. Apart form the these witnesses there must
have been other employees who were engaged in search and
survilience. Specially apart from the jail staff the other security
personnel who were having equal say. They could have deposed
in better way as to how all the while they had observed conduct of
accused jail officials and found it to be suspicious or
objectionable. There is certainly force in the contention of learned
counsel for the accused that prosecution witnesses discussed
above, were immediately in custody of the escapees and their
barrack no 7 and on what basis they were not found negligent or
conspiring, has not been explained to the Court. It appears they
were privately made approvers without the knowledge of court
and co-accused.
66.Now when cross examination of these four witnesses is
considered, their statements in chief as extracted by ld. APP turn
out to be quite shallow to support the prosecution and appear to be
mere an attempt to save their own skins. PW29 Constable Ashok
Kumar in cross examination deposes that on the date of alleged
escape of prisoners the sweeper had come and he along with other
guards had gone inside the barrack no.7 and checked everything
and nothing suspicious was found and for that reason he and his
other guards had not disclosed any suspicious activity in barrack
no.7 to the jail Superintendent and Deputy Jail Superintendent and
other jail officials. He admitted that 12 jail officials guards were

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


95

on patrolling duty and they visited every barrack after every hour.
He admitted that he and other guards stationed outside barrack
no.7 have told them that everything was OK and accordingly
they noted down this fact in their night report book. He admitted
that it is correct that if any suspicious activity is found inside the
barrack, same has to be informed to Deputy Superintendent and
Superintendent Jail and other high officers in the jail in writing
and he admitted that he had never done so in writing. He was
unable to give any explanation for his conduct also. He admitted
that he had never told to the officials of Chandigarh police
stationed at jail premises regarding the suspicious activities of
barrack no.7. Rather he says that it was not his duty to inform
them. He admits that as per rules whenever their duty started,
prisoners in particular were checked and whenever duty was off
the prisoners were again checked and at the time of handing over
duty to other guards. He admitted that he alongwith other guards
used to play volley ball with inmates of this barrack no.7. PW30
Jagtar Singh in his cross examination admitted that on every
Sunday every barrack was checked by jail staff including
Chandigarh police officials. Similar to PW29, he also admitted
about the patrolling duty and the fact that they did not disclose
suspicious activities to anyone from Chandigarh police which
used to frequently visit this barrack. As with regard to sewerage,
he deposed that Municipal Corporation officials used to come to
jail in routine practice. He admitted that it was his duty also to

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


96

check the barracks including barrack no.7 and he did not find
anything inside the barrack or gave any information to any
officer. He particularly admitted that the guards stationed at main
tower used to ask after every five minutes from the guard
stationed at every barrack in loud voice if everything was alright
and he alongwith his co-guards used to reply that everything was
OK. He deposed that he and other guards never tried to enter
barrack no.7 when the barrack was opened during day time. He
then admitted that there was only one switch of electricity and
same was outside the barrack. This suggestion was put up to
establish the fact that electricity form inside the barrack could not
have been switched of by the inmates themselves unless it was
switched of from the outside. This witness deposed that it can be
possible that the escape may have taken place before 12:00 mid
night before he had joined duty on that night. PW31 Constable
Vinod who was posted as Warder has deposed that he was on duty
at barrack no.7 from 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. and he did not check
at the time of his duty from 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. whether the
inmates were inside the barrack or not. Then he deposed that
inmates were still in barrack when he left his duty and other three
took charge from him. So infact at what hour in night the escapees
left has been not even detected what to say of proving it. He
admitted that he never saw any tunnel in barrack no.7 throughout.
He admitted that no regular curtains were provided by the jail
authorities for barrack no.7 and blankets were put as curtains on

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


97

windows. He admitted that barrack no.7 was used to be inspected


by higher authorities practically each day. Warders on duty used
to go inside the barrack at the time of inspection by higher
officers. Local police used to inspect the barrack in question
practically every day. At no point of time during inspection by
jail authorities or police authorities or UT Administration, no
objectionable articles or activities were found in barrack no.7. He
admitted that he did not personally inspected the barrack from
where the sound of cutter was coming. He admitted that it was his
duty to check barrack, but in the night he did not use to check the
barrack. When was grilled in cross examination, he then deposed
that actually he never heard the sound of cutter from the barrack,
but he had over heard from some other ward of same. He admitted
that the warder on duty used to give certificate daily at the time
of leaving their duty that everything was in order in barracks
where they were on duty. Particularly with regard to jail officials
Superintendent D.S.Rana and D.S.Sandhu Dy. Superintendent, he
disclosed that he had never disclosed suspicious activities of
barrack no.7 to these officials. PW32 Constable Ram Mehar who
was posted as Warder, has deposed that he did not check at the
time of his duty from 3:00a.m. to 6:00 a.m. in the night of 21/221-2004 whether inmates were inside the barrack or not. After him
Dharampal, Kamaljit Singh and Harvinder Singh, Warders were
on duty from 6:00a.m. to 9:00a.m. They however have not been
examined. They must have been the first one to find escape and

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


98

report it to seniors. He admitted that barrack no.7 was used to be


inspected by higher authorities practically on each day. Warder on
duty used to go inside the barrack at the time of inspection by
higher officials. He also admitted that local police used to inspect
the barrack in question particularly every day. He admitted that at
no point of time jail authorities or police officials or UT
Administration observed anything objectionable inside barrack
no.7. He also admitted that patrolling officials used to visit that
barrack after every hour and he used to report his inspection
report in relevant register on the basis of information provided by
each warder. He admitted that senior officers from VIP security
cell alongwith sniffer dogs used to search out the barrack no.7
from inside after every 10 days. He admits that he did not
personally inspect the barrack from where the sound of cutter was
coming though admitted that it was his duty to check the barrack,
but admitted that in the night he never used to check the barrack.
With regard to accused D.S.Rana, he mentioned that he never
informed D.S.Rana personally on any occasion. Similarly with
regard to accused D.S.Sandhu he deposed that he had never
mentioned these facts in writing to D.S. Sandhu.
67.Then prosecution has examined witness PW15 Tarsem Chand,
PW16 Darshan and PW17 Neetu who were working as sweepers
in Public Health Department and they have deposed about the fact
that on various occasions, they had cleaned the blockage of gutter
sewerage. These blockages were mentioned to be of November

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


99

2003 and December 2003. Case of the prosecution is that the


accused were flushing mud excavating from the tunnel through
toilet and the same lead to blockage of gutter sewerage. However,
these witnesses in cross examination mentioned that it was
sewerage water of black colour which used to block the sewerage.
They used to clean the sewerage with the pressure of nozzle pipe.
They also admitted that they used to come to jail premises in
routine for the said work. Particularly these witnesses do not
depose that they have found sewerage blocked for mud and they
have mentioned the same to any of the jail officials. PW41 Sh.
Tejinder Pal Singh, Executive Engineer (Projects), Public Health,
Haryana has been examined for the same purpose as he has
proved some records which was taken in possession by the police
bring complaints regarding blockage of Burail Jail sewerage. The
witness admitted in cross examination that he himself never
visited the premises to look into the complaints received in the
Department and admitted that complaints regarding blockage are
generally received and concerned officials are sent to deal with
the complaints. The witness does not depose that there was
anything abnormal or suspicious in the cleaning of these
sewerages which was brought into the knowledge of any of the
jail official. Ld. Defence counsel has made appealing argument
that so many mud samples were taken but no sample from sewer
was taken to connect that mud blocked the sewerage. Thus this
piece of evidence does not hold ground to nail jail officials and

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


100

attribute any criminal negligence.


68.Statement of PW4 SI Karnail Singh who had taken photographs
of barrack no 7 soon after the incident has already been discussed
that inside the barrack as the escapees had assistance of a cook
and they had sufficient amount of wood fuel and food to store,
they had stored the same around opening of the tunnel inside the
barrack and camouflage it and likely to deceive anyone and
particularly when the escapees were over sensitive to their
articles, claiming privileges on religious ground for themselves.
Certainly the accused jail officials or other police officials
deputed for checking the same must have over looked or stood
deceived and that cannot fall in ambit of criminal intent and
criminal negligence, which the court is looking to nail the accused
on prosecution evidence.
69.The court now intends to discuss the statements of two witnesses
whom the prosecution claims to have been almost eye witnesses
of the conduct of accused jail officials in somehow assisting the
escapees Jagtar Singh Hawara and others by playing a positive
role and also neglecting to consider the information given by
these two witnesses PW5/A Avnee Kumar and PW50 Hira Nand
Mishra. PW5/A Avnee Kumar has deposed that he was working
as pharmacist at jail premises and on 21-1-2004 at about 10:30
a.m. he went to the office of D.S.Rana for some official work
which he failed to explain in cross examination. Accused
D.S.Rana in presence of accused P.S.Rana enquired from him as

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


101

to at what time the doctor will come and witness had informed
that doctor will come late by 30/45 minutes. On this, he was asked
by D.S.Rana to open the office of Medical officer and to allow
Abid Mahmood for meeting.

He went to the dispensary and

opened the doctor's room. Accused Inder Singh who was working
as Warder brought the accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Binda
Lal, Quidi Lambardar brought accused Abid Mahmood. He
deposed that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Abid Mahmood
started talking with each other like political and terrorism
activities. He left the doctor's room and accused P.S.Rana
remained present in the room. In cross examination, he deposed
that he stayed for two minutes in the office room of the doctor
after arrival of Jagtar Singh Hawara and Abid Mahmood and he
simply felt that they were discussing about the political and
terrorism, but did not hear specifically which he could narrate.
This witness explains in cross examination that when Dr.
Chauhan reached, he rushed to doctor's room and asked others to
move out as doctor had come. This statement seems to be made to
show to the Court that meeting was in a concealed way. However,
as with regard to the meeting, this witness admits that such
meetings are generally allowed in the jail. He admitted that no
entries were made in any register. He clarifies that his statement
was recorded roughly after a week of the said meeting and also
added that he does not know as to how police came to know of
said meeting having been got done on the instructions of

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


102

Superintendent Jail. None of the police officials examined, has


deposed about this fact that statement of PW5/A was recorded
after seven days of the escape and to the mind of this Court if
during that period jail official accused were in custody, then
without any disclosure from them, how this fact of Avni Kumar
being acquainted with accused D.S. Rana and P.S. Rana managed
secret meeting, came into knowledge of said police officials.
Learned counsel for the accused has also been able to impress
with the arguments that if at all such a meeting was required to be
conducted, it could have been done in the office of
Superintendent, why the doctor's room.
70.Now this witness has been confronted with the fact that
Superintendent had rebuked him for getting a tree cut without
permission. It is also suggested to him that he had mentioned
wrong date of birth in his documents, a fact which was discovered
by the Superintendent and for which he had to file Writ Petition
no.1105 of 2003. Ex.DW4/51 is a letter dated 21-2-2003 written
by this witness Avnee Kumar about fall of a tree in his house and
that he needed permission to dig out its roots so that Pucka floor
could be laid in the courtyard of his house. Certainly the
discussion makes the veracity of this witness doubtful.
71.Coming up with the statement of PW50 Hira Nand Mishra. He
deposed that he was posted as Warder in Burail Jail in the year
2000. His duty was to guard the barracks and he was deputed to
guard the Gurudwara barrack of inmates namely Jagtar Singh

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


103

Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara and Paramjit Singh Bheora. He


deposed that these inmates used to celebrate festivals of Guru
Gobind Singh Jayanti and Guru Parbas and other functions of
Sikh religion. In the last months of year 2003, accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara and Paramjit Singh were talking
with other inmates from other barracks namely Subegh Singh,
Nand Singh, Sher Singh regarding the digging of tunnel work in
their barrack and that they are likely to flee shortly through this
tunnel. The witness deposed that he had intimated Nishan Singh,
Chakkar Hawaldar and Assistant Superintendent of Police Sh.
P.S.Rana, Jail Superintendent D.S.Rana, about it. He deposed that
he had disclosed whole conversation to these officials, but
accused Nishan Singh, P.S.Rana and D.S.Rana told him to remain
silent. He deposed that later after some days, accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara talked with accused D.S.Rana jail Superintendent and on
that he got message of Jail Superintendent D.S. Rana where he
was enquired as to why Jagtar Singh Hawara was complaining
against him that and he was told that why he should not be
transferred. Thereafter, he was transferred from Gurudwara
barrack to Lungar duty. Now when cross examination of this
witness is seen, It becomes very questionable as to what was the
purpose of introducing this witness. Pertinent to mention here is
that this witness PW50 Hira Nand Mishra was initially given up
by learned APP for the State and after closure of prosecution
evidence, he strangely appeared making all sorts of allegations

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


104

and then his statement was recorded by this Court exercising


powers u/s 311 Cr.P.C. It is in the statement of this witness for the
first time, something was deposed about accused Subegh Singh,
Nand Singh and Sher Singh together being involved. This witness
claims to have been very very actively involved in the guard of
Gurudwara barrack and says that he was shifted later on, but was
even unable to tell where switch boards of the lights were
situated, whether they were inside or outside the barrack. It
exposes the general level of prudence of being aware of his
surroundings.

He was confronted with the fact that Mr.

M.K.Tiwari who happens to be working with CBI, Chandigarh, is


known to him as relative. Though he denied the suggestion that it
was on his recommendation the witness was appointed with
Burail Jail as Warder. Generally, he claims that ever since the
incident and when he was allegedly given up by the prosecution,
he never mentioned this fact to Mr. M.K.Tiwari. The witness was
specifically cross examined if he could provide his mobile
number, but he mentioned that he will not disclose the same and it
was suggested to him that he is making this statement being
tutored by somebody and mobile number will prove this version
that he was in communication with some officials. Then having
been caught in the cross examination, he went astray and deposed
that he did not disclose to the police nor he can depose now the
date and month regarding the conversation he had over heard. He
admitted that no written complaint was given by him to anyone

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


105

though quite senior officers were regularly visiting him and


claimed that he was stopped from making complaint. The witness
was confronted with the fact, if after escape, he had visited the
CBO cell between 23 to 26 January 2004 and he deposed that he
had disclosed these facts on 24-1-2004 or 25-1-2004 to the police
officials of CBO Cell. In this regard, at one end there is no
deposition of any police official about recording statement of this
witness on the said date to discover involvement of jail official
accused, on the other hand, if his statement under section 161
Cr.P.C. is considered, same is of dated 27-1-2004 Ex.PW50/D4.
He admitted that he never made any complaint in any register or
informed patrolling staff of what he had heard. This witness was
confronted with some documents which were summoned by the
accused for the purpose of his cross examination and to discredit
his veracity. He admitted that he was discharged from jail services
after 2-3 months of the jail break incident and he was on
contractual appointment. He deposed that he is not aware of any
news article published in Amar Ujala about his services being not
regularized. In this regard Ex.PW50/D1 is the copy of letter dated
13-2-2004 from Home Secretary which through the office of AIG
prison reached the Deputy Superintendent. This was in regard to
comments on the clipping published in Amar Ujala dated 5-42004 in respect of Hira Nand Mishra, temporary employee of
model jail, Chandigarh. Comments were sought that the then
Superintendent Jail was inimical towards this employee.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


106

Comments of Deputy Superintendent Jail mentions that Hira


Nand Mishra who was deployed as Warder for 89 days is cheat
and gets news item published in Amar Ujala. He is notorious for
these activities. Ex.PW50/D2 is the explanation from the office of
Superintendent Model Jail by which this witness Hira Nand
Mishra was found absent from jail premises and was directed to
give his explanation. Ex.PW50/D3 has been admitted by this
witness to bear his signature and in this letter dated 1-8-2003 this
witness had admitted that one Deepak Vajpayee, reporter of news
paper Amar Ujala is known to him and he had given all sorts of
false reports to the said news paper. He had pleaded guilty and
sought sorry. Witness explains that it was written as was directed
by Sh. D.S.Rana. Thus, with regard to statement of this witness
also not much confidence can be given and his testimony is as
weak as can be to be relied when court is considering facts to be
proved beyond doubt.
72.This Court can also mention a fact that it has come from the
matter on record that CBO Cell of Chandigarh Police was actively
involved in the safety and surveillance activities inside and
outside the jail. Investigation in the case has already been taken
by same agency. The manner in which these witnesses of the jail
have been joined, it appears that same were joined on the basis of
some apology granted to them for being witness. Very selective
witnesses were picked up who have been proved to be themselves
condemned by jail official accused.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


107

73. In these circumstances the discussion of the evidence of the


defence assumes lot of importance in the present case and like the
prosecution evidence, the defence has to be given equal credit and
worthiness, specially when the witnesses examined in defence are
of public records. Genuineness of these documents is undisputed
on the part of prosecution.
74.Ex. DW1/A is the letter dated 19-4-1999 issued by Joint
Secretary

Home-III,

for

Home

Secretary,

Chandigarh

Administration by which considering the hunger strike taken up


by escapist Jagtar Singh Hawara, Kirpan was allowed to be kept
by the prisoners, although some specifications were mentioned in
it so that its grip is such that it can not be used as weapon of
offence. Quite reasonably understanding that at no level in

administration it was perceived as an instrument which may be


used for digging tunnel.
Ex. DW1/B is a Note put up by jail Superintendent in which
annoyed with the jail authorities, escapist Jagtar Singh Hawara
resorted to violence incidents have been narrated. It mentions that
Dalbir Singh Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent Jail who was
supervising the Court proceedings and was present in the Court
objected to the attempt of Jagtar Singh Hawara to converse with
co-accused who appeared from outside, on which Jagtar Singh
Hawara got infuriated and he started abusing jail authorities. It
mentions that Jagtar Singh Hawara was warned under para 547
(1) of the Jail Manual for committing jail offence by showing

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


108

disrespect to the jail officials and causing loss to Government


property. It mentions that escapist accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
has repented and apologized before Dalbir Singh, DSF, Sh V.M.
Gill, Deputy Superintendent, Sh. Mangat Ram Rana, Head
Warder and the Superintendent. Quite reasonably indicating that

as the escapees were not in as cordial relationship as has been


alleged. The jail officials were asserting their rights in accordance
with Jail Manual and escapees were adamant to be treated on
different pedestal than ordinary prisoner.
Ex.DW1/C is the copy of order dated 16-4-2001 in which on
application of prisoners, the then learned Sessions Judge had
allowed the Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh to make
necessary arrangement for installation of instruments/ cable
facility for showing some channels as have been provided in Tihar
Jail. Indicating that escapees were planning with precision which

was not noticeable by any prudent mind.


Ex.DW1/E is the letter dated 17-1-2004 i.e. just before the
incident of jail break had occurred on 21-1-2004 by which the
Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh had informed the Sr.
Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh about suspicious
activities of one Arunjiv Singh Walia, Advocate who was
defending the escapist Jagtar Singh Hawara and others. Copy of
this letter has been shown to be forwarded to I.G. Prisons, UT,
Chandigarh. Again indicating that jail officials may not have been

in connivance. There is no explanation on the part of prosecution

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


109

as to why this Advocate was not joined as witness or his role


enquired.
Ex.DW1/F is an application dated 8-11-2002 filed on behalf of
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara and Paramjit
Singh, under trials for medical examination of these accused. This
application was hotly contested by jail authorities and Ex. DW1/G
is the reply which was filed on behalf of the Superintendent,
Model Jail, Chandigarh mentioning that Jagtar Singh Tara, Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Paramjit Skingh were intimidating and
threatening the jail officers and staff members. Their conduct was
reported in this reply. It was mentioned that with prior approval of
I.G. Prisons, UT, Chandigarh, alarm was raised to segregate these
accused as required under para 501 of Punjab Jail Manual. Intense
search operation was started and and prohibited articles were
recovered. It mentions that Jagtar Singh Hawara is on hunger
strike

since

31-10-2002

without

any

valid

reason

and

unnecessarily. He has been examined at Government Hospital,


Sector 16, Chandigarh. This indicates the tactics used by escapist

to put the jail administration on back foot and to exploit their


prison rights to their advantage.
Ex.DW1/H is a letter written from the office of I.G. Prisons, UT,
Chandigarh to the Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh in
which some concessions were granted for interview/meeting with
friends besides relatives to the under trials involved in the case of
assassination of the then Chief Minister Punjab S. Beant Singh.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


110

Ex.DW4/16 is the letter from IG Prisons to Superintendent,


Model Jail, Chandigarh by which directions were given to return
personal belongings of daily use to the three under trials namely
Paramjit Singh Bheora, Jagtar Singh Tara and Jagtar Singh
Hawara which were said to be confiscated in search operations.

These letters are symbolic of the fact that escapist were being
heard at many levels in the system and jail staff did not have as
much independence in its functioning as should have been.
Ex.DW1/I is the letter written by the Superintendent, Model Jail,
Chandigarh on 16-7-2001, giving elaborate account to IG Prisons
about the scarcity of human resources and infrastructure. It
specifically mentioned that plight of the staff running the jail
could better be imagined than described. The letter brings forth

the plight of jail staff in terms that human ability is limited in its
results and the jail manual which is designed for ideal conditions
was not workable with the given infrastructure.
Ex.

DW1/J

is

the

letter

dated

4-11-2002

from

the

Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh to IG Prisons, UT,


Chandigarh in which it is mentioned that due to quarrel of inmates
and misconduct, search operation of ward (Gurudwara barrack)
was being conducted. It mentions that when the officers were
present in the jail for supervising the routine search and wards
were being opened one by one, Sh. D.S.Sandhu, Deputy
Superintendent Jail went inside every ward including Gurudwara
barrack. Accused Paramjit Singh Bheora and Jagtar Singh Tara

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


111

started abusing him and asked how did he dare to come to their
barrack. Letter mentions about the conduct of these two escapees
and how the Senior Police offices present including learned
District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh were apprised of it. This
letter elaborately mentions how the segregation and special search
operation was conducted thereafter and when the same was being
conducted how the jail officials were abused and intimidated by
the said escapees. It also mentions that convict convict Subegh
Singh who was undergoing life imprisonment, was hiding himself
in Gurudwara came out himself and was also segregated. Letter
gives elaborate account of the scene created and that broken coca
cola bottles were found which were used to threaten the staff. It
mentions about the prohibited articles which were received
incuding one Datri used for weeding out grass, 8 meters rope
made of cloth. In this letter, it was requested that said escapees /
accused be transferred to Nabha jail. This letter to a great extent

shows that the conditions inside the jail were not ordinary and
exceptional conditions require exceptional will to combat. The
jail staff was demoralised and appeared helpless. Except to report
about their plight they had no other way to redeem themselves of
their duty.
Ex.

DW1/K is the letter dated 31-10-2002 by which

Superintendent Model Jail, Chandigarh gave information to the


IG Prisons, UT, Chandigarh about the quarrel of inmates. It
mentions that escapees accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


112

Singh Tara and Paramjit Singh were instigating under trial


prisoners to agitate in the jail. They threatened that they will not
go in their wards till they are not taken out of segregation. It
mentions that V.M. Gill, Deputy Superintendent Jail was directed
to persuade them not to resort to indiscipline activities inside the
jail. Ex.DW1/L is the letter dated 18-11-2002 from the office of
Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh to IG Prisons, UT,
Chandigarh in which it was mentioned that accused Jagtar Singh
Tara, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Paramjit Singh have been
interfering in the work of jail. They were threatening and
intimidating the jail officials, prohibiting them to discharge their
duties under rules and regulations almost daily. It mentions about
alarm raised on 3-11-2002 in the jail for segregation and search
operation and that Jagtar Singh Hawara went on hunger strike on
31-10-2002 and Paramjit Singh joined him in hunger strike on 1511-2002. It mentions that jail authorities did not subdue to their
pressure tactics. This letter of Superintendent, Model Jail,
Chandigarh discloses the fact that S. Simranjit Singh Mann, SAD
(Amritsar) MP visited the jail on 16-11-2002 in the evening. He
met Tara, Hawara and Paramjit Singh in the presence of
Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, D.S.Sandhu and Pritam
Singh ASI from CBO cell of Chandigarh police and said MP
persuaded them to give up hunger strike and instructed them to
maintain decorum and discipline in the jail. They agreed to his
advise and requested that they be shifted to some other ward from

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


113

present segregation ward. It was decided that Mann and jail


authorities would seek approval of Deputy Commissioner -cumIG Prisons, UT, Chandigarh at his residence. IG Prisons agreed
and as per the decision taken Tara, Hawara and Paramjit Singh
were shifted to Nigerian barrack on 17-11-2002. They have given
up hunger strike on 16-11-2002. Again the letters shows that jail

staff was not resorting to their own wisdom for day to day
activities and as per the jail manual but were looking for
instructions from senior officers for each and every happening
concerning these escapist prisoners. They had sufficient powers
under jail manual to deal with prison offences but were not using
same as often as it should have been but preferred to take seniors
of administration into confidence. This court had given a
thorough reading to the Jail Manual that provides for the duties of
these jail officials but failed to find provisions where a political
leader or a person just by fact of being Member of Parliament had
a say in the administration of prison, its discipline and rule of law.
That indicates their will was not as independent as should have
been given their responsibilities.
Ex.DW4/12 is the report given by Sh. K.C. Shenmar, Nonofficial visitor, Model Jail, Chandigarh to the Advisor to the
Administrator, UT, Chandigarh in which wholesome account of
the conditions of jail environment have been narrated specially
the conduct of escapees accused. Report specifically mentions
about the shortage of staff and other facilities and that existing

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


114

staff is working under heavy strain and stress. It mentions that


Administration may kindly look into this weak point which may
lead into any awkward situation at any later stage.
Ex. DW4/33 is a letter written by IG prisons to the
Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh with regard to report
Ex.DW4/12 of Sh. K.C. Shenmar. Report was forwarded to the
Superintendent, Model Jail for taking action to strengthen security
and frisking of visitors and staff. Indicating that report of Non-

official Visitor Sh. K.C. Shenmar was given due weightage and
those associated with administration of jails as outsiders also had
word of worry and sympathy for the jail staff.
Ex.DW4/46 is the report given by the Superintendent Jail to Sr.
Officers of the jail IG Prisons about the procedure adopted for
interview of the accused involved in late S.Beant Singh, Ex. Chief
Minister Punjab's assassination case. It mentions about the police
officials of CBO cell and Chandigarh police being actively
involved in supervising such interviews. This letter and the

statements of prosecution witnesses about the fact that several


agencies were involved in the safety and surveillance of jail and
these escapees goes to show that accused jail officials did not
have independent mind to make decisions as required inside jail.
These jail officials seemed to have been sidelined by so called
experts of such safety and surveillance. No doubt to many cooks
spoil the broth.
Ex.DW4/47 is the report given by Superintendent, Model Jail

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


115

Chandigarh about hemp plants growing on jail farm. It mentions


that D.S.Sandhu had caught one person while preparing the leaves
of the plant for smoking. It also mentions that some bad elements
in the staff members have developed personal relations with
inmates which has become headache for the jail authorities.
75. The prosecution has come up with the case that earlier also there
was a news of tunnel existing in the jail. However, jail officials
facing trial had hushed up that matter. In this regard, DW2 ASI
Kulbir Singh, Reader to DIG, UT, Chandigarh was summoned
with record. Report Ex.DW2/A is with regard to the fact that DIG
Sh. Vijay Kashyap had given report that there was no evidence of
tunnel in the jail as reported by Amar Ujala newspaper. This
report Ex.DW2/A specifically mentions that Superintendent of
Police City Head Quarter Chandigarh Sh. Baldev Singh had found
that on inspection of the spot, the version given by Superintendent
Jail seems to be true and nothing suspicious seems to have taken
place. He mentioned that besides the spot, some other adjoining
areas, barracks and other buildings were also inspected but
nothing objectionable came into knowledge. The documents
annexed to this report including report of SHO, PS Sector 36,
Chandigarh dated 7-6-2002 mentions similar facts. This discredits
the prosecution case that accused jail officials were screening the
escapees attempt. Even senior officers claim to have personally
searched the spot and building but found nothing suspicious.
76.Learned APP for the State has heavily relied the documents

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


116

proved by witnesses PW43 and PW45 to contend that


Superintendent Jail was lenient enough to allow meeting of under
trials of S.Beant Singh's Assassination case with other inmates.
He contended that articles supplied were liberally supplied
without considering the consequences. In this regard, it can be
observed that inside the jail, escapees were ordinary inmates and
unless there were specific restrictions under any law, they were
allowed to meet other inmates and for liberty allowed under the
jail mannual. Articles supplied are such which would have been
ordinarily supplied to other inmates also. There is nothing to
allege that without any records and secretly anything was supplied
to the accused escapees. PW45 Sh. Deep Kumar, Welfare Officer,
Model Jail Chandigarh has been examined by the prosecution to
prove the fact that on various occasions, the inmates Jagtar Singh
Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara and Paramjit Singh Bheora were
provided articles which have been used for digging the tunnel. It
can be observed that articles he mentioned stereo, wood
extension, wire, colour TV, Farrata fan, Thermos, religious books,
table fan, alarm clock, can not be considered to be such articles
which can be used in any way for digging the tunnel. Certainly
with their ingenuity the escapees used these articles to
create a camouflage. As far as supplying weight lifting
articles is concerned, same was to ordered to be provided
considering the safety and surveillance. It is not one of those
articles possession of which is prohibited inside the jail. Statement

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


117

of

this

witness

exhibits

the

documents

showing

that

Superintendent Jail D.S.Rana had on various occasions given


concession providing facilities which otherwise should not have
been given. He allowed these escapees to meet other inmates
when applications were moved in that regard. This witness was
confronted with certain facts about the records he had given. He
admits that on 21/22-1-2004 he was on night duty and he had
made report in the night register under his signatures which is
Ex.PW45/D1 to Ex.PW45/D5. He deposed that from 5:12 am to
6:15 a.m. he had made round but did not go to barrack no.7.
Witness was confronted with the fact that extracts which have
been placed on record in the form of prosecution evidence
Ex.PW45/D9 is a computerized copy and this document is
incomplete in the form that certificates were given by VIP
security wing and officers of CBO Cell, Chandigarh, but same
have not been mentioned in the computerized list. It is suggested
to him that Ex. PW45/D9 is a fabricated document, deliberately
given to shield the officers of Chandigarh Police by omitting the
certificates and their signatures on original registers to extend
help. This witness has also mentioned a fact that prior to this jail
break, IG of Burail jail was Deputy Commissioner. Thus witness
has not helped the prosecution much but benefited the jail official
accused by showing that investigating officers were trying to
interpolate facts and pad evidence as per their convenience and
quite likely to avoid the role of CBO Cell.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


118

77. In regard to accused Ved Mitter Gill, there has been specific
allegations that from his house a book Great Escapes was
recovered. Although recovery has been disputed on various
grounds like discussed in regard to other recoveries, but recovery
of book alone can not connect the accused to the conspiracy when
the book is one which is very likely to be found with anyone
associated with the jail.
78. Particularly with regard to accused H.P. Singh, it can be observed

that only allegations against him is of providing some money to


the escapees. If at all that has to be considered, that is not what is
requirement of charges against him. There is nothing in the form
of allegations or evidence to accused that at any stage prior to
contracting jail, escapees were in contact with him or there was
any contact with any of other co-conspirators. If at all, police
intended to join him, he could have been alleged to have been
committed offence of harbouring.
79. As far as contention of learned APP for the State is concerned
that confession of accused Abid Mohammad should be read
against the accused, this Court is of considered view that given the
circumstances, such a confession is not sufficient. Even
confession recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.can in law be used
in corroboration. Judgment which learned APP has relied of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Kashmir Singh Vs
State of MP 1952 AIR (SC) 159 , does not apply to the
present facts and circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


119

India in judgement Union of India Vs Bal Mukund and


others 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 574 has held that accused
can not be convicted on the basis of confession of co-accused
while refering specifically to sections 25 and 30 of the Evidence
Act. More so, pleading guilty during trial, cannot be considered to
be a confession for the purpose of section 30 of Indian Evidence
Act 1872. It is a proved confession that can be used.
80.The criminal justice administration system has four pillars. The
Courts,

investigating

agency,

prosecutor

and

the

jail

administration. The independence of Judiciary is of no


consequence if the other three pillars have any adulteration and
influence of whimsical executive

decisions and political

populism. Those who have executive control over the these three
vulnerable pillars should understand that Court administer justice
in accordance with law. There is no place for whimsical, fanciful
and populist decisions under the Rule of Law. Those who are part
of police, prosecution and prisons should be given as equal
independence as to Judiciary if the Rule of Law has to sustain.
The investigating officers of this case, the police officials who
were given duty of search and surveillance at the jail and the jail
officials, have not given the best of their ability. Quite likely
because they too are humans with choice to compromise or
demise from system.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


120

I know not whether Laws be right,


or whether Laws be wrong;
All that we know who lie in gaol
Is that the wall is strong;
And that each day is like a year,
A year whose days are long.
The Ballad of Reading Gaol Oscar Wilde.
81. Those inside the jails are not there by surrender to the majesty of
law but having lost in trial of destiny. They have no legal or moral
right to be free unless done so under law, but no wall is stronger
than the will of a man. In Mexico, Germany, Austria the law
recognizes that it is basic human nature to escape and hence the
act of escaping itself is not a crime, although one may be
punished for any other crime that he commits during your escape.
This court has no intention for an applause to the escapees. The
present case should be considered to be a definition of
spectacular escape. Tug of war between those inside as
prisoners and those given duty to guard them was won by a big
margin in favor of prisoners. Escapees misused the freedom and
facilities of modern theories of jail reforms quite comfortably
because they were heard at every rank and file of the system.
There would have been no embarrassment to the Administration if
it had accepted that the prisoners out smarted them.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


121

Our government needs the church, because only those humble


enough to admit they're sinners can bring democracy the
tolerance it requires to survive Ronald Reagan.
82.Governments are made up of fallible people too. Confession is
good for the soul, but Government would rather not admit errors
publicly. If the stakes are high, Governments is not going to do
that ever. If at all confronted with such situation Governments,
just like its people choose to; Ignore it; Obfuscate, stonewall, and
delay; Redefine the issue to make a mistake look like a success;
Say we have to focus on the present, not the past; Deflect the
issue by attacking their critics; Say it is "under consideration" or
"being studied"; Confuse the issue by addressing a question that
has not been asked; Get surrogates to respond instead or Roll over
some heads and escape unhurt. It seems here it was the last of the
remedial measure that was suggested to Administration. There
would have been no or embarrassment with dignified exit to
situation if mistake was admitted than what it may suffer now
after 11 years of Sensational Escape.
83.Thus, what can be culminated from the above discussion is that

the prosecution has miserably failed to prove a big conspiracy


involving all the accused and the conspiracies amongst them
inter-se. Specially with regard to accused jail officials, it can be
observed that they did not have an independent will much less
culpable will which can be attributed an intention for the
purpose of section 217 and 222 of IPC.

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


122

84. In regard to escapee accused facing trial Jagtar Singh Hawara


and Paramjit Singh Bheora, nothing substantial was argued,
rather they could have no defence. The very fact that they
escaped and were re-arrested is sufficient to prove their guilt
with regard to offence u/s 224 of IPC. However, with regard to
conspiracy certainly the escapees were in conspiracy with each
other for digging the tunnel and breaking the jail. Apart from
that, their conspiracy with any other accused is not proved.
85.The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above
discussion, is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused, except Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Paramjit Singh Bheora. Hence, all the
accused except Jagtar Singh Hawara and Paramjit Singh
Bheora, stands acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
Their bail bond surety bonds stand discharged.
86.Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Paramjit Singh Bheora are
held guilty for commission of offence u/s 224 and 120B of IPC.
Since they have already undergone sentence more than the
prescribed for these offences, therefore, they are already
released from custody in this case vide order dated 29-9-2010
passed by my learned Predecessor. Their custody period is
treated as their full sentence for the offences and shall be
considered to have run concurrently with any other sentence so
undergoing. Copy of judgment be sent to these convicts Jagtar

State Vs D. S. Rana and others


123

Singh

Hawara

and

Paramjit

Singh

Bheora,

through

Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi for information.

Pronounced: 11-8-2015

(Anubhav Sharma)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh.

All the one hundred and twenty three pages are checked and signed.

(Anubhav Sharma)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh.