JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J.—Shri Surjit Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Una by his impugned judgment dated 6.4.1990 has acquitted the respondents of the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 218 of the I.P.C. Hence the present appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The prosecution case against the accused persons is that most of whom being police officials, they had killed four innocent persons, namely, Dalipa alias Dalip Singh, Raj Anmol Singh, Gurjit Singh alias Doctor and Nirmal Singh in a staged encounter on the night intervening 13th and 14th August, 1983 within the jurisdiction of Payal Police Station of Ludhiana District in Punjab State. The relatives of the deceased persons had represented to the then Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi as a result of which the investigation of the incident was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The same having been completed the C.B.I, filed a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. along with relevant papers in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. When committal proceedings were about to commence by the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, one of the accused, namely, D.R. Bhatti, the then D.I.G. Jalandhar Range Punjab moved an application for transfer of the case to the Court outside the State of Punjab. The Apex Court by order dated 20.12.1986 allowed his prayer and transferred the case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una, H.P. and directed it to be tried by the Sessions Judge, Una in case the Magistrate committed the case for trial. It was in these circumstances that the trial took place before the Additional Sessions Judge, Una resulting in the impugned judgment of acquittal 3. In 1981 the said D.R. Bhatti was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. In August/September of the same year Lala Jagatnarayan, an eminent political leader of the area and the then proprietor of a group of newspapers published from Jalandhar was murdered by the extremists within the jurisdiction of Ludhiana District. A case was registered regarding that crime and the preliminary inquiry conducted by the police pointed a finger to the involvement of late Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale in the commission of that crime. A warrant for his arrest was obtained from the Court at Ludhiana and the said D.R. Bhatti was required to execute the same. A case was registered regarding that crime and the preliminary inquiry conducted by the police pointed a finger to the involvement of late Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale in the commission of that crime. A warrant for his arrest was obtained from the Court at Ludhiana and the said D.R. Bhatti was required to execute the same. A team headed by the D.I.G. of which D.R. Bhatti was also a member went to Chowk Mehta, the headquarters of said Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale to execute the warrant. Resistance was put up by the armed men and followers of the said Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale, consequently the police had to open fire resulting in the death of certain persons. Ultimately, Jarnail Bhinderwale was arrested in that case. But D.R. Bhatti became an eye-sore for Sikh extremists for this action. They were bent upon to eliminate him physically. In order to achieve that object two or three attempts were made on his life. In one such attempt, he had suffered one bullet injury and had to be hospitalised for about four months. He suspected that Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale was the person who had made attempts on his life through his men and he feared more such attempts on his life in future. Therefore, he was extra cautious in his dealings with the public. Dalipa alias Dalip Singh, one of the deceased in the present occurrence, was suspected to be having links with Bhinderwale and was released on parole from Central Jail Nabha for 15 days, on or about 1.8.1983. 4. The background of the prosecution case further is that Hazara Singh, father of Dalipa alias Dalip Singh had been murdered in the year 1958 by Karnail Singh, son of Kehar Singh of village Govindpura, At that time Dalip was a small child. In 1980 when he came of age, he murdered Harchand Singh, a brother of Karnail Singh, the murderer of his father-He was tried for the said offence and was given life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. In 1981 he was lodged in Central Jail, Firozepur for a few days. When he came out on parole, Shri G.S. Sooch, Dy.S.P Khanna and Raj Kishan Bedi, one of the original accused in the present case then posted as Inspector of C.I.A. Staff, Ludhiana informed D.R. Bhatti about the said Dalipa being on parole. In 1981 he was lodged in Central Jail, Firozepur for a few days. When he came out on parole, Shri G.S. Sooch, Dy.S.P Khanna and Raj Kishan Bedi, one of the original accused in the present case then posted as Inspector of C.I.A. Staff, Ludhiana informed D.R. Bhatti about the said Dalipa being on parole. They also informed that they apprehended danger to the life of Karnail Singh and his family members at the hands of said Dalipa. D.R. Bhatti consequently directed Jagjit Singh respondent who was then posted as S.H.O. Police Station, Payal to provide sufficient security to Karnail Singh and his family members till Dalipas term of parole expired. At the same time D.R. Bhatti came to learn that Dalipa had been in Central Jail, Firozepure during the days when late Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale was lodged there. He suspected that Bhinderwale might have arranged for his parole with a view to getting him killed. Therefore, as per the prosecution version, D.R. Bhatti started making plans to get Dalipa Sailed in some fake encounter. 5. Dalipa developed friendship with one Raj Anmol Singh, when he was in judicial lock-up at Ludhiana during the course of his trial for the offence of murder of Harchand Singh, because the said Raj Anmol Singh was also lodged in the jail in connection with another murder case. One Gurjit Singh alias Doctor was also lodged in the same jail during the same period, being an accused in another murder case Both these persons also became friends with each other while in jail. Initially, they were convicted for the offences with which they were charged But their appeals against their conviction was accepted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and both of them were released in 1981. Thereafter, Raj Anmol Singh employed Gurjit Singh as a Veterinary Compounder in his poultry-farm in Village Kila Raipur. Raj Anmol Singhs sister was married to one Nirmal Singh of Village Bhadaur in Sangrur District, about a month prior to 13-8-1983, A Fiat car was given by his mother to his sister in dowry On 13-8-1983 Raj Anmol Singhs own car was borrowed by a police officer, who was his friend. Raj Anmol Singhs sister was married to one Nirmal Singh of Village Bhadaur in Sangrur District, about a month prior to 13-8-1983, A Fiat car was given by his mother to his sister in dowry On 13-8-1983 Raj Anmol Singhs own car was borrowed by a police officer, who was his friend. When Raj Anmol Singhs mother came to know that he will have to travel by bus, she became afraid for his life at the hands of his enemies, who were probably the relatives of the person for whose murder he had been tried. Therefore, she rang up Nirmal Singh, her son-in-law in village Bhadaur to reach with the car which she had given in dowry. 6. On the same day i.e. 13-8-1983 Nirmal Singh reached the house of Ranjit Kaur, the mother of Raj Anmol Singh at Ludhiana and from there he went to the poultry farm of Raj Anmol Singh in Village Kila Raipur. He, thereafter, returned to Ludhiana in the car along with Raj Anmol Singh and Gurjit Singh. All the three of them took their meals at the house of the mother of Raj Anmol Singh. Nirmal Singh then told his mother-in-law Ranjit Kaur. that he wanted to go to Jalandhar to pay an instalment of loan to a finance company which had financed the transport buses by his father. Raj Anmol Singh told his mother that he also wanted to go to Kharar in Ropar District to collect money from his customers to whom he had supplied eggs, etc. from his poultry farm. Gurjit Singh also expressed his desire to accompany them. Consequently, all three left her house at around 2 p.m. They went to Payal along with Dalipa and visited the house of one Makhan Singh, who is a distant cousin of the said Dalipas father. At his house, Dalipa expressed his desire to meet his brother Balkar Singh. Makhan Singh deputed his son Nirmal Singh to call said Balkar Singh who reached there in about 15 to 20 minutes. He presented a golden ring to Dalipa alias Dalip Singh and the latter wore the same on his finger. He also gave a letter to Dalipa regarding some appeal of his that was pending in the Supreme Court. Makhan Singh deputed his son Nirmal Singh to call said Balkar Singh who reached there in about 15 to 20 minutes. He presented a golden ring to Dalipa alias Dalip Singh and the latter wore the same on his finger. He also gave a letter to Dalipa regarding some appeal of his that was pending in the Supreme Court. Thereafter, Dalip Singh and his three companions mentioned above left in the same fiat car for village Bhutta, as Dalip Singh wanted to meet his sister, who was married in that village. 7. On 13-8-1983, the D.I.G. Patiala Range passed an order directing all the S.S.Ps. within his range to organise Nakabandis within their respective districts. Ludhiana district was within Patiala range and consequently the S.S.P. of the said district, namely, DR. Bhatti was also to comply with the said orders. He accordingly sent wireless message to various Police Stations directing the S.H.Os. to organise Nakabandis at specified points. S.H.O. Payal was directed to organise Nakabandi at Rara Sahib canal bridge. Jagjit Singh respondent being the S.H.O., he accordingly organised the Nakabandi by himself heading the party. The other members were deceased Harbans Singh, who was A.S.I. Incharge, Police Post Doraha at that time, Mohinder Singh, A.S.I. posted in Police Station Payal and Kripal Singh, Gurdev Singh,. Paramjit Singh, Jasbir Singh and Balbir Chand respondents, who were at that time posted as constables along with Karam Singh respondent who was posted as Head Constable at that time. 8. At around 10 p.m. on the same day, a Fiat car carrying deceased Dalipa alias Dalip Singh, Raj Anmol Singh, Gurjit Singh alias Doctor and Nirmal Singh reached the site of Nakabandi. It was stopped by the police party and on finding that Dalipa alias Dalip Singh was travelling in that car, Jagjit Singh respondent took it as a God sent opportunity to eliminate him. He forced the driver of the car to drive the same along with its occupants to Police Station Payal. He along with other members of the Nakabandi party escorted the car in a police Jeep and motor cycles, etc. On reaching the Police Station, they were lodged in the police lockup where one Ishar Singh was already lodged that night in connection with a case under the Opium Act. Thereafter, Jagjit Singh booked a telephone call to D.R. Bhatti S.S.P, Ludhiana. On reaching the Police Station, they were lodged in the police lockup where one Ishar Singh was already lodged that night in connection with a case under the Opium Act. Thereafter, Jagjit Singh booked a telephone call to D.R. Bhatti S.S.P, Ludhiana. Since the call did not mature for some time, he went to the office of the wireless operator and sent a message to the control room at Ludhiana that he wanted to speak to D.R. Bhatti on the wireless set directly. The operator in the control room made an entry in the log book but refused to agree to the request of Jagjit Singh to talk to S.S.P directly on the ground that he could not wake up the S.S.R at that odd hour of 11.30 p.m. Meanwhile, the telephone call matured and Jagjit Singh had a talk with D.R. Bhatti. 8-A. On the same night, a robbery had been committed in Gur Mandi Ludhiana. S.S. Bhullar one of the original accused in the present case, who was S.P. City in those days, along with some other non-gazetted senior police officials visited the spot to take stock of the situation and arresting the robbers. At around 11.30 p.m. .he went to Kotwali where he held a meeting attended by Harnek Singh, Raj Kishan Bedi and Surjit Singh, all three respondents-accused in the present case who were posted as Inspectors. While the meeting was still going on, D.R. Bhatti who had by then talked to Jagjit Singh on telephone also reached there. He had some secret talk with S.S. Bhullar, Harnek Singh, Surjit Singh and Raj Kishan Bedi. Thereafter all the four left for Payal Police Station in police vehicles. Jagjit Singh conveyed a message to one G.S. Sooch, who was posted as Dy.S.P. Khanna in those days requiring him to reach Police Station Payal at once. Accordingly, he also reached there at around 1.00 a.m. Thereafter, a meeting was held in which S.S. Bhullar, Surjit Singh, Harnek Singh, Raj Kishan Bedi, Jagjit Singh, Mohinder Singh since deceased and one of the original accused in this case, Harbans Singh and G.S. Sooch participated. Jagjit Singh informed the officers, who were taking part in that meeting that he had apprehended Dalipa alias Dalip Singh along with his three companions and that they were carrying with them four fire arms viz. Jagjit Singh informed the officers, who were taking part in that meeting that he had apprehended Dalipa alias Dalip Singh along with his three companions and that they were carrying with them four fire arms viz. two 32 bore revolvers, 22 bore rifle and 12 bore D.B.B.L gun and some ammunition and currency notes. He also told them that all the four persons so apprehended had a criminal history and they could be eliminated in a staged encounter. Dy. S.P.G.S. Sooch opposed the suggestion but air other persons agreed to this course of action. Consequently, a site near Gurdwara Rara Sahib was selected for the false encounter. The said four persons were hand-cuffed behind their back and brought out of the police lock-up in their own car where they were killed in a staged encounter fired from service revolvers allotted to Jagjit Singh and the four rifles of 303 caliber issued to Karam Singh, Jasbir, Gurdev Singh and Kirpal Singh respondents. Bhagwant Singh and Jarnail Singh who are the son and brother respectively, of Karnail Singh for whose alleged murder aipa alias Dalip Singh was undergoing life imprisonment, also conspired in the killing of these four persons. They were present at the spot at the time of execution of the plan and were also noticed outside the police station by one Mohinder Singh at the time when the four were lodged in the police lock-up. 9. After the plan for killing Dalip Singh and his three companions in the staged encounter had been finalised at Police Station Payal, the said S.S. Bhullar dictated the subject-matter of a wireless message to be sent to the senior police officers regarding the encounter. This dictation was taken by S.I. Jagjit Singh. He sent the writing to the Police Station Payal from the spot for flashing wireless message to the senior police officers. The message read that four desperados had been killed in an encounter near Rara Sahib bridge. Jagjit Singh sent another writing to the Police Station for the registration of a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and certain provisions of the Arms Act. The message read that four desperados had been killed in an encounter near Rara Sahib bridge. Jagjit Singh sent another writing to the Police Station for the registration of a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and certain provisions of the Arms Act. In that report, he mentioned that around 2.15 a.m. when he was near Rara Sahib bridge along with Nakabandi Party, a green coloured Fiat car came from the side of village Ghatari Kalan at a fast speed and that when a signal was given for stopping the car, its occupants numbering five opened fire from the firearms which they were carrying and that when the men of Nakabandi party returned the fire, four of them were killed and one succeeded in escaping. All this was done to give an authentic colour to the false encounter, thus resulting in the murder of Dalipa and his three companions. After despatching the said report to the Police Station, Jagjit Singh proceeded to prepare the record of the said fake case. He arranged to procure the currency note slips from the Indian Overseas Bank, Katani Kalan, where a robbery had been committed a few days earlier and a case had been registered regarding that occurrence at Police Station Sahne wal. This was done allegedly with a view to pasting such slips on the currency notes recovered from the person of the above named four persons and for creating false evidence that the said currency notes were recovered from the deceased were the same which were robbed from the bank a few days earlier Similarly, he procured certain papers from a wine contractor of Ludhiana and planted them on the deceased persons. An employee or the said wine contractor had been murdered by some unknown person some time prior to that day. Jagjit Singh respondent procured the papers from the wine contractor to create evidence that those papers were with the killed employee of the wine contractor and he wanted to create further false evidence that they were responsible for the murder of the said employee. All this was done with the intention of making others believe that the killed persons were dangerous and desperate criminals so that public sympathy was not generated for the relatives of the aforasaid. All this was done with the intention of making others believe that the killed persons were dangerous and desperate criminals so that public sympathy was not generated for the relatives of the aforasaid. Inquest reports in respect of the four persons were prepared by Jagjit Singh, who as per the prosecution version, was the leading light in the entire occurrence. The dead bodies were went to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for post-mortem examination The relatives of the deceased persons approached the Deputy Commissioner and Civil Surgeon by sending telegrams to get the post-mortem examination conducted by impartial, fair and independent persons. The civil surgeon on being asked by the District Magistrate constituted two teams of doctors for conduting post-mortem examination. Each team conducted the postmortem examination of two deceased persons. 10. The details of the injuries on the deadbodies are given in extenso in para 11 of the impugned judgment and need not be repeated here. From the record, it appears that the relatives of the deceased approached the higher police authorities for registration of a case against S.I. Jagjit Singh and other police officials who had allegedly hatched a conspiracy and executed the same in the manner referred to above. They met Shri Darbara Singh, the then Chief Minister of Punjab and made a written complaint to him. That complaint was forwarded to the competent police authorites and on the basis of the same a case was registered at Police Station, Payal on 5-9-1983 vide F.I.R. No.162 of 1983. 11. Consequently, some of the relatives of the deceased met late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister and requested for the investigation of the case by some independent and impartial investigating agency. As per the directions given by the Prime Minister, the investigation was entrusted to C.B.I. Consequently a case was registered by the C.B.I. authorities vide FIR No.RC/i/84-SIU-lll dated 10.5.1984. 12. The Investigating Officer reconstructed the scene of occurrence on the spot. He took the Forensic Scientists on the spot to obtain their opinion whether the occupants of the car could have been killed with the bullets fired from the service revolvers and .303 rifles by the police officials positioned on two sides of the road at a level lower than that of the road. He took the Forensic Scientists on the spot to obtain their opinion whether the occupants of the car could have been killed with the bullets fired from the service revolvers and .303 rifles by the police officials positioned on two sides of the road at a level lower than that of the road. The experts opined that at least two of the bullets that had pierced through the body of the car seemed to have been fired from the road level and not from the places on the two sides of the road where the police officials were allegedly holding positions. The experts further opined that at least one builet of .303 rifle appeared to have been fired from a very close range because there was a clear exit hole in the body of the car with downward slant. 13. After the investigation was completed, a report under Section 173, Cr. PC. was prepared and submitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana along with all relevant papers, After going through the report and the papers, the said Magistrate recorded the statements of the accused persons and later on the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Una. 14. A charge was framed against the accused persons in the manner mentioned in detail in para 15 of the impugned judgment. They pleaded not guilty to the same and therefore, their trial was ensued. The learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, in the impugned judgment framed the following four points for determination; "1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond resonable doubt that a conspiracy had been hatched by the accused persons to liquidate Dalipa alias Dalip Singh as alleged? 2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Dalipa alias Dalip Singh, Nirmal Singh., Gurjit Singh, and Raj Anmol Singh were killed in a staged encounter by accused Jagjit Singh, Mohinder Singh, Gurdev Singh, Parmjit Singh, Jasbir Singh, Balbir Chand and Karam Singh either in prosecution of the alleged conscipiracy or independent thereof? 3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond resonable doubt that accused Jagjit Singh being a public servant and. in that capacity charged with the preparation of the record of the investigation, prepared incorrect record of the incident, giving it a colour of genuine encounter, either in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy or independent thereof?" 4. Final order 15. 3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond resonable doubt that accused Jagjit Singh being a public servant and. in that capacity charged with the preparation of the record of the investigation, prepared incorrect record of the incident, giving it a colour of genuine encounter, either in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy or independent thereof?" 4. Final order 15. On the basis of the decision on the above three points, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the judgment of acquittal. 16. The prosecution case in sum and substance is that the deceased persons were first brought to the Police Station, Payal from the canal bridge near Rara Sahib, the place where the Nakabandi was required to be organised and from there they were taken to a lonely place at a distance of about 300-400 metres from the said canal bridge and were killed by means of shots fired from the service revolvers issued to accused Jagjit Singh, Mohinder Singh and deceased accused Harbans Singh and the rifles issued to accused Karam Singh, Jasbir Singh, Gurdev Singh and Kirpal Singh, now respondents in this appeal. The finding on this aspect of the case is that the evidence led by the prosecution does not prove the above fact. According to the prosecution, the car of the deceased persons was seen being stopped by the police party on Nakabandi duty near Rara Sahib by a milk vendor, named Joginder Singh. 17. On the above aspect of the case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Gurdev Singh, PW-2 Mohinder Singh, PW-5 Gulab Singh, PW-6 Balwant Singh; PW-12 Naginder Singh and PW-24 Ishar Singh. 18. PW-1 Gurdev Singh was the Dy. S.P. and PW-2 was his reader at the relevant time. Both these witnesses have stated that neither they went to the Police Station Payal that night, nor did they see any car or any of the deceased persons. G.S. Sooch admitted having made a statement under Section 164, Cr PC before a Magistrate of Delhi that he had gene to Payal that night on receiving a message from accused Jagjit Singh, but stated that the said statement was made under threat from C.B.!. Dy, S.P. R.P. Sharma, who investigated the case. In other words, he resiled from his earlier statement. 19. PW-4 Gulab Singh denied that the deceased persons were brought to the Police Station by the Nakabandi party. Dy, S.P. R.P. Sharma, who investigated the case. In other words, he resiled from his earlier statement. 19. PW-4 Gulab Singh denied that the deceased persons were brought to the Police Station by the Nakabandi party. He further denied the return of the S.H.O. to the police station that night. He admitted having made a statement before a Magistrate of Delhi, but alleged that he made that statement under duress. 20. PW-6 Balwant Singh was on guard duty at the gate of the Police Station on the fateful night from 9.00 p.m. to 12 a.m. He stated that when he was on duty, he neither saw the S.H.O. returning to the Police Station nor any car entering the gate of the Police Station. 21. PW-12 Naginder Singh also did not support the prosecution case. Likewise, PW-24 Ishar Singh has also not supported the prosecution case. Similarly, the witnesses, in whose presence DR. Bhatti, against whose acquittal no appeal has been filed, was allegedly informed about the release on parole of Dalipa alias Dalip Singh in a meeting which he convened in the first week of August 1983, did not support the prosecution version. As such the alleged conspiracy stated to have been hatched to eliminate Dalipa alias Dalip Singh and his three companions in a fake encounter is not at all established by the prosecution. In fact, a reading of the evidence of the main witnesses of the prosecution indicates that none of them has supported its case on material particulars. 22. Shri D.C. Pathik, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State has drawn attention to the statement of PW-83 Mohinder Singh who has stated that he had seen Jagjit Singh talking to Bhagwant Singh and Jarnail Singh accused outside the gate of the Police Station on the relevant night around 11.00 p.m. and over-heard accused Bhagwant Singh and Jarnail Singh suggesting to the S.H.O. (Jagjit Singh) that the three companions of Dalipa alias Dalip Singh be also liquidated. His testimony has been discarded on cogent grounds by the learned trial Court. His testimony has been discarded on cogent grounds by the learned trial Court. The evidence on record suggests that he had no reason to pass by the Police Station when he went to the office of the Electricity Board to ascertain whether the power supply would be available for the tube-wells that night inasmuch as, for approaching the office of the Electricity Board from the house of this witness, the shorter route is the one which bye-passes the police station. His conduct, therefore, does not inspire confidence. Moreover, he did not inform anyone else about what he had overheard at the police station. In the normal course of human conduct when he overheard such a dastardly crime being planned, he would have and rather should have rushed to the higher authorities to inform them about the alleged conspiracy. 23. From the facts and circumstances mentioned in detail in the impugned judgment, which belie the prosecution story, it would only be repetition if they are enumerated in this judgment, we do not propose to do so, as otherwise it would only add to the bulk of our judgment which it is not necessary to do so. 24. The settled law in the matter of reversing a judgment of acquittal is that the appellate Court has to examine each and every reason given in the judgment of acquittal and if it is of the considered view that the acquittal requires to be reversed in the interest of justice, each and every such reason given in the judgment of acquittal has to be over-turned by giving valid and cogent reasons by the appellate Court. Despite the best efforts of Shri D.C. Pathik, who, it must be said to his credit had argued the appeal ably and with full preparation, we are unable to persuade ourselves to differ with the reasoning of the trial Court in the matter. Moreover, as per the settled law again, acquittal of the accused persons by the trial Court for a serious offence like murder is not to be lightly interfered with inasmuch as the trial Court has had the occasion to record the evidence of the witnesses and to observe their demeanour which opportunity the appellate Court does net have. Moreover, as per the settled law again, acquittal of the accused persons by the trial Court for a serious offence like murder is not to be lightly interfered with inasmuch as the trial Court has had the occasion to record the evidence of the witnesses and to observe their demeanour which opportunity the appellate Court does net have. This dictum also applies with full force to the present case, therefore, viewed all in all, no ground has been made out to reverse the acquittal of the respondents. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed. The bail and surety bonds of the respondents are discharged. Appeal dismissed.