Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 730 (PNJ)

Harcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-07-20

G.S.SINGHVI, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2001
JudgmentJudgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus for ordering an independent probe preferably by CBI into illegal detention and torture of petitioners son, namely, Sukhdarshan Singh alias Sukha. It has been further prayed that adequate compensation be paid to the petitioner for the loss of his son due to atrocities committed by the respondents. 2. The petitioner has averred that on 29.12.1992 at about 4.00 P.M., a police party from CIA Staff led by Inspector Ajit Singh and Sub Inspector Bhag Singh raided his house. At that time, petitioners daughter Sukhwinder Kaur alias Rani and his wife Pritam Kaur were present. The police started searching the house. Karnail Singh, brother of the petitioner, also reached at the spot. One Gurcharan Singh was also called by the petitioners daughter. The petitioners son Sukhdarshan Singh alias Sukha also arrived from outside and the police party arrested him and took him away to Police Post Chauki Mann. At that time, Senior Superintendent of Police Swaran Singh and Deputy Superintendent of Police Har Bhagwan Singh were also present in the police post. The petitioner along with other respectables of the village reached the police post to enquire about the arrest of his son. The respectables were insulted, abused and given beatings when they enquired from the Deputy Superintendent of Police as to the arrest of Sukha. After that, Sukha, petitioners brother Karnail Singh, Harbans Singh and Kartar Singh and nephews Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh were taken to CIA Staff, Jagraon. Sukha was kept in one room and all others were kept in a separate room. Sukha was badly tortured between 6 P.M. to 8 P.M. His screams could be heard by those persons who were kept in other room. The police told Sukha that terrorists visited his house. Sukha had denied all this. 3. On the next day, i.e., 30.12.1992, all the relations of the petitioner except Sukha were released. Sukha was again tortured and released on 31.12.1992. When Sukha was released, he could neither walk properly nor sit. He was admitted in Dayanand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana for medical treatment where he succumbed to injuries on 5.1.1993. Post mortem on the dead body of Sukha was conducted. According to the post mortem report, Sukha had died due to injuries which he had received. When Sukha was released, he could neither walk properly nor sit. He was admitted in Dayanand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana for medical treatment where he succumbed to injuries on 5.1.1993. Post mortem on the dead body of Sukha was conducted. According to the post mortem report, Sukha had died due to injuries which he had received. It has been further averred that newspapers namely "Ajj Di Avaj", Punjabi Tribune and others reported that Sukhdarshan Singh alias Sukha had died because of police torture. Representations were made by the petitioner to the Prime Minister of India, Governor of Punjab, Chandigarh, Human Rights Commission, New Delhi and the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, but nothing came out of it. Copies of these representations have been annexed with the petition. Notice of motion was issued. 4. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 as also by Ashok Puri, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagraon. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel. 5. Respondent No. 7, i.e., Inspector Ajit Singh has completely denied that Sukhdarshan Singh alias Sukha was taken into custody. He has further stated in his written statement that the house of the petitioner was never raided nor any enquiry was made about his son as he did not go to the house of the petitioner to arrest Sukha and the story has been made up. He has further stated that he joined CIA Staff Jagraon on 27.12.1992 and also attached report No. 6 dated 27.12.1992 as Annexure R1 which shows that he joined in the CIA Staff on this date. He remained in the CIA Staff, Jagraon with effect from 27.12.1992 to 30.12.1992 and his first departure from the CIA Staff was on 31.12.1992. 6. Respondent No. 5 has also denied all the allegations and has stated that it was nobodys case that Sukhdarshan Singh alias Sukha was a terrorist and, thus, there was no question for raiding his house to arrest him. He has further stated that the petition has been filed after a delay of five years and, thus, it should be dismissed. 7. During the pendency of the petition, we directed the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to enquire into the matter and file his report. The District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana after enquiring into the matter sent his report on 11.4.2001. 7. During the pendency of the petition, we directed the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to enquire into the matter and file his report. The District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana after enquiring into the matter sent his report on 11.4.2001. In the concluding para, he has stated as under :- "In the instant case, as discussed above, Sukhdarshan Singh alias Sukha admittedly died an unnatural death and a thorough probe by some impartial investigating agency is called for in the case. In these circumstances, the writ petition filed in the Honble High Court carries some substance and the matter requires thorough probe by some impartial investigating agency as prayed for by the petitioner in his writ petition filed in the Honble High Court." 8. The District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has recommended further enquiry and we are also convinced that the matter needs to be enquired into further. We direct Director General of Police to appoint a senior officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police to investigate the matter, as the allegations are against senior officers. We would not like to go into the merits or de-merits of this case because it may influence the Investigating officer. 9. Counsel for the petitioner made a plea that the CBI be directed to investigate into the complaint. We do not see any reason as to why we should not repose confidence in a senior officer of the State Police. 10. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that compensation be given to the next kin of Sukhdershan Singh alias Sukha. At this stage, we are not inclined to grant compensation to the petitioner as the complaint has yet to be investigated into. 11. This writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.