Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 849 (PNJ)

Nau Nihal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-08-28

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Nau Nihal Singh, who is the brother of Gurdial Singh deceased, has filed this petition for transfer of the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 81 dated May 19, 2002, registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Amritsar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, to the C.B.I. or any other independent agency. He has also prayed that the Investigating Agency be directed to present the charge-sheet within 90 days of the arrest of the accused. 2. The present incident is reported to have taken place at 11.30 A.M. on May 19, 2002 in which Gurdial Singh (brother of the petitioner) and five of his companions were shot dead, while sitting in a Tata Sumo in the area of village Algo Kothi, the native village of Gurdial Singh deceased. Gurcharan Singh, who was also one of the associates of Gurdial Singh deceased and was sitting in the same Tata Sumo at that time, also suffered gun-shot injuries, survived the attack, but his right leg was amputated. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner named Bakhshish Singh (respondent No. 11), Major Singh (respondent No. 7), Dalbir Singh (respondent No. 6), Jasbir Singh (respondent No. 10), Surjit Singh (not made a party in this petition), Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 9), and two unknown persons, as the assailants. Bakhshish Singh accused is alleged to have exhorted the co-accused to kill Gurdial Singh and his companions. He was also alleged to have uttered the words that Gurchet Singh (respondent No. 12) and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia (respondent No. 14) "were saying that none should be left alive at the spot." Gurcharan Singh injured, who survived the attack, was hospitalised on May 19, 2002. He was discharged from the hospital on June 14, 2002. His statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., was got recorded by the Police while he was in the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on June 14, 2002. His statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., was got recorded by the Police while he was in the hospital. He filed an application on July 27, 2002 in the Court of Shri Amarjit Singh Virk, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, for recording his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., on the ground that a copy of his statement, which was recorded in the hospital by the Police, was not supplied to him, and he apprehended that his statement was not correctly recorded. He also filed an affidavit in which he also named Anup Singh (respondent No. 13), who is the son of Gurchet Singh Bhullar (respondent No. 12), as one of the assailants. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, vide order dated July 30, 2002 rejected his application for recording his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., on the ground that the application was not sponsored by the Investigating Officer. 4. Four accused, namely, Dalbir Singh (respondent No. 6), Major Singh (respondent No. 7), Bikramjit Singh (respondent No. 8) and Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 9) have been arrested. In the present case it has been alleged that the incident had occurred with the conspiracy of Mr. Gurchet Singh Bhullar, Minister of Irrigation (respondent No. 12), and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia (respondent No. 13), and that the accused have the patronage of Capt. Amrinder Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab (respondent No. 2). It is further been alleged that Mr. Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P. Tarn Taran (respondent No. 3), is not conducting the investigation in a fair manner as he is acting under the influence of the Government of the day, headed by Capt. Amrinder Singh. It has been alleged that Capt. Amrinder Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab, has given a clean chit to Gurchet Singh Bhullar, Minister of Irrigation (respondent No. 12), to the effect that he had no hand in the incident, on the very next date of the occurrence. A press cutting (had P5) has been placed on record to support the said assertion. It has further been alleged that Jasbir Singh alias Jassa (respondent No. 10) and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia (respondent No. 14), who have been named in the F.I.R., are very close to the Chief Minister. They were allegedly seen moving with Capt. Amrinder Singh at the time of Assembly Elections in the State of Punjab held in February 2002. It has further been alleged that Jasbir Singh alias Jassa (respondent No. 10) and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia (respondent No. 14), who have been named in the F.I.R., are very close to the Chief Minister. They were allegedly seen moving with Capt. Amrinder Singh at the time of Assembly Elections in the State of Punjab held in February 2002. Press cuttings (Annexures P6 and P7) have been annexed with the petition, in which Jasbir Singh and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia, accused, have been shown sitting on the dais in the company of Capt. Amrinder Singh at the time of assembly elections in the State of Punjab. Further it has been alleged that Gurdial Singh deceased was a political rival of Mr. Gurchet Singh Bhullar, Minister of Irrigation, Punjab. In the month of March 2002, the security provided to Gurdial Singh deceased was allegedly withdrawn at the behest of Gurchet Singh Bhullar (respondent No. 12) and after that he and his companions were allegedly got killed by him (Gurchet Singh Bhullar) and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia. 5. With regard to Narinder Singh Bhargava (respondent No. 3), who is the S.S.P. Tarn Taran, it has been alleged that he is the special appointee of the Chief Minister. He is allegedly the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the substantive rank, but has been appointed as S.S.P., Tarn Taran, after ignoring a number of his seniors. Similarly, his brothers have also received special consideration from the present Government. Thus, he is allegedly acting under the advice of his political masters. For that reason, he has not arrested Jasbir Singh alia Jassa, Bakhshish Singh, Surjit Singh, Gurchet Singh Bhullar and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia, accused. 6. Keeping in view the above facts, Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned Senior Advocate, has contended that the facts of the case show that in the present case the accused are under the political patronage of the masters running the Government in Punjab. The investigation is not being done in a fair manner and the Investigating Agency does not seem to be interested in bringing the culprits to the book. According to Mr. Ghai, the Police has not recorded the statement of Gurcharan Singh, injured witness, correctly and a copy of the same has not been supplied to him. Mr. Ghai contends that justice should not only be done, but it should appear to have been done. According to Mr. Ghai, the Police has not recorded the statement of Gurcharan Singh, injured witness, correctly and a copy of the same has not been supplied to him. Mr. Ghai contends that justice should not only be done, but it should appear to have been done. With this contention he prays that the investigation of the case should be entrusted to the C.B.I. or any other independent agency. 7. Shri Narinder Bhargava (respondent No. 3), who is the S.S.P., Tarn Tarn, and incharge of the investigation of the present case, has filed reply the way of an affidavit. It has been alleged that the present incident is the outcome of a long standing enmity between Gurdial Singh deceased and his party on the one hand, and Dalbir Singh, Bakhshish Singh and their associates on the other. It has been stated that the present occurrence is dated May 19, 2002 and the charge-sheet has been presented in the Court on July 27, 2002. It has been alleged by him that a comprehensive investigation without any influence was conducted and as many as 52 witnesses had been examined. Further it has been alleged that the occurrence had taken place at 11.30 A.M. and the F.I.R. was recorded without any loss of time as the Ruqa was sent to the Police Station for recording of the F.I.R. at 12.30 P.M. on the same day. Thus, according to the S.S.P., there was no delay in recording of the F.I.R. Further it has been alleged that the security of Gurdial Singh was withdrawn in pursuance of the letter dated March 14, 2002 issued by the Addl. Director General of Police (Annexure R1) in view of the acute financial crunch being faced by the government. The said security was not withdrawn at the asking of Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar, Minister of Irrigation, Punjab. It has been stated by the S.S.P. that Gurcharan Singh injured was declared fit to make the statement on May 22, 2002 and he made his statement on May 23, 2002. In the said statement he neither named Gurchet Singh Bhullar nor his son Anup Singh as the accused. He also did not make any mention about Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia. Still further, it has been pointed out by him that Bikramjit Singh accused was not named in the F.I.R., but he was arrested on the statement made by Joginder Singh. In the said statement he neither named Gurchet Singh Bhullar nor his son Anup Singh as the accused. He also did not make any mention about Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia. Still further, it has been pointed out by him that Bikramjit Singh accused was not named in the F.I.R., but he was arrested on the statement made by Joginder Singh. He further stated that the proceedings for declaring Devinder Singh, Surjit Singh, Bakhshish Singh and Jasbir Singh as Proclaimed Offenders are being initiated by the Court. Both Devinder Singh and Surjit Singh have not been made parties to the present petition. According to him, the police has arrested Major Singh, Dalbir Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Inderjit Singh. All out efforts are being made to arrest the remaining accused. However, so far as the role of Gurchet Singh Bhullar and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia in hatching a conspiracy to murder Gurdial Singh and others is concerned, no person except the petitioner had come forward to make any statement against them. In the end it has been stated by him that the challan has already been presented in the Court before the completion of 90 days of the occurrence. 8. It has been contended by Shri Harbhagwan Singh, Advocate General, Punjab, that the investigation in the present case is being conducted in a fair manner. The F.I.R. was lodged without any loss of time. Four accused have already been arrested and the other four area being declared Proclaimed Offenders by the Court. Every effort is being made to arrest the rest of the accused. Further contention of Mr. Harbhagwan Singh is that even if it is assumed that the Police had not recorded the statement of Gurcharan Singh injured correctly, even then the injured eye-witness would have a chance to make his statement before the Court at the time of the trial. Thus, the statement recorded by the Police under Section 161, Cr.P.C., would have no meaning at all. It has further been contended by Mr. Harbhagwan Singh that the investigation and the final step of charge-sheet is required to be taken by the Police and by nobody else. He contends that the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for trial, is that of the Police Officer making the investigation. Harbhagwan Singh that the investigation and the final step of charge-sheet is required to be taken by the Police and by nobody else. He contends that the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for trial, is that of the Police Officer making the investigation. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the dictum of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Union of India & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi & Others, 1997(1) RCR(Criminal) 702 (SC) : JT 1997(1) SC 679, wherein it has been held as under :- "According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for trial is that of the Police Officer making the investigation and the final step in the investigation is to be taken only by the government and by no other authority." 9. Still further it has been contended by Shri Harbhagwan Singh, Advocate General, Punjab, that in case during the course of trial it transpires that some other persons are to be arrayed as accused, then an application under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, can always be filed in the trial Court, who will decide the matter after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on record. 10. In order to supplement his arguments, Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned Senior Advocate, has brought to the notice of this Court a Single Bench authority of this Court dated December 21, 2000 in Crl. Misc. No. 36906-M of 2000 (Harbhagwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) wherein it has been observed that "while there can be no dispute with the legal premises sought to be advanced by the learned Advocate General, Punjab, on the basis of the decision in Rajesh & Ors. v. Ramdeo & Ors., JT 2000 (Suppl.1) 250, that the High Court should not normally pass an order which would hinder the power of the investigating agency to conduct the investigations but this does not mean that there is an absolute bar against this Courts interference for in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Ramdeo & Ors., JT 2000 (Suppl.1) 250, that the High Court should not normally pass an order which would hinder the power of the investigating agency to conduct the investigations but this does not mean that there is an absolute bar against this Courts interference for in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 356 (SC) : JT 1966(1) SC 708, the Apex Court has observed as under :- "The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate that it is of the utmost public importance that this matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all Government agencies, entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law : "Be you ever so high, the law is above you." Investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the Government agencies." 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence brought on the record. 12. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Jasbir Singh alias Jassa and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia, accused in the present case, are seen in the pictures of the election rallies addressed by Capt. Amrinder Singh, which were taken at the time of Assembly Elections held in February 2002, and this prima facie shows that the said accused have got political patronage from the Chief Minister. 13. I do not subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The elections were held in the month of February 2002, whereas the present occurrence had taken place on May 19, 2002, i.e., almost three months after the elections. At that time the said accused were not involved in the present occurrence. Moreover, Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia was himself a candidate of the Indian National Congress from the Patti constituency. At that time has movement with Capt. Amrinder Singh, who was the leader of the Congress Party, was quite natural. Jasbir Singh alias Jassa was also a compaigner for the victory of the Congress Party. His movement with Capt. Moreover, Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia was himself a candidate of the Indian National Congress from the Patti constituency. At that time has movement with Capt. Amrinder Singh, who was the leader of the Congress Party, was quite natural. Jasbir Singh alias Jassa was also a compaigner for the victory of the Congress Party. His movement with Capt. Amrinder Singh at the time of elections should also not raise any eye-brow from any quarter, whatsoever. Furthermore, in case they were involved in any other criminal case at that time, it was for the Government ruling the State at that time to arrest them Capt. Amrinder Singh, who was the main leader of the Congress Party and was a candidate for Chief Ministership, could not be expected to personally know all and sundry. The State of Punjab at that time was being ruled by Shiromani Akali Dal and the Bhartiya Janata Party. Capt. Amrinder Singh was not the Chief Minister at that time. The participation of the aforesaid two accused in his entourage, does not mean that he would go to help them out of the way in order to scuttle the investigation of a criminal case against them, after taking over as Chief Minister of the State. It would merely be a figment of imagination that the Chief Minister would scuttle the investigation of a criminal case in order to help an accused who had participated in his election rallies. 14. It has come on record that there is a long standing rivalry between the families of accused Bakhshish Singh and Gurdial Singh deceased. Both the families have been booked in different criminal cases at one time or the other. Gurdial Singh deceased and six others were reportedly booked by the police of Police Station, Patti, under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, in the year 2000. At that time Capt. Amrinder Singh was not the Chief Minister. The State of Punjab was being ruled by Shrimoni Akali Dal and Bhartiya Janata Party. The present occurrence seems to have taken place due to the longstanding rivalry between the two families. In case Capt. Amrinder Singh, Chief Minister, had any interest in the accused, the F.I.R. in the present case would not have been registered by the Police so promptly. Four accused have already been arrested and the four others are being declared Proclaimed Offenders. In case Capt. Amrinder Singh, Chief Minister, had any interest in the accused, the F.I.R. in the present case would not have been registered by the Police so promptly. Four accused have already been arrested and the four others are being declared Proclaimed Offenders. The Police had examined as many as 52 witnesses. In case the statement of Gurcharan Singh injured had not been correctly recorded by the Police, even then he can get recorded his statement before the Court at the time of trial. In that eventuality, his statement before the Police would have no meaning at all. Furthermore, in case during the course of trial, the Court is convinced that some other persons are involved in the commission of crime, then it can always proceed against such persons under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, and summon them to face the trial. 15. However, there are specific allegations against Shri Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P. Tarn Taran, to the effect that he had got special favour from the Chief Minister, who appointed him as S.S.P., by ignoring the claim of his seniors. One of his brothers, namely, Vishnu Sharma, is alleged to be the Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Patiala, which is the home town of the Chief Minister. Another brother of Shri Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P., namely, Shri S.K. Sharma, is a P.C.S. Officer. He has been appointed as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, though the said post is normally manned by an I.A.S. Officer. Thus there is a genuine apprehension in the mind of the complainant party that Shri Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P., Tarn Taran, could be influenced by Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar, who is at present a Cabinet Minister. 16. Further there are allegations in the present petition that the murders in the present case were committed at the behest of Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar, who was the brain behind the crime. It has been alleged that there was a long standing enmity between Shri Gurchet Singh Bhular and Gurdial Singh deceased. The security of Gurdial Singh deceased was allegedly withdrawn at the instance of Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar, respondent No. 12. It has been alleged that there was a long standing enmity between Shri Gurchet Singh Bhular and Gurdial Singh deceased. The security of Gurdial Singh deceased was allegedly withdrawn at the instance of Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar, respondent No. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced in Court a photo copy of the affidavit sworn by one Joginder Singh son of Hakam Singh, resident of Algoan Kalan, Tehsil Patti, wherein he has named Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia as the conspirators of the present occurrence. Shri Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P., Tarn Taran, in his reply has not uttered a word about the said allegations. It seems that the conspiracy angle of the occurrence has not been properly investigated by Shri Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P. 17. Apart from the above, Gurcharan Singh injured had allegedly requested Shri Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P., to provide him with a copy of his statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. Even a copy of his statement was not supplied to him. His request was brushed aside by saying that he can get a copy of his statement from the Court as the challan had already been presented. 18. In view of all this, a genuine doubt has been created in the mind of the complainant party that the investigation in the present case is being conducted in order to favour the accused. Every step that is taken by the Police, has created suspicion in the mind of the complainant side. In a case where six murders have taken place, the Police was duty bound to conduct the investigation in such a manner so as not to arouse any suspicion in the mind of the complainant party. But, unfortunately, this does not seem to have been done. It seems that the faith of the complainant party has completely been eroded in the investigation conducted by the Police. 19. Thus, as there are allegations with regard to the involvement of Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar, who is a Minister in the present Government, and also the fact that accused, namely, Jasbir Singh and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia, are allegedly close to the Chief Minister, coupled with the allegation that Shri Narinder Bhargava, S.S.P., Tarn Taran, has not investigated the case thoroughly, the present case needs to be investigated and proved at the highest level. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it would not be fair to leave the investigation of the case under the control of Shri Narinder Bhargava, respondent No. 3. 20. Consequently, I order that the investigation of the present case be entrusted to the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Punjab, who will reinvestigate the entire case. He will especially look into the role of conspiracy alleged against Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar and Tarlok Singh Chakkawalia, respondent Nos. 12 and 14, respectively, as also the involvement of Anup Singh son of Shri Gurchet Singh Bhullar, respondent No. 13, in the present case. In case he finds certain material against these persons, then he shall submit a supplementary challan under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He shall also make every endeavour to apprehend the four accused, who are still at large. The investigation shall be carried out in such a manner so as to instil confidence in the minds of the complainant party. The investigation of the case be completed within two months, from the date of this order. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. Order accordingly.