JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All the three above-titled appeals have arisen out of the same judgment dated 18.11.2003 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Dehradun in S.T. No.324 of 1996, hence are being adjudicated by this single verdict. 2. Sub Inspector Ramesh Chand Chaudhary (A1), S.I. Anil Singh Manral (A2) and Constable Bhopal Singh (A3) were chargesheeted by the CBI on 27.3.1996. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance on 03.01.1997 and committed them for trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, who levelled the Charges on 7.4.1998. A1 was charged for the offences of section 201 and 218 IPC; A2 was charged for the offence of Section 109 r/w Sections 304, 201 and 218 IPC and A3 was charged for the offence of Section 304 IPC. 3. Vide the impugned judgment, A1 was convicted only for the offence of Section 218 IPC while no offence against him could be proved for the offence of Section 201 IPC. So, he was acquitted for the same. A2 was found guilty for the offence of Section 109 r/w Section 304 IPC while he was acquitted for the offences of Section 201/218 IPC. A3 was convicted for the offence of Section 304 IPC. They all have appropriately been sentenced for the same, whereagainst they are before this Court. 4. This is an unfortunate case with the consequence whereof, a young boy Deepak Walia aged about 27 years, lost his life allegedly in the police firing. The incident occurred having another incident in its background which took place in the intervening night of 1/2nd November, 1994 which is infamous as Rampur Trisection Episode in District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. That time no separate State of Uttarakhand was there and it was the part of State of Uttar Pradesh. The people of Uttarakhand were clamouring vehemently, demanding the carving out of separate State for their betterment and it was the incident of Rampur Trisection where lot of people especially women, hailing from Uttarakhand, were ravished at the hands of police/administration in the District Muzaffar Nagar under the regime of the then Chief Minister Sri Mulayam Singh. So, there was all around defiant agitation in the hilly terrain especially in Dehradun and surrounding areas. The area where the instant incident took place is called Jogiwala, the outskirt of Dehradun city. 5. So, there was all around defiant agitation in the hilly terrain especially in Dehradun and surrounding areas. The area where the instant incident took place is called Jogiwala, the outskirt of Dehradun city. 5. As per the report lodged by A1 in P.S. Doiwala at 19:10 PM on that very day viz. 3.10.1994, the protestors, thousands in number, were staging agitations and raising slogans in a very violent manner besides defiant gestures were being advanced to surround the Outpost of Police at Jogiwala. They were pelting the stones, breaking the glasses of roadways bus inasmuch as to set ablaze tyre of the same and throwing petrol bombs towards the outpost. 6. Finding this extremely insensitive and emergent situation, they flashed a message through their Radio Transmission Set. So, the Force from other nearby Police Station known as Clement Town too arrived at the spot and A2 was the member of that force. At the relevant time, he was posted at Police Outpost, Defence Colony which is in the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Clement Town and in these circumstances, there always remains a standing instruction from the high-ups to control the situation and to render every possible assistance to the police force available in facing the grotesque heated situation at the spot. 7. When all persuasions to the mob went in vain and no alternate course was left available to the police force there except to open the fire in order to save their own life as well as the government property, then this mishappening occurred. However, in the first information report lodged 4 by A1, it has been the mention that they opened the fire in the air, nonetheless, one of the fire by way of tilting the gun or otherwise, somehow hit the young boy Deepak Walia who succumbed to his injuries. So the cross-report was also handed over after four days of incident on 7.10.1994 by his real brother Rajesh Walia to the Superintendent of Police, resulting in its lodgment and by the intervention of the Allahabad High Court that time, the matter was investigated by the CBI and chargesheet was submitted as aforementioned. 8. This Court has rendered hearing to all concerned and has evaluated the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. 8. This Court has rendered hearing to all concerned and has evaluated the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It would not be out of place to mention that after levelling of Charges on 7.4.1998, the prosecution produced its first witness on 18.8.1998 and the last witness PW45 could be examined in the Court on 6.8.2002 almost after eight years of the incident. Even the most important witness PW14 Brij Pal Singh, Advocate, whose residence was in the close vicinity, could be examined on 9.5.1999 i.e. almost quarter to five years of the incident and PW42 Jitendra Singh, the Additional District Magistrate (as he then was) could be examined on 6.5.2002 i.e. after almost seven years of the incident. However, having gone through the evidence of all prosecution fact witnesses, it is abundantly clear that the agitating people including the young boys, if not thousands in number, were few hundreds at least and all that crowd in a state of being very aggressive and infuriated, was marching forward and pelting stones to the police outpost nay causing damage to the government property. So, there was a complete state of turmoil. All these agitating people were raising slogans against the then Chief Minister Mulayam Singh, divulging their protests against the incident of Rampur Trisection happened two days earlier. Even the prosecution witness PW19, who has been the Approver because of being a constable present and posted on that very Outpost Jogiwala, has stated in his evidence that the crowd was pelting stone on that outpost and he also heard the fire shot from a distance but he could not see the person who opened the fire. The police personnel present at the outpost too opened the fire in order to disperse the crowd. 9. PW42 Jitendra Singh, a very important witness and a responsible officer so much to the rank of Additional District Magistrate (as he then was), has proved that on assessing the grave and emergent situation created by the mob, he announced the curfew in the entire city Dehradun including the Jogiwala area and also promulgated the application of Section 144 Cr.P.C. which prohibits the assembly of five or more persons at a particular place. Ignoring all such prohibitions, the crowd had become so defiant and grotesque even in the curfew claimped area of Jogiwala. Ignoring all such prohibitions, the crowd had become so defiant and grotesque even in the curfew claimped area of Jogiwala. He received a message on his Radio Transmission Set but was constrained to reach at the spot immediately on account of traffic jam at several places in between. Although, the statement of PW42 regarding the imposition of curfew at 9 AM, as he deposed in his statement is self-contradictory, because in selfsame examination, he stated for declaration of curfew after the police incident at Jogiwala. The Court feels that this contradictory statement of A.D.M. is probably due to the delay of seven years in his examination. This responsible officer has even deposed that agitators had set fire many government offices and when he reached at the place of incident, he found the broken glasses, bricks, stones lying helter skelter nearby the police outpost. Later on, the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police also arrived at the spot but by that time, the crowd had been dispersed and had gone from the spot obviously in order to save their own life because the police opened the fire causing Deepak Walia injured. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that on the record, many police persons including A1, A2 and A3 were injured at the spot on account of pelting of stones by the crowd and this is evident from the injury reports Ex.Ka-4 to Ex.Ka-11. These injuries have not seriously been considered by the Trial Judge. Rather, the same were discarded by the court below just on the assumption that as the doctor has estimated them to have been caused by the blunt and hard object, so the same could have been inflicted falsely. I am unable to agree with the said finding of the Trial Judge. 11. The learned Trial Judge has believed the evidence of PW34 Vikram Singh who was the roadways mechanic and could be examined in the Court after seven years of incident. He could not find the burnt tyre of the concerned bus but has proved that only the tyre was punctured and the glasses of bus were broken. I feel that probably his examination on the point of setting fire the tyre of bus could not be made clear and it was out of his memory due to the lapse of time. I feel that probably his examination on the point of setting fire the tyre of bus could not be made clear and it was out of his memory due to the lapse of time. This fact has been clarified in the first information report lodged by A1 that both the tyres of bus were set ablazed but the fire was soon extinguished by the police personnel present at the spot. The statements of many of the prosecution witnesses like PW9 and PW10 are quite contradictory in the sense that PW9 narrates the incident at the time of morning hours while PW10 discloses the same incident to have taken place at 7:30 PM. It reflects that both these witnesses are false and they were not present at the spot nor they have seen anything with their own eyes. 12. PW14 Brijpal Singh, Advocate, who was examined on 9.5.1999, has himself deposed that A2 Sub Inspector Anil Manral firstly sent all the agitators back after persuading them but the crowd had become infuriated and even when Mr. Manral scolded A3, he (A3) justified his action of opening the fire that it was inevitable in order to save himself from loosing the life at the hands of furious and violent agitators inasmuch as to save the property of the government. 13. Assuming that the fire was opened by A3 at the instance of A1, pointing it towards the agitators, then also the Court feels that the Police Regulation 70 empowers the Armed Police for using the firearms in order to control the crowd at the moment. Section D of Regulation 70 envisages that if Magistrate is not available at the spot and the Officer In-charge deems it absolutely necessary to open fire for the protection of life or property, then the fire can be opened. 14. It has been in the evidence that information was flashed with the help of Radio Transmission Set available with the Police but the Magistrates or some superior Officer could not arrive at the spot on account of traffic jam at several places. This Court is of the considered view that such a heated turmoil situation, where the crowd had become defiant, infuriated and violent, could not be assessed mechanically. This Court is of the considered view that such a heated turmoil situation, where the crowd had become defiant, infuriated and violent, could not be assessed mechanically. These police personnel could not have been left to stake their life at the hands of law breaking hooligans and it was the most appropriate and suitable decision on their part to open fire in order to save their own life as well as the government property to be lost and ruined at the hands of lawless ruffians. The fire weapon undoubtedly should be used in a very rare circumstance but after all, if the exigency of the emergent situation so warrants, in that eventuality, it is not a play toy in the hands of law enforcing agency to be kept reserved. It was the primary duty of the police personnel to maintain the law and order in the area and if in the given circumstances, they used it, by no stretch of imagination, they could be held guilty, all the same, at the stake of a human life as in the instant episode. In such an emergent situation even and ordinary man/civilian has every right of personal defence at the cost of another’s life. 15. Furthermore, A1 has also been found guilty for the offence of Section 218 IPC for the reason that lodging the first information report by him on 3.10.1994 and narrating the entire episode, has been taken by learned Trial Judge as if he prepared the incorrect record with intent to save himself and other colleagues from the punishment. I think that it is quite a perverse finding because it is again the bounden duty of a policeman, as provided by Regulation 70, Section D (5), to record the entire incident and the detailed information of the event leading to the firing. The said provision reads as under: - ‘Whenever firing has taken place, the senior police officer present shall unless the duty is taken over by a Magistrate, record detailed information of the events leading to the firing, the reasons why firing was considered necessary the consequences of the firing with particulars of the dead and injured persons and all other relevant details.’ 16. These Police Regulations have the force of law. These Police Regulations have the force of law. So, the Court feels that the recording of the first information report in the general diary by A1 was in compliance of his imperative duty cast on him by the law. There was no incorrect record or writing prepared by A1 with the intent to save himself or his colleagues. 17. Thus, in view of what has been assessed and analyzed hereinabove, I feel that the judgment of conviction, as recorded by learned Trial judge, does not sustain in the eyes of law. It is accordingly set aside. With the result, all the three appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of all the three appellants is hereby set aside. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 18. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be transmitted to the court concerned.