[Multani Murder Case] 'Nothing Comes To His Aid To Wash Off Blood Of Crime From His Smudged Hands', P&H HC Dismisses Saini's Plea To Transfer Case To CBI [Read Order]

Notably, Former Punjab DGP had sought directions to quash the FIR registered against him or refer the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the probe in the matter.

While observing that there is no substance in the present writ petition, the Single Bench of Justice Fateh Deep Singh remarked that Saini, then a DGP, had shown "such scant regard for the law, and has not only seriously undermined the Fundamental Rights of a citizen but gone to the extent of eliminating a precious Human Life in a manner which is beyond retribution."

The allegations against Saini and others come from the complainant Palwinder Singh Multani son of Sh. Darshan Singh Multani, IAS (now deceased) and brother of Balwant Singh Multani.

Background of the case against Saini

The case has been registered against Saini under sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence of offence), 344 (wrongful confinement), 330 (voluntarily causes hurt), 219 and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) [Section 302 IPC added subsequently] of the Indian Penal Code at Mataur police station in Mohali.

It has been alleged that Balwant Singh Multani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was killed in State-managed elimination around the month of December 1991.

Allegedly, during the tenure of the petitioner (Sumedh Singh Saini) as SSP, Chandigarh on the early morning of 11.12.1991 the police of Chandigarh swooped upon the residence of the deceased and took him away forcibly and illegally without assigning any reason.

In fact, as alleged by the Complainant, Saini and other police officials wanted to know the whereabouts of one Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar who happened to be a relative of the deceased.

The accused in this case took the deceased (along with other persons who were taken into custody subsequently) to CIA Staff, Sector 11, Chandigarh and they were kept in illegal custody of SI Satbir Singh, who was being instructed from time to time by the petitioner herein.

Allegedly, it was during the course of their illegal detention, the deceased (Multani) was given third-degree treatment by the accused.

On account of police excesses, the deceased became unwell and on 13.12.1991 an FIR No.440 of 1991 under Sections 212, 216 IPC; Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was registered against him

He was shown to be an accused in the said case and hence arrested on false allegations by SI Har Sahai Sharma, In-charge of Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

Allegedly, it was during the police torture; Balwant Singh Multani succumbed to the ghastly third-degree treatment of the police. Later on, in a pre-planned manner, the deceased was shown to have been declared as a proclaimed offender.

Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the petitioner has been provided with Z+ security for his protection and has the resources to engage best of the legal brains whereas the poor complainant, the victim side, out of fear and deficiency of resources may be prejudiced in pursuing the matter if it is transferred out.

More so, the Court further remarked, the investigating agency is collecting evidence which is only available in the State of Punjab and it is easier even for the witnesses to get themselves examined before the SIT. The transfer would also result in protracted delay which suits the petitioner at this game of wits who since 1991 has managed to keep the law at bay.

The Court was of the view that allegations against Saini are of very heinous nature and need a thorough probe for keeping alive the faith of the Society in the system of dispensation of Justice.

Further, the Court said, he (Saini) has set up a poor image and precedent for the Force which is by virtue of the uniform and service oath to be the Protectors of humans and not the Terminators.

After hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for Saini, the Court observed,

"The counsel, though has adverted to at length of the alleged heroic acts of the petitioner and his victimization at the hands of the Politicians, but sad to say that the same does not come to his aid to wash off the blood of the crime from his smudged hands. Moreover, panicked over the law coming close on his heels the petitioner has raked up this subterfuge as a last resort to take undue sympathies of the Court and which are subject to only appreciation at the trial." (emphasis supplied)

The Court also noted,

"What has come across to this Court from the records depict the depravity of mind and for which the petitioner deserves no compassion. The celebrated Judge J. Krishna Iyer had remarked "If the use of the power is for the fulfillment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal."

Notably, the abovementioned remark of Justice J. Krishna Iyer was made in the case of State Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh & Ors 1981 SC 818 (62).

The Court also cited the case of A.R. Antulay v/s R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602, wherein, the Apex Court had stressed on morality by Public Servants. The Apex Court had observed,

"… … … we must remind ourselves that purity of public life is one of the cardinal principles which must be upheld as a matter of public policy. Allegations of legal infractions and criminal infractions must be investigated in accordance with law and procedure established under the Constitution. Even if he has been wronged, if he is allowed to be left in doubt that would cause more serious damage to the appellant. Public confidence in public administration should not be eroded any further. One wrong cannot be remedied by another wrong…"

While dismissing the present plea of Saini, the Court also quoted from Shearer V Shields (1914) AC 808 and said that below-mentioned lines aptly apply to this Civil Writ Petition filed by the present petitioner,

"Between malice in fact and malice in law, there is a broad distinction which is not peculiar to any particular system of jurisprudence. A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind, he is taken to know the law and he must act within the law. He may therefore be guilty of malice in law, although so far as the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly and in that sense innocently."

It may be noted that the Punjab & Haryana High Court on Tuesday (08^th September) had dismissed the Anticipatory bail application (filed under S. 438 of CrPC) of Punjab's former Director General of Police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini in the three-decade-old Multani kidnapping and murder case.

However, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (15^th September) granted him interim protection from arrest. The Court has issued a notice in the anticipatory bail plea filed by him.

A Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, and comprising of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, heard the arguments in the plea filed by Saini, challenging the order wherein his anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by P&H HC, and proceeded to direct for no arrest till a Reply is filed by the State within a period of 3 weeks.

Case Details:

Case Title: Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab and others