Punjab & Haryana High Court Convicts DSP In 1995 Custodial Death Case

The Punjab and Haryana has convicted a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) on count of murder, in a 1995 custodial death case.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Punjab Government and complainant against acquittal of the DSP. One Gamdoor Singh was brutally tortured in police custody and succumbed to the injuries later.  Along with three other police officer the Court held the DSP guilty for murdering the accused.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "DSP Gursewak Singh is also liable to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with the other accused."

Division bench noted that the star witness has named the DSP for participating in causing the custodial death of the victim.

The Court noted further that the DSP has also not denied that he has threatened the witness to give testimony, who was lodged in custody with the deceased. It also observed that the log book entries showing that the DSP was not in the town at the relevant time is not a sufficient proof.

Facts In Brief

According to prosecution On November 14, 1995, the deceased Gamdoor Singh and Bagel Singh taken in custody by Railway Police Sangrur. After intervention of few respectable persons they were released from custody after 9 days.

It was alleged that at the time of the realease Gamdoor Singh was in a serious condition and was immediately admitted to PGI hospital Chandigarh. Bagel Singh who was also lodged in custody along with Gamdoor Singh stated that he was given serious blows with stick by a Constable Kirpal Singh at the rib of the deceased and beaten him mercilessly.

The chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 325, 323, 324, 34, 343 of the IPC against accused police officers and the DSP. However the trial Court acquitted them under the charge of murder and convicted only for offences punishable under Sections 343 IPC, along with Sections 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The trial court also acquitted the DSP from all the charges.

After examining the submissions and material available on record, the Court took note of the testimony of the star witness Baghel Singh. It said that the oral statement made by him contrary to the statement made under Section 161 CrPC  will be barred by estoppel in terms of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.

The bench noted that the reason given by Baghel Singh for turning hostile is flimsy and under the pressure of the DSP Gursewak Singh.

It also observed that Baghel Singh had sought security against the DSP Gursewak Singh who was threatening him for the inculpatory statement he had given, which deems that the DSP participated in the crime.

"...when therebys it evidently appears that the DSP concerned, thus was exerting pressure upon him (Baghel Singh ), qua his resiling from the contents of affidavit Ex.PK, which became tendered into evidence and also became a part of his examination-in-chief, wherebys there was but a complete fortified estoppel against PW-3 qua his resiling from the contents thereof, as he had admitted that he had made his signatures thereons. Moreover, therebys the earlier resiling was generated from evident pressure (supra) becoming exerted upon him by accused DSP Gursewak Singh, wherebys he is deemed to be making an inculpatory participation in the crime event," the Court said.

The Court also observed that according to the post-mortem report of the accused, the deceased Gamdoor Singh died because of the ante mortem injuries which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life.

In the light of the above, the Court held all the accused along with the DSP guilty for committing murder of Gamdoor Singh.

In order to decide the quantum of sentence the Court had directed to produce the convicts. Thereafter, two convicts who were produced and heard were awarded life imprisonment.

The DSP and another accused person did not appear before the Court, hence the bench directed the SHO to produce them on September 12, for hearing on quantum of sentence.

Title: State of Punjab v. Harbhajan Singh and others

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate and

Mr. Geetinder Sodhi, Advocate for the appellants No.1 and 2 in CRA-S-1071-SB-2003, for respondents No.1 and 2 in CRA-D-307-DBA-2004 and for respondents No.2 and 3 in CRR-1952-2003.

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for appellant No.3 in CRA-S-1071-SB-2003, for respondent No.3 in CRA-D-307-DBA-2004 and for respondent No.4 in CRR-1952-2003

Mr. Anmol Pratap Singh Mann, Advocate for respondent-Gursewak Singh in CRA-D-307-DBA-2004 and in CRR-1952-2003

Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, Mr. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate and Ms. Arandeep Kaur Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-1952-2003 and for the complainant in CRA-D-307-DBA-2004.

Click here to read/download the order