RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved by Ravinder Kumar Sharma, petitioner in complaint (Annexure P-1) filed against him and others by Smt. Lalita widow of Amrit Lal. It is alleged by Ravinder Kumar that on receipt of secret information that a person was dealing in and using forged currency notes in Partap Bazar, Chhehrata and if timely raid was conducted, it could yield the recovery of many forged currency notes, SI/SHO P.S. Chhehrata, Ravinder Kumar Sharma organised a raid. He raided Partap Bazar, Street No. 1 along with other police personnel. On seeing them, Anil Kumar tried to run away. He was captured, forged currency notes numbering six of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each were recovered from the back pocket of the pants worn by Anil Kumar. In his behalf, case FIR No. 108 dated 25.7.1992 at PS Chhehrata was registered under Section 498A/498C/420/467/471 IPC. These notes appeared to be different from the genuine hundred rupees currency notes. P-2 Anil Kumar disclosed that his father Amrit Lal, was using the forged currency notes at Chhehrata. Police took Anil Kumar with them. When the police party reached the main bazar, Anil Kumar indicated pointing that there was Amrit Lal who had started running at the sight of police party but fell into the gutter thereby receiving internal injuries. On arrest and personal search of Amrit Lal, 14 forged currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each were recovered and those currency notes were sent to the Government of India Bank Note Press, Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) for expert opinion. Expert opinion declared that those were forged currency notes. Annexure P2 is the copy of FIR No. 108 dated 25.7.92 (ibid). Copy of the report of the Government of India Bank Note Press, Dewas is Annexure P3. During interrogation, Amrit Lal disclosed that there was pain in his stomach and he wanted to pass stools. He was sent to latrine along with H.C. Kundan Singh with a view to passing faeces. He went to latrine and set down to pass faeces. He did not come out for quite some time. It was seen that he was lying unconscious in the latrine. He took acid lying in the latrine which is meant for cleaning the toilets. Case FIR No. 109 dated 25.7.1992 was registered against Amrit Lal for attempted suicide. He was immediately taken to the hospital but he died on the way. After the death of Amrit Lal, case was registered under Sections 302/34/148/149 IPC vide FIR No. 110 dated 26.7.1992 against the petitioner under political pressure at P.S. Chhehrata, FIR No. 110 dated 26.7.1992 (ibid) is totally false. In the post mortem report, no cause of death was given. Cause of death was deferred to be given after the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner on the examination of the viscera. Chemical examiner found that "no poison was detected in the contents of Exb. No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Diagnosis of poisoning by mineral acid depends largely in post mortem appearances as the acid taken may have been completely neutralised by alkaline antidote and/or by prolonged contact with tissues." District Magistrate, Amritsar entrusted the enquiry into the death of Amrit Lal under section 174/176 Cr.P.C. to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar. As a result of the detailed enquiry, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar held that Amrit Lal died due to the intake of acid lying in the toilet and that the heirs of Amrit Lal could not produce any solid proof to prove that Amrit Lal had died due to torture of the police inflicted on him during interrogation. Sub Divisional Magistrate gave a clean chit and held that it was not murder. Thereafter another enquiry was got conducted through the Dy. Supdt. of Police (HQ) and he, too, gave the report declaring that Ravinder Kumar was innocent. Cancellation report could not be submitted to the court as the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) marked the enquiry to the DIG of Police, Border Range for further probe under his personal supervision. Enquiry was conducted by S.P. (D) under the Supervision of DIG (Border Range). He also found the petitioner and others innocent and recommended the cancellation of the case. For reaching this conclusion during the enquiry, he put certain queries to the Board of doctors who conducted the post mortem examination regarding the cause of death and the after/effects of sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid and nitric acid. Enquiry report compiled by SP (D), Amritsar under the supervision of DIG, Border range, is Annexure P4. Queries put to Board of Doctors and the answers thereon by them on various points is Annexure P5. It is alleged by Ravinder Kumar that there was no logic in the claim of Smt. Lalita widow of Amrit Lal that her husband had been murdered when it has been found by one and all that he had died because of the intake of acid which was lying in the latrine and he was afraid of facing interrogation by the police for the forging of currency notes. He was summoned by the Magistrate after preliminary evidence. His application for anticipatory bail was declined by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 26.2.1996 (Annexure P-6). Additional Sessions Judge should not have taken into account the report of the Director, Forensic Science Lab. when he was not competent to give opinion on that aspect, more so, when the matter had been thoroughly probed and it was found that it was a case of suicide by Amrit Lal who took acid which was lying in the latrine. No specific act has been attributed to the petitioner in the complaint. There is no evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of the alleged murder. Ocular version is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Ocular version is that the deceased was given acid forcibly through pipe with a funnel fitted on top on one side. Had that been so, there would have been injuries below in the gastric region. In this case, there were some injuries on the lips and oral cavity of mouth. In case sluphuric acid is taken, there is disfigurement of tongue and corrosion of mouth cavity which is not the case here as per the Doctors' reports, Annexure P5. Thus the contention raised by S.I Ravinder Kumar, the then SHO, PS. Chhehrata is that he is not concerned with the death of Amrit Lal. Amrit Lal was subjected to interrogation at P.S. Chhehrata in respect of the use of forged currency notes. Forged currency notes were recovered from his possession. It was with a view to find out the contours of the racket that he was to be subjected to further interrogation. Amrit Lal, to save himself from the ordeal of interrogation, ran and fell into the gutter and received internal injuries. While he was in gutter, he gulped acid meant for cleaning the latrine and died due to the intake of that acid. His further contention is that there was a thorough enquiry into the case that led to the death of Amrit Lal. In the Magisterial enquiry ordered by the District Magistrate, it was found that it was a case of suicidal death as Amrit Lal gulped acid while he was in the toilet. It was found in the Magisterial enquiry that Amrit Lal's was not a custodial death. Supdt. of Police (D) also held an enquiry under supervision of DIG of Police Border Range as ordered by the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) and he also found that the cause of death was the consumption of acid used in toilets for cleaning purposes. Before arrest, Amrit Lal had fallen in the gutter and had sustained some contusions; and that while he was in latrine, he consumed some acid which could be hydrochloric acid or sulphuric acid.

(2.) SMT . Lalita widow of Amrit Lal, on the other hand, contends that her husband's was a custodial death perpetrated by Ravinder Kumar, the then SHO, PS Chhehrarata, ASI Purshotam Lal and others. Her husband Amrit Lal deceased had shifted to Khanna from Amritsar in the year 1985. He was letting passenger rickshaws on hire at Khanna. He was also letting weight-loading rickshaws on hire at Khanna. His business premises were situated abutting the G.T. Road, opposite Telephone Exchange, Khanna and he was keeping residence in house No. 1010, Radhewali Gali, Ram Nagar, Khanna. He was brought to Chhehrata in custody from Khanna on the night intervening 19/20.7.1992 at about 1 a.m. by the police party headed by Ravinder Kumar Sharma, accompanied by ASI Parshotam Lal. They searched the house of Amrit Lal and took into possession Rs. 29300/-, 30/40 old wrist watches, four gold rings, one pair of gold earrings and account diaries tied in two bundles. They bundled Amrit Lal in a Maruti Gypsy and brought him to PS Chhehrata and did not agree to release him despite protest raied by her, her son Arun Kumar and others who had collected at spot. On 20.7.92, she and her son Arun Kumar came to Amritsar and informed about this incident to her relations and other respectables and sought their help to secure the release of her husband from the illegal custody of the police. She visited the police station on 20.7.92 and 21.7.92, accompanied by her sons Arun Kumar and Anil Kumar, her sister-in-law Ram Lubai, Swinder Singh Councillor for, Vinod Kumar, Ram Pal, Visheshar Nath and some others but SI Ravinder Kumar and ASI Parshotam Lal did not agree to release him, and rather they denied the presence of Amrit Lal in the police station. On 22.7.92, she along with Arun Kumar etc. again visited the police station and found Amrit Lal present in a room of the police station. Amrit Lal told them about the severe torture and beating administered to him by the accused. He also showed them injuries on his person. Amrit Lal asked them to manage his release or else he would be killed by the accused. Accused did not agree to release Amrit Lal saying that SP (D) was personally supervising the matter and Amrit Lal would be released only after SP (D) ordered them to do so. Efforts to secure release of Amrit Lal continued till 24.7.92. On 25.7.92 at about 10.30 a.m. SI Ravinder Kumar took Anil Kumar son of Amrit Lal in custody to PS Ram Bagh, Amritsar. They did not agree to release Anil Kumar although protest was raised that his custody was altogether illegal. Anil Kumar was given beating by the accused and thereafter he was taken to Interrogation Centre in B.R. Modern School, Amritsar. She and her son Arun Kumar went to PS Chhehrata and informed Ms. Ram Lubai, Swinder Kumar Councilor, etc. about this incident. All the accused headed by SI/SHO Ravinder Kumar and ASI Parshotam Lcouncil al came to PS Chhehrata at about 12.30/1.00 p.m. that day. They went inside the police station and brought out Amrit Lal holding him from arms and legs and bundled him into Maruti Gypsy. Condition of Amrit Lal was very serious and he was almost lifeless on account of beating and torture administrated to him by the accused. At about 2.15 p.m. on 25.7.92 she sent telegrams to Chief Minister and DGP, Punjab apprising them of the woeful condition of Amrit Lal who was nearing death due to custodial torture. She sought their intervention. Doctor was called by the accused in the police interrogation centre who declared after examining Amrit Lal, that his survival was not possible because of the torture and beating administered to him. After the Doctor had left, SI Ravinder Kumar and ASI Parshotam Lal and other accused persons administered acid to Amrit Lal with pain and died. After killing Amrit Lal in the presence of Anil Kumar in the police interrogation centre, SI Ravinder Kumar and ASI Parshotam Lal three tened Anil Kumar to suffer false confession that he and his father were dealing in forged currency notes. Anil Kumar refused to oblige him. He was tortured and subjected to severe beating whereby he became completely deprived of the hearing power. He became permanently deaf. Smt. Lalita's contention is that after having failed to secure justice at the hands of the police, she instituted complaint under Section 302/201/196/342/364/348/148/149 IPC read with sections 120B IPC against SI Ravinder Kumar and others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar had found sufficient grounds to proceed against all the accused vide order dated 28.2.1995 under Sections 302/201/195/220/348/404/364 IPC read with Sections 148/149 IPC relying upon the statements of Smt. Lalita, Anil Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Visheshar Nath, Ms. Ram Lubai, Arun Kumar etc. It is submitted by the learned counsel for SI Ravinder Kumar that Amrit Lal committed suicide by consuming acid because he was afraid of facing interrogation into the racket of manufacture of forged currency notes which could lead to the involvement of his sons and others.

(3.) IT has been held in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharate and others, AIR 1980 SC 785 "that in our country, intimidation by policemen, when they are themselves accused of offences, is not an unknown phenomenon and the judicial process will carry credibility with the community only if it views impartially and with commonsence the pros and cons, undeterred by the psychic pressure of police presence as indictees. Grant of bail is within the jurisdiction of the court but the court must not in grave cases, gullible dismiss the possibility of police-accused intimidating the witnesses with cavalier ease. In this case, Smt. Lalita has been protesting against the State's bias and police threats. We must remember that a democratic State is the custodian of people's interests and not only police interests. On whose side is the State ? The rule of law is not a one-way traffic and the authority of the State is not for the police and against the people".