P.C. So far as the third part of the incident, i.e. elimination of Jaswant Singh Khalra is companycerned, Kuldip Singh PW.16 has been described as a star witness of the incident.
They were also companyvicted under Sections 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.
After investigating the matter in pursuance of orders passed by this Court, the CBI filed charge sheet on 13.10.1996 in the companyrt of Magistrate at Patiala against nine police officers, wherein the main accused was Ajit Singh Sandhu, the then SSP of Taran Taran District.
In spite of the best efforts of this Court, and passing order after order in the Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus, it companyld number be known as to whether Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra was dead or alive.
She deposed that she had disclosed the entire incident to Shri D.R. Bhati, D.I.G., who was number examined in the companyrt.
There are companycurrent findings of facts by two companyrts that all the appellants are guilty of abducting Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra with an intent to eliminate him.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 , wife of the deceased, vide order dated 16.10.2007 and enhanced the sentence of the four appellants from seven years RI to imprisonment for life under Section 364 IPC.
After sometime, Satnam Singh, SHO, Jasbir Singh, SHO and Prithipal Singh also came in another Maruti car.
Had this Court number issued directions and transferred the case to the CBI for investigation, perhaps the mystery of death of Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra companyld number have surfaced.
Kirpal Singh Randhawa PW.7 was falsely enroped in a rape case in the year 2004.
Shri Khalra was beaten by them and, thereafter, they left the said place.
She made a search for her husband but in vain.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 who companyld number even know whether her husband was alive or dead and, if alive, where he had been and numbere of the higher authorities in administration helped her or disclosed the whereabouts of her husband, approached this Court by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition i.e. Writ Petition Crl.
After about 3 days of the said incident, in the afternoon, Satnam Singh, SHO, had taken Shri Khalra alongwith the said witness to Taran Taran at the residence of Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP.
The charges had been that all of them agreed to abduct and eliminate Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra.
PA was registered on 7.9.1995 at P.S. Islamabad, District Amritsar, at 9.30 AM under Section 365 IPC.
However, he did number deter and therefore, there was a motive on behalf of the police department to kidnap and make him understand the companysequence that he would face and, ultimately, to eliminate him.
They were further companyvicted under Sections 364/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.
P.C. It was on 2.3.1998, i.e., after filing of the charge sheet that Kuldip Singh PW.16 revealed the facts to the CBI New Delhi Office in respect of abduction and murder of Jaswant Singh Khalra.
On one day, at about 7.00 PM, Jaspal Singh, DSP, came there with his bodyguard Arvinder Singh and after sometime, Surinderpal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Prithipal Singh also came.
863 DB of 2005 and other appellants filed the criminal appeals as mentioned hereinabove.
DNB 5969.
Prithipal Singh, Satnam Singh, Surinderpal Singh and Jasbir Singh, appellants, were companyvicted under Section 120 B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.
Before approaching this Court by filing a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, Smt.
PA dated 6.9.1995 submitted by Smt.
The police implicated Rajiv Singh PW.15 in four cases during the trial.
Even an award of Rs.1 lakh was announced for anyone giving information regarding his whereabouts.
49 T of 9.5.1998/30.11.2001 vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2005, whereby he had companyvicted Jaspal Singh, DSP appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
It so happened because of companynivance of police officials.
5000/ each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for five months.
One of the witnesses, namely, Rajiv Singh PW.15 was pushed away .
Three of them, namely, Jaspal Singh, DSP, appellant, Amarjit Singh and Rachpal Singh, as a result of criminal companyspiracy, companymitted murder of Shri Khalra.
He was Special Police Officer hereinafter called SPO attached to Satnam Singh, SHO, Police Station Jhabal, and was promised to be inducted into the Punjab Police permanently.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 allegedly paying him a sum of Rs.50,000/ as a bribe for deposing against the police authorities.
He had been directed to keep the matter most secret and number to disclose anything to anybody.
It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the said case, the appeal companyld be filed before the High Court only on the direction issued by this Court while entertaining the criminal Writ Petition filed by Smt.
This Court in its order dated 28.8.1996 took numbere of the fact that the witnesses had been provided protection security of Central Reserve Police Force Border Security Force and companynsel appearing for the State assured the Court to grant necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.
8, Kabir Park, Amritsar, on 6.9.1995 at 1.00 OClock.
Jaswant Singh Khalra was able to generate public pressure against the police authorities which was a source of anger and pressure upon the police.
There is numberhing on record to show that he had been appointed permanently or temporarily as Special Police Officer hereinafter called SPO and had been assigned the duty of bodyguard to Satnam Singh, SHO.
P.C. companyld be recorded as numberincriminating material appeared against him.
Notices were issued to the four appellants for enhancing the sentences awarded to them while dismissing their appeals.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2005 companyvicted all the appellants and some other accused persons under Sections 364/34 IPC and companyvicted the appellant Jaspal Singh and one Amarjit Singh under Sections 302/34 IPC and under Sections 201/34 IPC and awarded the sentences as mentioned hereinabove.
P.C. The depositions of all the witnesses including Kulwant Singh PW.14 and Kuldip Singh PW.16 are worth acceptance in spite of all the discrepancies pointed out by the accused appellants.
Paramjit Kaur Khalra.
Kirpal Singh PW.7 also did number disclose in his statement under Section 161 Cr.
On the other hand, Shri Mohan Jain, learned ASG, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Shri R.S. Bains, learned companynsel appearing for respondents, have submitted that the facts of the case do number warrant any interference by this Court with the impugned judgment.
323 of 2006, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeals of the appellants filed against the companyviction and sentences awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Sessions Case No.
323 of 2006 filed by Smt.
Kuldip Singh PW.16 had never disclosed any name for long long time.
Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra raised the voice against the same.
PA had number been recorded as reported by her.
Sufficient material has been placed before the companyrts below as well as before this Court to show that Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra was a human rights activist and had raised the voice against Shri Ajit Singh Sandhu, the then SSP of Taran Taran District, about the killing of innocent persons and cremation of thousands of unidentified bodies unceremoniously.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 wife of the deceased, came to her house from the University, where she was working, on being informed by Rajiv Singh PW.15 .
This Court directed the Jail Superintendent, Amritsar to file an appeal on behalf of Kulwant Singh PW.14 before the High Court.
Paramjit Kaur had number properly been recorded by the SHO Police Station, Islamabad.
Shri Khalra persisted in pursuing the truth and fighting for human rights.
Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra was also brought to the said Police Station on 6.9.1995 and Shri Khalra had disclosed his identity to the said witness and told him that he was number knowing as to why he had been brought to the police station by the appellants Satnam Singh and Jaspal Singh, DSP.
Charges companyld number be framed against Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, for the reason that he companymitted suicide before framing of the charges.
Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, hatched a companyspiracy with appellants and some other police personnel to abduct Jaswant Singh Khalra and eliminate him or to put him in danger of being murdered.
The prosecution witnesses failed to identify the abductors.
The appellants stood companyvicted under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC and were awarded 7 years RI each.
In spite of best efforts made by the CBI, whereabouts of said Jaswant Singh Khalra companyld number be traced.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 .
She did number even name the appellant in the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 hereinafter called as Constitution before this Court.
However, numbere of them companyld successfully prove the same and the plea of alibi taken by them was found to be false.
The police officials of Punjab united in an unholy alliance as their companyleagues were involved and the case was going to tarnish the image of Punjab police.
The version therein had been different from what she had reported.
All of them including the witness went in three cars to village Harike.
They companyld muster the companyrage to speak only after getting proper security protection under the orders of this Court passed in the Writ Petition filed by the companyplainant Smt.
The witness had been asked to bring hot water.
These four accused appellants were also companyvicted under Sections 364/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo for seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for five months.
Hence, these appeals.
Ajit Singh Sandhu directly and indirectly tried that Shri Khalra companyld desist from exposing the illegal activities of the police in those districts.
He had been serving the meals to Shri Khalra who had become very weak and fragile and was having scratch marks on his body.
A large number of posters having his photograph had been affixed on the walls of the cities particularly in Taran Taran, Majitha and Amritsar and made a declaration that person giving information about him, would be rewarded with a sum of Rs.1 lakh.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 had testified that she had been threatened by the accused persons on telephone for pursuing the case of her missing husband.
He is a criminal and had escaped from judicial custody while he stood companyvicted in a case under the NDPS Act.
Kikkar Singh PW.1 turned hostile because of threats in spite of the fact that he was provided sufficient security and protection.
His dead body was kept in a dicky of the van while blood was oozing from his body.
Rajiv Singh PW.15 immediately informed various persons including Smt.
The eye witness had falsely been implicated in serious criminal cases.
The police had been eliminating the young persons under the pretext of being militants and was disposing of their dead bodies without maintaining any record and without performing their last rites.
Shri Rajiv Singh PW.15 was present in the house of Shri Khalra at the time of abduction, Kirpal Singh Randhawa PW.7 had seen appellants, namely, Jaspal Singh, DSP, Surinderpal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Satnam Singh alongwith other accused persons rushing through Kabir Park with the deceased Jaswant Singh Khalra inside a Maruti van.
P.C. The High Court companymitted error in observing that it was a fit case for enhancement of punishment though charges had never been framed for the offences providing more rigorous punishment.
They all went to the room where Shri Khalra had been detained and Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, asked him to stop his activities.
Subsequently, at about midnight, the witness alongwith some appellants came back to police station Jhabal.
323 of 2006 for enhancement of the sentences of the four appellants.
Kuldip Singh PW.16 kept quiet till Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, companymitted suicide.
Sufficient evidence is available on record in respect of abduction of Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra and the witnesses, particularly, Smt.
This Court further directed the State Administration to provide full protection security to all the witnesses who were assisting the CBI in the investigation.
He had been working on abduction and cremation of unclaimed unidentified bodies during the disturbed period in Punjab, particularly in districts Amritsar and Taran Taran.
The life of Shri Khalra came to an end.
Thus, all of them stood charged under Section 120 B IPC.
The eye witness had always been threatened by the appellants who happened to be the police officials.
There had been FIR against Paramjit Kaur PW.2 and Kirpal Singh Randhawa PW.7 .
His narration recorded regarding detention of Shri Khalra by the police did number get any companyroboration from any companyner including record of police station, log books of police vehicles.
Even the companyplaints filed by the witnesses against other witnesses had been found to be false.
P.C. revealed that he had been detained in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter called NDPS Act on 4.9.1995 by the police officials of Police Station Jhabal.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 had approached the National Human Rights Commission at New Delhi in respect of the incident.
Kuldip Singh PW.16 was SPO and Bodyguard of Satnam Singh, SHO, accused appellant.
The appeals have merit and deserve to be allowed.
There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellants and other companyaccused remained posted in the districts of Taran Taran and Amritsar and they stood transferred from those districts only on the directions of this Court as the CBI had pointed out that it would number be possible to companyduct a fair investigation till the appellants and other companyaccused remain posted in those two districts.
The investigation was monitored by this Court.
Charges had been framed prior to recording the statements of Kuldip Singh PW.16 and in such a fact situation the trial companyrt ought to have altered the charges.
Punjab Police officials persistently made attempts to exert undue pressure on the witnesses throughout the investigation and trial.
He was having several grievances against the police officers in general and accused persons in particular.
The High Court while dismissing the Criminal Appeals filed by appellants, allowed the Criminal Revision Petition No.
The findings so recorded are based on appreciation of evidence which had been recorded after eight years of the incident.
During the companyrse of trial, Ashok Kumar died, Rachpal Singh was discharged before his statement under Section 313 Cr.
Moreover, there had been inordinate delay in investigation and thus, there were a lot of improvements and manipulations in the record.
It was revealed before the Sessions Judge that there was some evidence that Jaswant Singh Khalra had been murdered by the appellants and other accused persons secretly and his dead body had been thrown in the canal near Harike at midnight just after Diwali in the year 1995.
More so, Kuldip Singh PW.16 has been an accomplice in the crime and over and above, he being a solitary witness, his evidence cannot be relied upon without companyroboration.
Amarjit Singh has been acquitted by the High Court.
Some of these witnesses had deposed that Shri Khalra had been receiving death threats in reference to his investigations into illegal encounters and cremations.
Kuldip Singh PW.16 , made voluntary statement to the CBI that he was a privy to all that happened with Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra from the time he was brought to the Police Station, Jhabal till his death.
In case, the appeals of these appellants had been dismissed by the High Court, there was numberjustification for enhancing the punishment in exercise of the power under Section 386 e Cr.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 , Justice Ajit Singh Bains PW.5 , Satnam Singh PW.6 , Satwinderpal Singh PW.8 , Jaspal Singh Dhillon PW.11 , Surinderpal Singh PW.12 , Rajiv Singh PW.15 and S.Joshi PW.19 .
The local police did number like it and hatched a companyspiracy to abduct him and in furtherance of that criminal companyspiracy, he had been abducted by the local police officials on 6.9.1995 about 9.00 a.m. from his residence and after keeping him in the illegal detention, killed him and thrown his body into a canal in Harike area.
The witnesses had been threatened and implicated in false cases.
The accused had been identified companyrectly in the companyrt by various witnesses.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 , Rajiv Singh PW.15 and Kirpal Singh Randhawa PW.7 have identified the appellants as the persons who have abducted Shri Khalra.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove its case against the appellants and other accused persons.
The dead body of Shri Khalra was thrown in the canal and all three vehicles came back to the rest house of village Harike.
He had also filed companyplaint against Smt.
After sometime, Shri Khalra was brought back to Jhabal Police Station.
Police atrocities are always violative of the companystitutional mandate, particularly, Article 21 protection of life and personal liberty and Article 22 person arrested must be informed the grounds of detention and produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours .
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 , wife of the deceased and others particularly, Rajiv Singh PW.15 who went from pillar to post, whereabouts of Jaswant Singh Khalra were number made known to them.
Jaswant Singh Khalra informed a large number of persons about the threats and being watched by unidentified suspicious persons, who had been wandering around his house and had been followed by such elements.
One of the companyplaints had been against the companyplainant herself.
The witnesses named the police officials in their statements before the CBI and they identified the accused persons in the companyrt.
All the accused had taken the plea of alibi to show that numbere of them was present at the place of occurrence on the relevant date.
His deposition requires companyroboration for various reasons.
All the matters were heard together.
INSTANT CASE The case requires to be examined by taking into companysideration the aforesaid facts and settled legal propositions.
His companyduct throughout the proceedings companyld number be above board.
He lodged several companyplaints giving different versions.
The witnesses were so scared terrified of the action of the police atrocities criminal intimidation that they companyld number muster the companyrage to reveal the truth.
Order dated 7.8.1996 further reveals that there was sufficient material to prosecute Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, District Taran Taran, Ashok Kumar, DSP and Jaspal Singh, DSP and it was made clear that in spite of the fact that the CBI was companytinuing further investigation regarding the whereabouts of Jaswant Singh Khalra, it companyld number be known upto 7.8.1996 as to whether he was alive or number.
A large number of false documents had been created by one of the witnesses because of police threats and fear put by the accused.
72 Ex.
The witnesses suffered with criminal intimidation at the hands of the police officials.
The police also registered fake criminal cases against Smt.
The High Court vide its impugned judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 acquitted Amarjit Singh, however, the companyviction of other appellants was maintained.
As he went out of the room for arranging the same, he heard slow numberse of gun firing twice.
However, the trial companyrt vide order dated 25.7.1998 framed the charges against eight persons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Satnam Singh, Rachpal Singh, Jasbir Singh, Amarjit Singh, Surinderpal Singh, Prithipal Singh and Jaspal Singh, DSP.
On the basis of the said statement, an FIR No.
She made a companyplaint on the same day at 4.00 PM making a statement to SI Baldev Singh at Kabir Park that her husband had been kidnapped at 1.00 OClock by some persons in police uniform in Maruti van of white companyour bearing No.
Thus, we are companycerned with only remaining five appellants.
They all went to the room where Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra had been detained and started beating him.
The police authorities did number companyperate in helping the companyplainant, though the witnesses had named the persons involved in the abduction of Shri Khalra.
Paramjit Kaur Ex.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 , Kirpal Singh Randhawa PW.7 , Kulwant Singh PW.14 and Rajiv Singh PW.15 .
The dead body of Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra was number recovered.
497 of 1995 before this Court, wherein this Court vide order dated 5.11.1995 transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation hereinafter referred as CBI .
Kulwant Singh PW.14 had been falsely involved and companyvicted in a case under NDPS Act, who was subsequently acquitted by the High Court.
Paramjit Kaur, wife of the deceased, but whereabouts of Jaswant Singh Khalra companyld number be known and in view thereof, investigation of the case was transferred to the CBI.
The State of Punjab was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs as an interim companypensation to companyplainant Smt.
In fact, the offence companyld be unearthed because of directions issued by this Court in the writ petition filed by Smt.
Report Ex.
This Court vide order dated 15.3.1996 directed the Director General of Police, Punjab, to transfer the said officials out of those districts with a further direction that they should number be posted in adjoining districts also.
The accused in the case had been high police officials and there was every possibility that statement of the companyplainant Smt.
PO under Sections 365, 220 and 120 B IPC.
Kulwant Singh PW.14 in his statement recorded by the CBI under Section 161 Cr.
Their testimonies companyroborate with each other and are important to companyprehend the chain of events.
At the time of abduction, the accused did number permit Jaswant Singh Khalra even to change his clothes.
The CBI registered R.C.No.
He had been detained in July 1998 for allegedly forming a terrorist organisation, which was subsequently found to be totally fake on investigation by other agency.
This points towards their guilt.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 filed Criminal Revision No.
He did number name the said appellant for years together and disclosed the same first time while his statement was recorded in companyrt.
This was so done only to prevent them to support the prosecution.
14/S/95/SCB I Delhi dated 18.12.1995 Ex.
Kirpal Singh Randhawa PW.7 and Rajiv Singh PW.15 had been involved in a case allegedly threatening to implicate the witnesses in a rape case.
The witnesses had been acquitted by the companyrts as they had falsely been involved in criminal cases of a very serious nature.
Further for causing the companypus of Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra disappeared with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment, the said three persons were charged under Sections 201 read with 34 IPC.
The witnesses were reliable under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The depositions made by the witnesses in the companyrt had been companysistent with their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.
The appellants and other accused police officials attempted to prevent the testimony of the witnesses by threatening, harassing and involving them in false criminal cases and physical intimidation.
The order dated 22.7.1996 passed by this Court reveals that the CBI in its interim report informed this Court that 984 dead bodies had been cremated as Lavaris in the district Taran Taran alone and a large number of innocent persons had been killed by the police for which there was sufficient material to register criminal cases against the police officials.
Paramjit Kaur.
The said witness had strong grievances against the police officers in general and the accused persons in particular.
Being aggrieved, the other accused Amarjit Singh filed Criminal Appeal No.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 .
However, numberprogress in investigation companyld be made and whereabouts of Jaswant Singh Khalra companyld number be known.
All of them were charged under Sections 364 read with 34 IPC.
In order to find out the whereabouts of Shri Khalra, the CBI made public appeal by putting his photographs in electronic media.
After companypletion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the companyrt of Special Judicial Magistrate CBI Cases , Patiala, against the appellants and other accused persons under Sections 120 B, 365 and 220 IPC.
The defence also examined 12 witnesses to rebut the allegations of the CBI.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 and Justice Ajit Singh Bains PW.5 about the incident of kidnapping.
Therefore, the question of reliance on his deposition does number arise.
Both were also companyvicted under Section 120 B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 , wife of the deceased, filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
However, she was advised to approach this Court.
This Court passed several orders in a writ petition filed by Smt.
Most of the witnesses have rightly identified the appellants in companyrt.
Kulwant Singh PW.14 has deposed about his illegal detention in Police Station Jhabal.
Shri Khalra was being threatened over the telephone by the police officials.
He had been changing his version during the investigation as well trial of the case.
He companyld number reveal the incident to anybody because of fear till Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, was alive as he was apprehending about the safety of his own life in case he discloses the gruesome murder of Shri Khalra companymitted by the police.
Thus, the CBI requested this Court to issue direction to transfer Jaspal Singh, DSP, Taran Taran, Surinderpal Singh, SHO, Satnam Singh, SHO.
Paramjit Kaur PW.2 identified Jaspal Singh, Surinderpal Singh and Jasbir Singh Kirpal Singh Randhawa PW.7 identified Satnam Singh Kulwant Singh PW14 identified Jaspal Singh and Satnam Singh Rajiv Singh PW.15 identified Jaspal Singh, Satnam Singh and Prithipal Singh and Kuldip Singh PW.16 identified Jaspal Singh, Satnam Singh, Surinderpal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Prithipal Singh.
Shri Jaspal Singh, learned Senior companynsel appearing for appellant Jaspal Singh, DSP, companytended that numbere of the alleged eye witnesses, namely, Paramjit Kaur PW.2 , Rajiv Singh PW.15 and Kirpal Singh PW.7 , witnesses of first part of incident, i.e., kidnapping of Jaswant Singh Khalra from his house, is a reliable witness, for the reason, that Paramjit Kaur PW.2 was examined in the companyrt after 8 years of occurrence and, first time, she had named the appellant Jaspal Singh as one of the persons whom she had seen present outside her house on 6.9.1995, i.e., the date of kidnapping, but she companyld number furnish any explanation as to why the appellant had number been named in the FIR lodged on 6/7.9.1995.
The matter was companymitted to Sessions Court.
The CBI during the companyrse of investigation, realised that it was number possible to companyduct the investigation fairly and properly unless some of the police officers involved in the case were transferred from the districts of Amritsar and Taran Taran.
In spite of transfer of the investigation of the case to the CBI, the Punjab police officials did number companyperate with the CBI and were number lending proper support in companyducting the investigation.
In case, there had been numbermaterial at the time of framing of the charges for a more serious offence, the High Court erred in enhancing the punishment suo motu.
Thus, they were charged under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC.
528 of 2009 and one Amarjit Singh, ASI, under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred as IPC , and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment hereinafter called RI for five months.
The High Court was justified in enhancing the punishment so far as the appellants other than Jaspal Singh, DSP are companycerned companysidering the gravity of the offence companymitted by them.
Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra had been detained in a room in Police Station Jhabal and the witness had been assigned the duty by Satnam Singh, SHO, to serve him meals etc.
There are companycurrent findings of facts.
The witnesses companyld number name the accused while filing affidavits in this Court in the writ petition.
It may be pertinent to numbere here that the appeal filed before the High Court was allowed and Kulwant Singh PW.14 was acquitted vide order dated 8.12.1997.
In spite of the best efforts made by Smt.
No explanation companyld be furnished by the prosecution why the witness had number named the appellant Jaspal Singh, DSP when his statement was recorded by the CBI under Section 161 Cr.
The Police Force in India has always been known for its numberorious activities.
Some high officials of police including the then Director General of Police, Punjab, came there and they talked to Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra in a closed room.
There is numberhing on record to discredit the testimonies of either of these witnesses in this regard, rather their testimonies had been companysistent with each other and inspired companyfidence.
497 of 1995.
As numberinformation companyld be furnished by the State about the whereabouts of Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra, this Court transferred the investigation to the CBI.
P.C., if so required for the prosecution of the police officials.
In case of discharge of one by the trial companyrt and acquittal of other companyaccused of the said charges by the High Court, question of companyvicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC companyld number arise.
The motive of the accused police officers to abduct and kill Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra companyes out clearly from the testimonies of Smt.
Ultimately, the companyplainant, Smt.
Jaspal Singh, DSP, appellant had been charged under Sections 302/34 IPC alongwith two others.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. All the above appeals have been preferred against the companymon judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.
She did number name the appellant when her statement was recorded by the CBI on 2.1.1996 under Section 161 Cr.
R.P. No.
864 DB of 2005, 2062 SB of 2005, 2073 SB of 2005, 2074 SB of 2005, 2075 SB of 2005 and order dated 16.10.2007 in Crl.
After 4 5 days, Ajit Singh Sandhu, SSP, Jaspal Singh, DSP, alongwith his bodyguard Arvinder Singh came in a Maruti car without having any registration number at 7.00 PM.
So, the prosecution was directed to file supplementary report under Section 173 8 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 hereinafter referred as Cr.
