:1: IntheCourtofMs.KaveriBaweja AdditionalSessionsJudgeFTC(Central) TisHazariCourts:Delhi. SessionsCaseNo.:51/09 UniqueIDNo.:02401R0000081995 CBI versus (1)SatishKumarKadian S/oSh.RamSingh R/o233,SectorII R.K.Puram,N.Delhi (2)InderSinghRana S/oSh.J.S.

Rana R/oH75,SarojiniNagar, NewDelhi (3)JagmalSinghYadav S/o Sh. Surjan Singh Yadav R/oVPOTajpur PoliceStationAtali Distt.Mohindergarh, Haryana Expired ProceedingsAbated] (4) Sh.RameshChand S/oSriChand R/oVillageLadarawan Police Bahadurgarh, Haryana Station. [Since

:2: (5)KewalKishanArora S/oSh.KahanChand R/o64,PriyaEnclave NewDelhi Casearisingoutof: RCNo. PoliceStation UnderSection R/w Judgmentreservedon Judgmentpronouncedon : : : 16(S)/88 PatelNagar 323/342/304/34 IPC and Section 218 IPC Section109IPC :31.7.2012 : 09.8.2012

JUDGMENT CaseoftheProsecution: Theincident in question occurredabout 26years ago. Atthe veryoutset,beforedealingwiththefactsofthecase,itmustbekeptin mindthatthisisacaseofpolicetortureanddeathofaninnocentman whileinpolicecustody. Thebrieffactsofthecaseasborneoutfromthechargesheetare thatonthenightof22.8.86atabout10.45PM,AccusedNo.1and2 namely SI Satish Kumar Kadian and Inder Singh Rana along with AccusedNo.3and4namelyCt.JagmalSinghYadav(sinceexpired) andRameshChand,allofPoliceStationPatelNagar,Delhivisitedthe residenceofthecomplainantSudeshKumarandpickedhimupwhile

:3: he was sleeping outside his house. They started beating him. On hearinghisshrieks,hismaternaluncleGopiRam(deceased)cameout and he was also given beatings by aforesaid police officials. Both Sudesh Kumar and Gopi Ram were taken to the Police Station and where they were given beatings by above referred Accused persons withsaria,dandaandrollar. Itisalleged that oneotherpoliceInsp.alsoreachedthereand ordered the team to beat both of them to death. As aresult of the beatings Gopi Ram became unconscious, but despite that he was subjectedtobeatings.Inthemorningof23.8.86,GopiRamwastaken toKheraHospital,aprivatenursinghomeinPatelNagarbyAccused SatishKumarKadian,JagmalSinghYadavandRamesh,wherehewas declareddead.FromKheraHospital,deceasedGopiRamwastakento RMLHospitalbyaforesaidpoliceofficers,whereMLCNo.9483was preparedbyDr.Y.K.Mishra,CMOwhodeclaredhimdead.However, in the records, it was shown that Accused has been brought by his nephewSudeshKumar.AfterinquestunderSection174CrPConthe bodyoflateGopiRamwasconductedbySh.SatyendraNath,thethen SHO,PoliceStationPatelNagar,hewastakentoCivilHospital,Subzi Mandi for postmortem examination. Dr. L. T. Ramani, Medical Officers,conductedthepostmortemandgavehisreportNo.184dated 23.8.86. The postmortem revealed 10 external injuries on different partsofthebodyindifferentsizes.Itisfurtherallegedthatfromthe CivilHospital,lateGopiRamwastakentoElectricCrematoriumwhere

:4: hiswifeSmt.KashmeriDeviandotherswerewaiting.Thebodywas nothandedovertotherelatives,althoughinthepapersitwasshown thatSudeshKumarreceivedthebody. In view of the history of drug addiction, as given in the

requisitiondated23.8.86ofSHO,PoliceStationPatelNagar,Dr.L.T. Ramani deferred the cause of death till receipt of chemical analysis report.On29.8.86visceraoflateGopiRamwasforwardedtoCFSL, NewDelhiforopinionastowhethercontentscontainedethylalcohol, heroin,charas,ganjawhichmighthaveledtothedeathofGopiRam. A5i.e.AccusedK.K.Arora,SeniorScientificOfficercumChemical Analyst, Texicology Division vide his report No. CFSL/86/T4611 dated30.6.86mentionedthereceiptof100mlofbloodobtainedfrom thebodyofGopiRam.Inthesaidreport,K.K.Arorafoundpositive testsformorphineandethylalcoholinthebloodofGopiRam.When this report was put up before Dr.L.T.Ramani forgiving cause of death,heaskedforlevelofbloodalcoholconcentration.Accordingly, theremnant oftheviscerawereagainsenttoCFSLon24.11.86for secondopinion. Inthesecondreport,videNo.CFSL/86/T/4611dated29.12.86,

AccusedK.K.Aroramentionedhavingreceived60mlofbloodand foundthatcontentsofthesaidbloodcontained294mgofethylalcohol per100 mlofblood. Onthebasisofthisreport,Dr.L.T.Ramani opined that the alcohol and morphine were sufficient to cause respiratorydepressionanddeathandtheinjurieswerenotsufficientto

:5: causedeathinordinarycourseofnature. TheinvestigationwasthereafterhandedtoCBIbytheordersof

HonbleSupremeCourt,theremnantofvisceraoflateGopiRamwere collectedfrommalkhana,PoliceStationPatelNagarandwerereferred toDirector,ForensicScienceLaboratory,Agra,UPbyCBIforopinion astowhetherthecontentsofthevisceracontainedanytoxicsubstance and also for the blood alcohol level. Dr. S. C. Sharma, Scientific OfficerofFSL,Agravidehisreportdated28.9.89confirmedthatthe viscera did not contain any chemical poison including morphine, heroin,ganjaorcharas. However,becauseofinsufficientquantityof blood,notestregardingalcoholpoisoncouldbeconducted. Owing to the said two contradictory reports, a Medical Board

consisting of Dr. Bishnu Kumar, Director, Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. Dr. S. N. Aggarwal, Director, Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi and Dr. Shameem J. Rizvi, Professor and Chairman, Department of Forensic Medicine, J. L. Medical College, Aligarh MuslimUniversity,Aligarhwasconstitutedwhichsubmitteditsreport No.E6/90/MC/FOR/277dated23.5.90.TheBoardfoundthereportof K.K.AroranottenableandassignedthecauseofdeathoflateGopi Ramas shockconsequent uponmultipleinjuriesonthebodyofthe deceasedcausedbysomebluntobjectlikelathi. Itisfurtherallegedthatinordertosetupafakestorytocoverup

:6: the death of Gopi Ram in police custody, Accused Satish Kumar Kadian(A1)recordedafalseentryinhiswritingon23.8.86videGD A,PoliceStationPatelNagarat8.05hoursstatingthathewaspresent at Prem Nagar for patrolling alongwith Inder Singh Rana and Ct. Jagmalwhenat04.00hours,hereceivedaninformationthatGopiRam S/o Sh. Jwahara R/o 2103, Prem Nagar who sold smack and was addictedtoit,waspresentinhishouseandifaraidwasconducted,he couldbearrestedandsmackcouldberecoveredfromhim.However, on seeing the policemen, Gopi Ram tried to escape. He was overpoweredandhandedovertoCt.JagmalandSatishKumarKadian andInderSinghRanagotbusyinopeningthedoorofGopiRam. In themeanwhileGopiRammanagedtofreehimselfandranawayinthe darkness. Onthebasisofmaterialonrecord,videorderdated02.2.2000,

AccusedA1toA4werechargedforoffencepunishableunderSection 323/342/304/34 IPC and Section 218 IPC R/w Section 109 IPC whereas Accused K. K. Arora was charged for offence punishable underSection218IPC.AlltheAccusedpersonspleadednotguiltyand claimedtrialwhenthechargeswerereadoverandexplainedtothem.It may be mentioned at this juncture that during the course of trial, Accused Jagmal Singh expired and proceedings against him were abated. IhaveheardtheargumentsadvancedbyLd.DefenceCounselsof

theAccusedandSpl.PublicProsecutorappearingonbehalfofCBI.I

:7: have also carefully gone through the record of the case and have consideredtheevidence,bothoralanddocumentaryonrecord. Prosecutioninordertoproveitscaseexamined29witnesses.

PleaoftheDefence: ThestatementsoftheAccusedwererecordedunderSection313

CrPC.13witnesseswereexaminedbytheAccusedintheirdefence. InhisstatementrecordedunderSection313CrPC,AccusedInder Singh Rana claimed innocence stating that he has been falsely implicated.HetookthedefencethathewaspostedasDivisionOfficer atPoliceStationPatelNagaron22.8.86asperdutyroasterandafter finishinghisdutyhereportedbacktothePoliceStationat10.15PM andafterchanginghisdresshelefttohishomeatabout10.30PMand thereafterheremainedathishome.Hefurtherpleadedthaton23.8.86, hereportedtothePoliceStationforhisdutyasperthedutyroasterat about9.45AManwhenhereachedthePoliceStation,hewasinformed that some false DD entry has been recorded in the roznamcha. He furtherstatedthathereportedthemattertoSHOthatafalseDDentry has been recorded and he was not present at Police Station on the interveningnightof22/23.8.86andwaspresentathomeand atthat timeAccusedSatishKadianwassittinghisroom.Hefurtherpleaded that DCP instructed the SHOthat since his name has been wrongly mentionedintheDDentrylettheroznamchabedestroyed.Thereafter, onthenextday,whenhecametotheduty,hehadbeentransferredto

:8: District Line, Pahar Ganj and should immediately report there. He furtherstatedthatinthemeantime,onepersonwhowassittinginthe roomtoldhimthattheyweregoingtowardsPaharGanjandwilldrop himatPaharGanjandhealongwithSatishKadiansatinthevehicle. HefurtherpleadedthatwhentheyreachednearPusaChambery,hewas informedthathehadbeenarrestedandtheytookhimtoofficeofSpl. Staff,KamlaMarketandhewassenttojudicialcustody. AccusedRameshChandinhisstatementunderSection313CrPC

alsopleadedinnocentandstatedthathehasbeenfalselyimplicatedin this case. He also contended that he had not been named in the previousFIRinvestigatedbyCrimeTeamandnoevidencewasfound against him. He further stated that later on the basis of false and fabricated documents, he had been included in the list of Accused persons.Hefurthercontendedthattherewasanotherconstablenamely RameshChandwhowasalsopostedinthesamePoliceStation and evenonthatdayhewasonnight patrollingduty. AccusedRamesh Chandfurtherclaimedthatwitnessesnamedhimduetothetutoringof theInvestigatingAgency. InhisstatementunderSection313CrPC,AccusedSatishKadian statedthathewasonpatrollingdutyincomplianceofthedirectionsof seniorofficerswithregardtoactiontakenagainstdrugpeddlersinthe area. He further contended that he was performing his duty in his officialcapacityandwhateverhappenedwascorrectlyrecordedinDD No.11Aon23.8.86at8.05AM. AccusedSatishKadianalsostated

:9: that drug mafia of that area in collusion with other drug pedlars hatchedaconspiracyagainstthelocalpoliceandgottheFIRregistered againsthimandotherstodemoralisedthelocalpolicesothattheymay nottakesternactionagainsttheminthesaleofsmackinthearea.He furtherpleadedthatheisinnocentandhasbeenfalselyimplicatedin thiscase. AccusedKewalKishanAroracontendedthathewasworkingas

Sr. Scientific Officer in CFSL and his job was to make chemical analysis, receiving visceras and there was established procedure in CFSLinregardtoreceivingviscerafrompolice.Hefurtherstatedthat specific number was given to the tile in regard to the viscera box received inCFSLand thenumberiswrittenontheboxinDirector, CFSLOfficewherethesamenumberwasgiventothefilepertainingto thatviscerabox.Hefurtherpleadedthatinthiscasevisceraboxwas receivedinCFSLandthefilewasopenedinCFSLOfficebearingNo. 86/T4611pertainingtoFIRNo.336/86PoliceStationPatelNagarand thesamenumberwaswrittenontheboxinboldletterswiththestencil ink. AccusedK.K.Arorafurthercontendedthatthequantityofblood

aswellastheexhibitsreceivedintheCFSLisclearlymentionedin worksheetwhenopenedbytheChemicalAnalystandinthiscasealso whenthevisceraboxwasopenedtherewasclearmentionofquantityof bloodi.e.100ml. Hefurthercontendedthatitisprerogativeofthe postmortemsurgeontosendthequantityofbloodforchemicalanalysis

:10: asfarCFSLconcernedtherehasbeenarecordreceiving100andmore than 100 ml of blood in some cases from different postmortem surgeons. AccusedK.K.Arorafurtherpleadedthathegavehisreporttothe

postmortemsurgeonbutagainreceivedthevisceraforestimationofthe alcoholandsecondtimealsomentionedthedetailsinhisworksheet andanalystthequantityofalcoholinthebloodandthesamewassent to postmortemsurgeon andthepostmortemsurgeonhasnotputany preservative in the blood when sent to him and, therefore, there is formationofalcoholalso. AccusedK.K.Aroraalsocontendedthatonreinvestigationof

thecasebytheorderofCBI,asandwhenhewascalled,heappended hissignatureswithoutknowingthedetailsofinvestigationandhealso gavetheconcernedfilebearingNo.4611totheInvestigatingOfficer. Hefurtherstatedthathelearntthatawrongvisceraboxwassentto FSL, Agra as he received paper/documents from this Honble Court whereindocumentbearingNo.29,thereisclearcutmentionofviscera boxNo.1295whereastheconcernedvisceraboxpertainingtoGopi Ramwas4611ofFIRNo.336/86PoliceStationPatelNagarandhe accordingly maderepresentationtoDirector,CBIwithregardtothis most blunder laPolice Statione on the part of investigation being committedagainsthim.Hefurtherpleadedthathesentremindersalso butnoreliefwasgiventohimandhealsoadvancedhissubmissions beforeHonbleCourtatthetimeofargumentsonthepointofcharge

:11: andaccordinglyfiledfileNo.87/T1295ofCFSLwassummonedby thisHonbleCourtandsameisontherecord.Hefurtherstatedthatin the said file bearing No. 87/T1295 in the worksheet, the contents mentionedthereinissimilartothecontentssenttoFSL,Agraaswrong visceraboxwassenttoFSL,Agraandhencetheopinioninregardto thechemicalanalysiswasboundtobedifferentthanhisanalysisand thereupontheopinionoftheBoardwasboundtobedifferentastiis basedonFSLanalysis. Defence has examined thirteen witnesses namely R. K. Srivastava,DealingAssistant,CivilHospital,RajpurRoad;Ct.Bansi Dhar,ClerkatOfficeofDirector,CBI;Retd.SIKartaRam;Neelam Arora, Scientific Assistant, CFSL, CBI; Retd. Insp. Biri Singh; SI RadheyShyam,Retd.IPoliceStationDiwakarPrasad;AlkaGhosh,PA toJointDirector,CBI;Insp.VijayKumarSingh;SIRavinderAhlawat; D.N.Kapoor,PoliceStationtoDirectorCBI; Retd.SIS.C.Biswas andKamlendraPrasad,DirectorCBI.

ProsecutionEvidence: The Prosecution examined 29 witnesses in order to prove the

aforesaidchargesagainstAccused. At the outset, it is necessary to note that complainant Sudesh KumarwhowasbeingexaminedbytheProsecutionasPW9expired during the course of trial, and as a consequence thereof even his examination in chief could not be completed, thus making his part

:12: recordedtestimonyinadmissibleinevidence. Itisalso amatterofrecordthatintermsofordersofHonble HighCourtdated14.8.03Dr.S.R.Singh,DirectorCFSLwasexamined at the initial stage of recording of Prosecution evidence and was broughtintothewitnessboxasPW2. He deposed that he knows Accused K. K. Arora who was workingasSr.ScientificOfficerandcanidentifyhissignaturesashe hadseenhimwritingandsigning. PW2exhibitedPW2/Awhichisa papersliphavingimpressionofsealbearingsignaturesofK.K.Arora (A5) at point A. Report submitted by Accused K. K. Arora was exhibited by him as Ex. PW2/B and the forwarding letter was Ex. PW2/C.HealsoidentifiedthesignaturesofAccusedK.K.Arora(A5) onEx.PW2/D,PW2/E,PW2/F,PW2/GandPW2/H. ProsecutionalsoexaminedwifeofdeceasedGopiRamnamely

Kashmiri Devi as PW1. Prosecution also placed reliance on the depositionofPW8ShankarLal,brotherofthedeceasedGopiRamwho was living in the same house along with deceased at the time of incident.PW8deposedthaton22.8.86atabout1111.45PM,allthe fourAccusednamelySatishKadian,InderSinghRana,Ct.Rameshand JagmalcametotheirhouseandstartedbeatingGopiRamandSudesh whoweresleepinginthelaneoutsidethehouse. Hefurtherdeposed thattheycontinuouslybeatthemandheranawayfromtheretosave himself.HeclearlydeposedthathecouldseealltheAccusedpersons ashishouseisacornerhouseandtherewassufficientstreetlight.He

:13: furtherdeposedthatheranfromthespotwhenhesawAccusedbeating GopiRamandSudeshasfewdaysearlierCt.Jagmalhadunnecessarily takenhimtothePoliceStation.PW8furtherdeposedthatonnextday, he went for his duty at Police Station Roop Nagar where he was workingasaConstableatthattime.Atabout6PM,hisnephewPratap informed him about Gopi Ramhad been taken to thePoliceStation RoopNagaronthepreviousnightandhehadcometoknowthatGopi Ramhaddied. PW10 Ziley Singh who was earlier resident of same locality deposedthaton23.8.86,peoplehadgatheredinthelocalityandtold himthatGopiRamhadbeentakentothePoliceStationbythepolice andthathehaddiedonaccountofthebeatingsgivenbythepeople. ThisdepositionofPW10was,however,objectedtoonthegroundof hearsay.Anotherresidentofthelocality. PW12 Naresh Chander Mudgal was also examined by the Prosecution,whodeposedthaton23.8.86atabout6PM,heheardnoise inthelocalitythatpolicehadabductedGopiRamadaybeforeandthat hehaddied.HefurtherdeposedthatpolicehadabductedGopiRama daybeforehehasdied.HefurtherdeposedthatShankarLalaskedhim towriteacomplaintandhewroteacomplaintonthedictationofone SH.Panjwani,Advocate.ThesaidcomplaintisEx.PW9/A. Prosecution furtherrelied onthe deposition of PW18 Retd.SI Ved Prakash who deposed that asperduty roasterof22/23.8.86,SI Inder Singh Rana and SI Satish Kadian were working as Division

:14: OfficersinthePoliceStationonthatnight. He further deposed that on 22.8.86, he was working as EmergencyOfficeralongwithUmedSinghfrom2PMto8PMandon 23.8.86,hewasEmergencyOfficerfrom8AMto2PMalongwithHC RamSkal.PW18alsodeposedthaton23.8.86,hereceivedDDentry No.45BlodgedbyCt.HarnamSinghwithregardtoGopiRamhaving broughtdeadtothehospitalbySudeshKumar.ThesaidentryisEx. PW18/A. Thewitness further exhibited DDNo.11A dated 23.8.86 madebyAccusedSatishKadianasEx.PW15/A. Hefurtherdeposed thatonreceiptofDDNo.45Bdated23.8.86,hereachedRMLHospital alongwithCt.KanwarPalandthereafterInsp.SatinderNath,SHOalso reachedthere.TheSHOconcernedreceivedtheMLCofGopiRamand onesealedpacketcontainingfivepudiaofsmackwhichwasseizedvide seizurememoEx.PW11/C. PW18furtherdeposed thathewentto mortuaryasperdirectionsofSHOconcernedalongwithCt.Kanwar Pal and Sudesh Kumar. He further deposed that he recorded the statementofSudeshKumarwhichisEx.PW9/CandPW9/Dandalso wrotealetteronthedictationofSHO. Thesaidletterissignedby SHO and exhibited as ExPW18/C forpostmortem examination and preservationofvisceraofdeceasedGopiRam. Hefurtherexhibited receiptofdeadbodyasExPW9/F.TheProsecutionfurtherreliedon depositionofthiswitnesswhoalsodeposedthatdeadbodywashanded overtoSudeshKumarasperrecordbutthedeadbodywasnothanded overinhispresence.

:15: PW18furtherdeposedthatwhenhereachedatPoliceStationat

about1AMashewasnotallowedtoenterthePoliceStationasthe publicwaspeltingstones,heappearedbeforetheACPandproduceto himthepacketseizedvidememoEx.PW11/CandgotcaseFIRNo. 337/86 registered under Section 21 of NDPolice Station Act against AccusedGopiRamonthedirectionsofACPconcerned. TheProsecutionalsoplacedmuchrelianceonthetestimonyof

PW21Dr.AnilKumarSinghwhowasworkingasresidentdoctorat KheraHospitalwasondutyinthesaidhospitalon22.8.86from8PM to8AM.Hedeposedthaton23.8.86atabout8AM,onepatientwas broughtbythepoliceandonexamination,thesaidpatientwasfoundto beclinicallydead.Hefurtherstatedthattheytoldthepolicepersonnel who brought the said patient that they could give the certificate of broughtdead.However,thepoliceofficerswerenotsatisfiedandthey toldthemthattheywilltakethepatienttoGovt.Hospital.Thewitness was,however,unabletotellthenamesofthepoliceofficialsandtheir descriptionbutinresponsetoacourtquestionhetoldthathecannottell thenames and designation of the police But there weretwopolice officers, out of which one was definitely having some stars on his uniform. The witness further told that one civilian was also accompanying them and the said civilian had told him that he was eitherthematernaluncleorthenephewofthedeceased. Relyingonthedepositionoftheaforesaidwitnesses,Prosecution

stronglycontendedthattheallegationsagainstAccusedhavebeenduly

:16: proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt. Ld.APP advanced arguments at length on behalf of Prosecution and also submitted detailedwrittenargumentssupportedbyrelevantcaselaw.

ArgumentsandAnalysis: ItwascontendedonbehalfofCBIthathavingregardtothefacts

ofthecase,themainpointswhicharisefordeterminationinthiscase areasunder: (A) Whether there is any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the factum of deceased Gopi Ram and Sudesh being picked up by the AccusedA1toA4onthenightof22.8.86fromtheirhouseandalso beinggivenbeatingsbyA1toA4onthespotandfurthertakingthem forciblytothePoliceStationPatelNagaronthesaidnight. (B)Whetherthereisanycogentandreliableevidencetoprovethefact thatbothGopiRam(deceased)andSudesh(i.e.PW9whodiedduring trial)werebeatenbyAccusedA1toA4inPoliceStationPatelNagar during the intervening night of 22.8.86 and 23.8.86 and because of whichGopiRamdiedinillegalpolicecustody. (C)Whetherthereiscogentandreliablemedicalevidencetoprovethe fact that cause of death of deceased Gopi Ramis shock consequent uponmultipleinjuriesonthebodyofthedeceasedcausedbysomeblunt objectlikelathi. (A) WereGopiRamandSudeshpickedupfromtheirhousebyA1to A4onthenightof22.8.86,givenbeatingsbythemandthenforcibly

:17: takentoPoliceStationPatelNagar Itwasarguedthatthereiscogentevidenceonrecordwhich establishesthefactumofdeceasedGopiRamandcomplainantSudesh KumarhavingbeenpickedupbyA1toA4ontheinterveningnightof 22/23.8.86 from their house. It was contended that there is also sufficientevidenceonrecordtoestablishthatdeceasedGopiRamwas givenbeatingsbyA1toA4andthattheyweretakenforciblytoPolice Station Patel Nagar on 22.8.86. Ld. APP contended that though deposition of PW9 cannot be read in evidence as it could not be completed, however, reliance was placed on the deposition of PW20 whohadrecordedstatementofPWSudeshKumarunderSection164 CrPC.ItwasfurthercontendedonbehalfofProsecutionthatPW24Raj SinghChauhanalsoprovedthefactumofregistrationofFIRbearingNo. 336/86 dated 24.8.86 by Police Station Patel Nagar on the basis of written complaint given by Sudesh Kumar. The said FIR is Ex. PW24/H.ItwascontendedthatalthoughthedepositionofPWSudesh Kumarcannotberead,yetitcanbetakennoteofthatFIRbearingNo. 336/86 Police Station Patel Nagar was recorded on the basis of his complaint. In support of its arguments that Prosecution has been able to establishthefactumofdeceasedGopiRamandSudesh havingbeen pickedupbyA1toA4fromtheirhouseontheinterveningnightof 22/23.8.86givingbeatingstothemandtakenawayofGopiRamand Sudesh at Police Station Patel Nagar, Prosecution relied on the

:18: statementofPW8ShankarLal,PW1KashmereDevi,PW10JileSingh andPW12Naresh. It was argued that PW8 is the eye witness of the factum of deceased Gopi Ram and complainant Sudesh having been given beatingsbyA1toA4.Healsocontendedthaton22.8.86,allthefour AccusedpersonscametotheirhouseandgavebeatingstoGopiRam and Sudesh and took away both Gopi Ram and Sudesh while continuouslybeatingthem. Ld.APPcontendedthatPW8youngerbrotherofGopiRamand thoughhehadstatedabouttheincidentafterthegapofthreeyearsfrom thedateofincidentduringtheinvestigationofCBIandhisstatement underSection161CrPCwasrecordedbytheIOoftheCBIon16.9.89, yethisdeposition,isconsistentwithregardtoincidentinquestion. Itwasarguedthatthreeyearsdelayinrecordingofstatementof PW8hasbeendulyexplainedbythewitnesshimselfashehaddeposed that hehad been taken toPoliceStation Patel NagarbyAccused Ct. Jagmal Singh unnecessarily fewdays before theincident. Moreover, thisalso explainsthereasonofhisrunningawayfromthespotupon seeing the Accused giving beatings to deceased Gopi Ram and complainantSudesh. Ld.APPforCBIalsoarguedthatapparentlythewitnessgavehis statementtotheCBIanddidnotgethisstatementrecordedbytheIOof CrimeBranchwhichwasalsoinvestigatingthematterashewashimself inthepoliceserviceandwasabletospeakthetruthoftheincidentfreely

:19: onlywhentheinvestigationwastransferredtotheindependentagency otherthanDelhiPolicei.e.CBI.Reliancewasplacedonthejudgment ofHon'bleSupremeCourttitledasPathanFatimaVsStateofAndhra PradeshAIR1995SC1958whereinthewitnesshasdeposedaboutthe murderabouttwoandhalfyearsaftertheincident.Itwascontendedby Ld.APPinthesaidjudgmentitwasobservedbyHon'bleApexCourt that it is at all unlikely that the initially stage witness did not dare makinganystatementaboutthemurderbutshewascitedasawitness, shewantedtomakecleanbreastoftherelevantfactsandstatedthetruth. HefurtherrelieduponAIR1986SupremeCourt990(Lali@Chirnjib VsStateofWestBengal) whereinHon'bleApexCourtobservedthat delayhasbeensatisfactorilyexplained. Thestatementsofthewitness shouldnotbedisbelievedmerelyonthegroundofdelayinrecordinghis statement.Hefurtherreliedonjudgmentreportedas1977Crl.L.J.538 at546insupportofthesaidargumentsandonAIR1988SC696titled asAppaBhaiVsStateofGujarat. Extending the arguments further, Ld. APP contended that the deposition of PW8 Shankar Lal is truthful and that he was natural witnesswhowaspresentinthehousealongwiththecomplainantand deceased when they were picked up by the Accused. The delay in recording of statement of PW8 Shankar Lal has been satisfactorily explainedandmeredelayindisclosingabouttheincidentcannotbethe reason for discarding his evidence or for holding that witness is not worthyofreliance.

:20: It was further contended that since from deposition of PW8 Shankar Lal, who is a trustworthy and credible witness, it has been establishedthatA1toA4tookawayGopiRamandSudeshwiththem whilebeatingthemandtheburdenofprovingastowhathappenedto deceasedGopiRamincustodyshiftsuponA1toA4. ThenextwitnessreliedbytheProsecutionisPW1Smt.Kashmiri Devi, wifeofdeceasedGopiRam. Itwascontendedthatthiswitness has clearly stated regarding her efforts to find her husband and the responseoftheAccusedA4andotherpolicepersonnel.Itwasfurther contendedthatdepositionofPW1KashmiriDevicannotbediscarded, asbeinghearsayevidenceinasmuchashereffortsoftryingtotracethe whereaboutsofherhusbandonthenextmorningisverymuchpartof thetransactionandisresgestate.Inthisregard,reliancewasplaced on a judgment titled Balram Prasad Aggarwal Vs State of Bihar reportedasAIR1997SupremeCourt183. Similarly,reliancewasfurtherplacedonthedepositionofPW10 JileSinghandPW12NareshChandwhodeposedregardingcomingto knowaboutthedeathofGopiRamonaccountofbeatingsgivenbythe police. ItwascontendedthatthoughPW12wasdeclaredhostile,his evidencetotheeffectthathewasthewriterofthecomplaintgivenby thecomplainantSudeshatPoliceStationPatelNagaruponwhichcase under Section 336/86 was registered as well as the fact that demonstrationwasholdbypersonsofthelocalityoutsidePoliceStation PatelNagarcanbelookedintoanditcorroboratestheevidenceofthe

:21: otherProsecution witnesses including PW25whoprovedthewireless logbookshowingpresenceofseniorpoliceofficialsinRMLHospitalon the morning of 23.8.86 and holding of demonstration by the public outsidePoliceStationPatelNagar. WithregardtothefirstsubmissionoftheProsecutioni.ewhether GopiRamandSudeshwerepickedupbyA1toA4ontheintervening night of 22/23.8.86 from their house and were given beatings and forcibly taken to the Police Station Patel Nagar, the Defence has vehemently opposed the case of the Prosecution by assailing the depositionofvariouswitnessesrelieduponbytheProsecution. It is contended that deposition of PW8 Shankar Lal cannot be relieduponandthatheisaplantedwitness. Ld.CounselforAccused Satish Kadian, Inder Singh Rana and Ramesh Chand argued that the conduct of PW8 Shankar Lal in running away from the place of occurrenceonseeingGopiRamandSudeshbeingallegedlybeatenby theAccusedclearlybeliesthecaseoftheProsecution. Itwasargued thatadmittedlyPW8wasworkingasa Constableandwas postedat PoliceStationRoopNagaratthetimeoftheincident.Itwascontended that the conduct of PW8 Shankar Lal, despite his being a police constable, ofrunning awayfromtheplaceofoccurrenceuponseeing Accused giving beatings to deceased Gopi Ram and complainant Sudesh,ishighlyunnaturalandthewitnessisthusnotworthyofcredit. Theyfurtherargued that policedidnot recordthestatement of PW8 Shankar for 03 years and the witness did not utter anything

:22: regardinghisbeinganeyewitnesstotheincidentandhisstatementfor thefirsttimewasrecordedbytheCBIafter03yearsoftheincidentin question. Ld.DefenceCounselfurther triedtobring outfromthecross examinationofPW8thatentirefamilyofthewitnesswasinvolvedinthe activitiesofsmackanddrugpeddlingetcandmanyoftheyoungfamily membersdiedonaccountofdrugaddition.Accordingly,thewitnessis clearlyplantedandcannotbereliedupon. The Prosecution on the other hand submitted as aforesaid that there is plausible explanation for conduct of PW8 Shankar Lal of runningawayuponseeingtheincidentinquestion. Myattentionwas drawntothedepositionofPW8whereinhestatedthatfewdaysbefore theincident,hewastakentoPoliceStationPatelNagarbyCt.Jagmal Singhunnecessarilyandapparentlyonaccountofthesame,heranaway from the place of incident upon seeing the deceased Gopi Ram and complainant Sudesh giving beatings by the Accused persons. Prosecutionfurthercontendedthatbeingpoliceofficial,primarilyPW8 couldnotbeagainsttheAccusedwhowerealsopoliceofficialsanditis onlywhentheinvestigationofthiscasewashandedovertotheCBIthat hespokeabouttheincidentforthefirsttime. Prosecutionreliedupon judgmenttitledasPathanFatimaVsStateofAndhraPradeshreported asAIR1995SupremeCourt1958insupportofhisargumentswhereit hasbeenheldthatdepositionincourtofaneyewitnesstoamurderwho isnotdaringtomakeanystatementtothepoliceduringinvestigationis

:23: notliabletobediscardedongroundthatshedeposedincourt2years aftertheincident. Reliancewasalsoplacedon Lali@ChirnjibVsStateofWest BengalAIR1986SupremeCourt990whereinHon'bleApexCourthas heldthat: Where the delay has been satisfactorily explained,thestatementofawitnessshouldnotbe disbelieved merely on the ground of delay in recordinghisstatementduringinvestigation.

ItfurtherrelieduponPrithpalSinghetc.VsStateofPunjaband Anrs.Etc.reportedas2011(4)RCR(Crl.)PageNo.791.Prosecution thusarguedthatPW8isnaturalandreliablewitnessandthereisnoforce inthecontentionoftheDefence. Ihaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsandongoingthrough therecordofthecaseinitsentirety,Ifindmyselfinagreementwiththe submissionsofProsecutionthatthedepositionofPW8cannotbethrown outmerelybecausehefledawayfromthespotuponseeingtheAccused givingbeatingstocomplainantGopiRamandSudesh. Moreover,his conduct has been explained that by the witness himself as he had deposedthathehadbeentakentoPoliceStationPatelNagarbyAccused Ct.JagmalSinghunnecessarilyfewdaysbeforetheincident.Further, themerefactthatPW8spokeabouttheincidentforthefirsttimeafter about 03 years is in my view, not per se, sufficient to discard his

:24: testimony,whichisotherwisecredible. IthasbeenlaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourtinjudgmenttitledas StateofU.P.VsM.K.AnthonyAIR1985SC48thatTheCourtshall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under differentsituationswhereassomebecomespeechless,somestartwailing whilesomeothersrunawayfromthesceneandyettherearesomewho maycomeforwardwithcourage,convictionandbeliefthatthewrong shouldberemedied.Asamatteroffactitdependsuponindividualsand individuals.Therecannotbeanysetpatternoruniformruleofhuman reactionandtodiscardapieceofevidenceonthegroundofhisreaction notfallingwithasetpatternisunproductiveandapedanticexercise. ItisthecaseoftheProsecutionthatafalseentrybeingDDNo. 11A(Ex.PW15/A)wasrecordedbyAccusedSatishKadiantoshowthat he along with Accused Inder Singh Rana had gone to the house of deceasedGopiRamonreceiptofinformationthatifhishouseisraided, smack canberecovered. Further,thatGopiRammanagedtoescape fromthereandhewasfoundlyinginaparkonthenextmorningfrom where he was taken to RML Hospital. He has also stated in his statementunderSection313CrpCthatwitnesseshavedeposedagainst himatthebehestofDrugMafia,PremNagarareainasmuchashewas tryingtotakeactionagainstthemwithregardtosaleofsmackinthe area. Ithasbeenestablishedonrecordfrom thedepositionofPW15 whichisunrebuttedthatDDentryEx.PW15/AwasmadebyAccused SatishKadian.

:25: The story as sought to be put up by Accused Satish Kadian, however,cannotbeacceptedconsideringthefactsandcircumstancesof thecaseinitstotality. ItisnoteworthythatthoughAccusedhavesoughttoraisetheplea thattheyreachedthehouseofGopiRamuponreceiptofinformation regardingpresenceofnarcoticsinhishousewhichcanberecoveredif the house is raided, yet there is nothing to show that any attempt whatsoeverwasmadetoconductthesearch/raidinthehouseofAccused GopiRameitherbeforehisallegedapprehensionorafterheallegedly managedtoescapefromtheclutchesofAccusedJagmalSinghYadav (sincedeceased),ascontendedbytheDefence. IthasalsocomeinevidenceonrecordthatapparentlytheAccused failedtofollowanyofthemandatoryprovisionsofNDPSActregarding raid, arrest and search despite the fact that as per the information allegedlyreceived,deceasedGopiRamwashavingsmackinhishouse whichcanberecoverediftheraidwasconducted. IalsofindongoingthroughthedepositionofPW11HCHarnam SinghandPW21Dr.A.K.SinghthatdeceasedGopiRamwasfirstly taken to Khera Nursing Home by three police personnel and also accompaniedbycomplainantSudesh.PW21alsodeposedthatwhenhe toldpoliceofficialsthatGopiRamisalreadydead,policeofficialsdid not agree for issuance of certificate declaring him brought dead but rathertookthebodyofthedeceasedGopiRamtoRmlHospitalwhere hisMLCwaspreparedbyDr.YogeshKumarMishra. Moreover,itis

:26: clearlyborneoutfromthetestimonyofPW21thaton23.8.86at8AM when hewasin theprocess of handing overthechargetoDr.R.K. Mathur, body of deceased Gopi Ram was brought to Khera Nursing Homebypoliceofficials. IalsofindforceinthecontentionofProsecutionthatasperPW11 HCHarnamSingh,thebodyofthedeceasedwasaccompaniedbyhis nephewSudeshandthreepoliceofficialspostedinPoliceStationPatel Nagar. Healso deposed that policeofficials hadtold him toget the nameofSudeshrecordedasthepersonwhohadbroughtthedeadbody. ThereisnoexplanationwhatsoeveronrecordastohowSudeshreached RMLHospitalandtheonlyplausibleexplanationcouldbethatSudesh alongwithdeceasedGopiRamweretakentherebythepoliceofficials i.e. Accused who had taken them from their house. In other words, SudeshcouldnothaveinanycircumstancesaccompaniedGopiRamto RMLHospitalifthedeceasedwasfoundlyinginapark,ascontended bytheDefence. Itisalsopertinenttonotethatuponsearchofbodyofdeceased Gopi Ram by Dr. Y. K. Mishra, five packets containing smack were recovered though thesamewerenotseenbytheexaminingdoctorat KheraNursingHome.Apparently,thepacketsofsmackwereplanted uponthedeceasedatRMLHospitalanditisforthisreasonthatthey were not recovered at Khear Nursing Home despite the fact that deceasedwasexaminedbyPW21Dr.A.K.Singhanddeclareddead. It has also come onrecordfrom deposition of PW18 ASIVed

:27: PrakashthatcaseFIRNo.337/86wasregisteredagainstdeceasedGopi RamattheinstanceofconcernedACP. Thisalsocertainlyraisesthe doubtregardingtheconductofthepoliceofficialsoftheconcernedarea who wereapparently acting in defence byregistering acaseagainst deadperson. Thus, upon considering the submissions made, the evidence on recordandongoingthroughtherelevantcaselaw,Ifindthatithasbeen establishedonrecordthatdeceasedGopiRamandSudeshwerepicked upbyA1toA4fromtheirhouseontheinterveningnightof22/23.8.86 andweregivenbeatingstothemandtakenawaybyA1toA4. Ialso findthat PW8wasanaturalwitness ashewasresidinginthesame housewheredeceasedandcomplainantwereresidingandhispresenceat thespot cannot bedoubted. Moreover,thereisnothingonrecordto showthatPW8wasnotpresentathishouseatthetimeoftheincidentor thatheisdeposingfalselymerelytosupportthecaseoftheProsecution. Thus, from the deposition of PW8 and it has been clearly brought on record that deceased Gopi Ram and complainant Sudesh Kumar were picked up from his house on the intervening night of 22.23.8.86byA1toA4andtakenalongawaybythem. (B)Whetherthereisanycogentandreliableevidencetoprovethefact that both Gopi Ram (deceased) and Sudesh (died during trial) were beatenbyAccusedA1toA4inPoliceStationPatelNagarduringthe interveningnightof22/23.8.86andbecauseofwhichGopiRamdiedin illegalpolicecustody.

:28: (C)Whetherthereiscogentandreliablemedicalevidencetoprovethe fat that cause of death of deceased Gopi Ram is shock consequent uponmultipleinjuriesonthebodyofthedeceased causedbysome bluntobjectlikelathi. Sincepoints(B)and(C)asaboveareinterlinkedandcorelated, botharebeingdealtwithtogether. TheProsecutionbywayofdetailedwrittensubmissionsaswellas verbal arguments contended that there is sufficient evidence which establishes that deceased Gopi Ram and complainant Sudesh were beatenbyAccusedA1toA4inPoliceStationPatelNagarduringthe intervening night of 22/23.8.86 and as aconsequence of which Gopi Ramdied in illegal policecustody. It wasarguedthatthefollowing circumstancesappearinevidencewhichunerringlypointouttowardsthe guiltoftheAccusedandestablishthecaseoftheProsecution. (i)CreationoffalsedocumentsbyAccusedA1SatishKadianinthe formofGeneralDiary11A(Ex.PW15/A). ItwascontendedthatsaidentryEx.PW15/Adated23.8.86;8.05 AMwascreatedbytheAccused toabsolvethemselvesandtocreate their defence. It wasarguedthat in thesaid general diary entry Ex. PW15/A,AccusedNo.1hadmentionedthatwhenhewasonpatrolling dutyonfootalongwithA2SIInderSinghRanaandA3Ct.Jagmal SinghYadav(sinceexpired)onthenightof22.8.86.Atabout4AM,he gotinformationthatGopiRamisavailableinhishouseandifraidis conducted,itmayleadtorecoveryofsmack.Itisfurthermentionedthat

:29: pursuanttothisinformation,A1toA3arrivedathouseofGopiRam andonseeing policepersonnel,GopiRamtriedtofleefromthespot who was subsequently overpowered and handed over to Ct. Jagmal SinghandboththeAccusedSatishKadianandInderSinghRanatriedto openthelockofthehouseandmeanwhileGopiRammanagedtorun awayfromthegripofCt.JagmalSinghYadav. Prosecutionstronglyarguedthatthesaidentryisapparentlyfalse andwascreatedbyAccusedSatishKadianwithaviewtodefendhimself andcoAccused. Itwascontendedthatabareperusalofentrywould revealthattheinformationrecordedinthesaidentrywasinrespectof offencepertainingtoNDPoliceStationActdespitewhichAccusedA1to A3 did not followany mandatoryprovisions ofNDPS Act regarding conductingofraid,arrestandsearch.

ItwasfurthercontendedthatevenifitisacceptedthatGopiRam managed tofleeawayeventhentherewasnothingwhichcouldhave preventedtheAccusedtoconductsearchofhishousesincethealleged informationwasthatifraidisconductedatthishouse,itmayleadto recovery ofsmack. However,despite thesaid information as falsely recordedbyAccusedintheentryEx.PW15/A,noraidwasconductedin thehouseofdeceasedGopiRam. ProsecutionfurthercontendedthatasperdepositionofPW11HC HarnamSinghcoupledwiththetestimonyofPW21Dr.A.K.Singh, deceasedwasfirstlybroughttoprivatehospitali.e.KheraNursingHome

:30: by three police personnel and they were also accompanied by one SudeshKumar. PW21Dr.A.K.Singhalsodeposedthathetoldthe policeofficials that person brought bythem isalready deadandtold themthatiftheywantcertificatehecanissuethesamebutthepolice officialsdidnotagreetothesame. Thereafter, thedeadbodyofthe deceasedGopiRamwastakentoRMLHospitalwhereMLCofdeceased GopiRamwasconductedbyDr.YogeshKumarMishra. PW21also deposedthatpoliceofficerswhoaccompaniedthedeadbodywasfrom PoliceStationPatelNagar.Healsostatedthatthoughhecannottellthe nameofpoliceofficersortheirdesignation,butthereweretwopolice officersandeitherboththepoliceofficersbutatleastoneofthemwas definitely having some star on his uniform. He also deposed in his crossexamination that since the patient was brought by the police officials,therewasnoneedtoinformthepoliceaboutthesame. Ld.APPalsocontendedthatasperthedepositionofPW21Dr.A. K.Singh,deceasedGopiRamwasdeclareddeadat8AMwhereasasper theetnryEx.PW15/Atheinformationwasreceivedat8.05AM.This clearly shows that entry was created by A1 Satish Kadian to shield themselvesfrompunishment. Inthisregardreferencemayagainbemadetotherulingofthe Honble Apex Court in Prithpal Singh Vs State of Punjab (Supra) whererelyingon AIR1960SC500,theHonbleSupremeCourtheld thatIfthereissufficientevidencetoshowthattheAccusedfabricated some evidence to scree/absolve himself from the offence, such

:31: circumstancesmaypointtowardshisguilt. (ii) Taking deceased Gopi Ram firstly to Khera Hospital and

thereaftertoRMLHospital Itwascontendedthatithascomeonrecordbywayofdeposition of PW21 Dr. A. K. Singh that deceased was firstly taken to Khera HospitalandthereaftertoRMLHospital.Ithasalsocomeonrecordthat Sudesh had accompanied the Accused along with police officials at KheraHospital.ThedepositionofPW11alsorevealsthatSudeshalso accompaniedthepoliceofficialsofPoliceStationPatelNagartoRML Hospital.Ld.APPcontendedthatthereisnoexplanationastohowthe AccusedtookSudeshwenttherealongwiththemandfromwherethey found him, if the version of the Defence is believed that infact the deceasedwasfoundlyingunconsciousinparkinPremNagar. Itwas arguedthatitfortifiestheversionoftheProsecutionthatdeceasedas wellascomplainantSudeshwerepickedupbytheAccusedA1toA4 andthatcanbeonlyreasonastowhoSudeshwasaccompanyijngthe deadbodyofdeceasedGopiRamwhenitwastakenbypoliceofficials toKheraHospitalandfromtheretoRMLHospital. ItwasfurtherarguedthatasperMLCEx.PW11/Aithascomein evidencethatonsearchofbodyofdeceased05packetsofsmackwere recovered. However, PW11 HC Harnam Singh deposed that it was recordedintheMLCthatthepacketsofpowderweresmackonlyatthe instance of the police officials. My attention was also drawn to the depositionofPW18ASIVedPrakshwhodeposedthaton23.8.86,he

:32: receivedDDentryNo.45BEx.PW18/AlodgedbyCT.HarnamSingh fromdoctorRMLHospitalovertelephone. Hedeposedthatwhenhe reachedthePoliceStationatabout1inthenight,hewasnotallowedto enterthePoliceStation asthepublic waspelting stones. Hefurther statedthatheappearedbeforetheACPandproducedtohimthepackets seized by memo Ex. PW11/C by him at RML Hospital which were allegedly recovered from body of deceased Gopi Ram. PW18 also deposed that he registered case FIR No. 337/86 Police Station Patel NagarunderSection21NDPoliceStationActonthedirectionsofACP concerned.HefurtherdeposedthathedidnottelltheACPthatacase cannotberegisteredagainstadeadperson. (iii) The third circumstance pointed out by Prosecution against

Accused is the factum of disposing body of deceased hurriedly withoutallowinghisfamilymemberstoperformlastrites Inthisregard,reliancewasplacedonthedepositionofPW14and 19.ItwouldberevealedonperusalofdepositionofPW19ChhattarPal Singh that police officials had brought dead body of Gopi Ram ina policevehicle.Hefurtherdeposedthatpoliceofficialshadalsotoldhim thatSudeshistherelationofthedeceasedandhisthumbimpressionmay beobtainedontheentriesashehastocompletealltheformalities. It wasarguedthatsubsequentconductofpoliceofficialsinhandingover body ofdeceased to relativesalsoshowsthat policeofficialswerein hurrytodisposeofbodyofdeceasedinhaphazardmanner. Atthisjuncture,itmayalsobepertinenttorevertthearguments

:33: advancedbyLd.CounselsrepresentingAccusedInderSinghRanaand AccusedRameshChand.Asaforesaid,theplearaisedbyAccusedInder SinghRanaisthatentryEx.PW15/Aisfalseentryandthathehasbeen falselyimplicatedinthiscase,thoughhewasnotondutyatthetimeof incidentinquestion.AccusedInderSinghRanastronglyrelieduponthe depositionofDW3KartaRamandDW5BiriSinghinsupportofhis contentionthatAccusedhehadleftforhishomeandwasnotondutyat thetimeofincidentontheinterveningnightof22/23.8.86. Ihaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsandgonethroughthe evidence on record. However, I am of the considered opinion that depositionoftheDW5BiriSingh,whowaspostedasDutyOfficerat PoliceStationPatelNagaronthedateofincidentandthedepositionof DW3KartaRamposted asEmergencyOfficeratPoliceStationPatel Nagar,cannotbesaidtobefreefromdoubtinasmuchasthereisevery possibilityofthesewitnessesdeposinginfavourofAccusedInderSingh RanawhowasalsoapoliceofficialpostedinthesamePoliceStationat thattime. Moreover, DW3 KartaRam upon being crossexamined by Ld. SPPdeposedinhiscrossexaminationthathewasbusyinhisworkand hencecannotconfirmwhetherInderSinghRanaandJagmalSinghwere presentinthePoliceStationornot. ItisalsopertinenttonotethatthoughAccusedInderSinghRana claimsthathewasfalselyimplicatedinthiscaseonaccountoffalseDD entry Ex. PW15/A, yet admittedly, he did not lodge any complaint

:34: against said false DD entry and his contention that he made verbal complaint to the senior officers cannot be accepted as the same is apparentlyanafterthought. Inotherwords,thefactthatAccusedInderSinghRanafailedto makeanycomplaintinwritingeithertothehigherpoliceofficialsor eventothecourtbywayofanycomplaintregardinglodgingoffalse entryEx.PW15/A,inmyopinion,clearlybeliestheplearaisedbyhim regardingthefalseimplicationinthiscase.Moreover,itishiscasethat afterreturningbackatPoliceStationatabout10.15PMafterchange,he remainedathishouse.Hehasnotexaminedhisfamilymembersinhis defencetoprovethathewaspresentinhishouseatthetimeofincident inquestioni.e.ontheinterveningnightof22/23.8.86. Accordingly,IamoftheviewthatAccusedInderSinghRanahas failedtoprovehisdefencethathewasfalselyimplicatedinthiscaseor thathehadnotaccompaniedAccusedSatishKadianandJagmalSingh Yadav(sincedeceased)tothehouseofdeceasedGopiRam. Rather, from the deposition of Prosecution witnesses, particularly PW8 as discussed above, the fact that deceased Gopi Ram and Sudesh were pickedupbythreepoliceofficialsfromtheirhouseandtakentoPolice StationPatelNagarstandsdulyestablishedonrecord. InsofarasAccusedRameshChandisconcerned,itishiscasethat hewasnotnamedintheinitialFIRinvestigatedbyCrimeBranchand wasnotevenchargesheetedbytheCrimeBranch.Itiscontendedthat on thebasisoffalseandfabricateddocuments,hewasarrayedasan

:35: Accused. Moreover, there was another constable posted in Police StationPatelNagaratnightpatrollingdutyandthathehasbeenfalsely implicatedinthiscase. Inthisregard,itmaybenotedthatalthough PW8 deposed that Accused Ramesh Chand was one of the police officials who had picked deceased Gopi Ram and Sudesh from their house and given beatings to them, yet a bare perusal of cross examination of Prosecution's own witness PW24 Raj Singh Chauhan revealsthatasperdutyroaster,therewerenamesoftwoconstablesby nameofRameshChand,oneNo.1064andotherNo.1629.Hefurther deposed that constableRameshChandNo.1064wasondutyasbeat staff and constable Ramesh Chand No.1629 was on night patrolling duty.ItwascontendedthatasperdepositionofPW24,AccusedRamesh Chandi.e.Accusedhereinwasnotonnightpatrollingduty.

I have considered the aforesaid submissions. However, at the sametime,itistobeborneinmindthatPW8Shankarwasnotexamined byCrimeBranchanditisonlywhentheinvestigationwastakenoverby CBI that the statement of Shankar Lal was recorded. Hence, the argumentthatRameshwasnotchargesheetedbyCrimeBranchisnotof muchsignificance. Further,itisamatterofrecordthatPW8Shankarcategorically identifiedAccusedRameshatthetimeofrecordingofhistestimonyas oneoftheAccusedwhohadpickedupSudeshandGopiRamfromtheir house. Despite a lengthy crossexamination the deposition of PW8

:36: Shankarremainedunimpeachedandheremainedconsistentinhisstand asregardsroleandidentityofAccusedRamesh.Hence,Ifindnoforce inargumentsoftheDefencethatAccusedRameshisfalselyimplicated. Moreover,itisamatterofcommonsensethatapoliceofficerneednot be deputed either for night patrolling or as a beat staff in order to commitanillegalact.Inotherwords,evenifitisacceptedthatAccused Ramesh was not officially on duty at the time when Gopi Ram and Sudesh werepicked up byother coAccused, yet thereis nothing on record to show his presence elsewhere. Rather, both Accused Inder SinghRanaandRameshhavebeenclearlyidentifiedbyPW8Shankar LalandIfindthatthepleaofalibiassoughttoberaisedbyAccused Inder Singh Rana and Ramesh Chand has thus not been proved on record. It is well settled law that when a plea of alibi is raised by Accused,itisforAccusedtoestablishthepleabypositiveevidence. (C)ThenextargumentsoftheProsecutionasstatedaboveisthatthe causeofdeathofdeceasedisshockconsequentuponmultipleinjurieson thebodyofthedeceasedcausedbysomebluntobjectlikelathi In this regard reliance was placed onthe opinion ofMedical BoardEx.PW16/A.Itwasfurtherarguedthataspertheopinionofthe MedicalBoard,theopinionofA5K.K.AroravideCFSLreportsEx. PW22/AandEx.PW22/Barenottenableandthedoctorwhoconducted postmortem examination was misled by chemical analysis report of CFSL, Delhi. It was further argued that Accused K. K. Arora intentionallyaddedonezeroinhisreportEx.PW22/Aafter10inorder

:37: tomakeittobereadas100mlofbloodinasmuchasvidehischemical analysisreportEx.PW2/F,heopinedthatdeceasedwasfoundhaving 294 mg of alcohol per 100 ml blood. It was argued that upon examinationofreportEx.PW2/F,Dr.L.T.Ramaniwhohadconducted thepostmortemonthebodyofdeceasedgavehisopiniondated13.1.87 Ex.PW29/Cwhereheopinedthatinviewofsuchhighbloodalcohol concentration and presence of morphine, he was of the opinion that alcoholandmorphinebyitselfissufficienttocausesevererespiratory depression,deathandinjuriesassuchwerenotsufficienttocausedeath inordinarycourseofnature. Ld.APPargued that examining doctor failed tonotice that the CFSLreportEx.PW5/Bmentioningof100mlofbloodatCFSL,Delhi and subsequently when the second CFSL opinion was received, it mentionedreceiptofonly60mlofbloodwhereasasperthedeposition ofPW29andPW17andtheopinionoftheMedicalBoardEx.PW16/A only510mlofbloodispreservedforchemicalanalysis.Itwasargued thatitisthusestablishedthatA5K.K.Aroraknowinglyincorrectly mentioned receipt of 100 ml of blood in the first instance when he conducted theanalysis ofvisceraofdeceased Gopi Ramforthefirst time and detected the presence of morphine and ethyl alcohol in the visceraofdeceasedGopiRamatthebehestofotherAccused. Ontheotherhand,thereportoftheFSL,AgraEx.PW17/Bdenied presenceofalcoholandmorphine.Similarly,reportofMedicalBoard also finds report of Accused K. K. Arora to be not tenable. It was

:38: contendedthatAccusedK.K.ArorathusatthebehestofotherAccused gavefalsereportandinfactdeceaseddiedonaccountofbeatingsgiven tohimbyremainingAccusedpersonsatthePoliceStationPatelNagar whilehewasintheirillegalcustody. As stated above, the case of the Prosecution against A5 K. K. AroraisforhavingcommittingoffencepunishableunderSection218 IPC. It isalleged that pursuant totheconflicting opinions regarding examination of viscera of deceased Gopi Ram by the Sr. Scientific OfficeratFSL,Agra,coupledwiththereportoftheMedicalBoard(Ex. PW16/A),itwasallegedthatAccusedK.K.Aroradeliberatelygavethe falsereportregardinganalysisofvisceraofthedeceasedinconnivance with other Accused. In view of the report of the first viscera examinationofthedeceasedconductedbyAccusedK.K.Arora,itwas opinedbyAccusedK.K.Arorathattherewas294mgofalcoholper100 mlblood. ThereportoftheFSLAgraandthereportoftheMedicalBoard, however,disagreedwiththereportofAccusedK.K.Arora.PW16Dr. Vishnu Kumarwho wasMemberoftheMedical Boardexhibited the saidreportasEx.PW16/A.ItwasalsotheopinionoftheMedicalBoard thatincasewhere294mgofalcoholinbloodatvisceraanalysis,one expectsastrongsmellofalcoholatpostmortemexamination.However, in the present case, the stomach contents of the deceased as per postmortemreport(Ex.PW29/A)gavesomefruitysmellandnosmellof alcohol.ItwasalsotheviewoftheMedicalBoardthatinthereportEx.

:39: PW16/Athementioningof100mlofbloodinthefirstchemicalanalysis report(Ex.PW22/A)60mlofbloodinthesecondchemicalanalysis report(Ex.PW22/B)andfewdropsinthethirdreport,alotofsuspicion iscreatedregardingthecorrectnessoftheCFLSreportitself.Itfurther observedthatatnotime,atpostmortem,100mlofbloodiscollectedfor chemicalanalysispurposeandusually810mlofbloodinasmallvialis collected.MedicalBoardwasthusoftheviewthatinthepresentcase, thedeathofdeceasedwasshockconsequentuponmultipleinjurieson thebodyofthedeceasedcausedbysomebluntobjectlikelathi.andthe doctorwhoconducted thepostmortemexaminationgotmisledbythe chemical analysis report from CFSL, Delhi which according to the MedicalBoardwasnottenable. Percontra, Ld.Counsel representing Accused A5K.K.Arora submittedthatthereisbasicflawinthecaseoftheCBI,inasmuchasthe memoofseizureofvisceraEx.PW3/AbyCBIuponbeinghandedover toCBIthroughofficialsofPoliceStationPatelNagarclearlyshowsthat visceraboxseizedbyCBIhadamarkingofNo.CFSL87/T1295.Ld. DefenceCounselstronglyarguedthataperusalofthesaidseizurememo Ex.PW3/ArevealsthatvisceraboxseizedbytheInvestigatingAgency bearing No. CFSL87/T1295 was not the box containing viscera of deceasedGopiRam.ItwascontendedthataspertheProsecutioncase, thevisceraofdeceasedGopiRamincaseFIRNo.336/86PoliceStation Patel Nagar was sent to CFSL, Delhi for chemical analysis and two chemicalexaminationreport,bothbearingNo.CFSL87/T4611ofthe

:40: chemicalexaminationconductedbyA5K.K.Aroraweresubmitted.It wasarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthataspertheestablishedprocedure followedinCFSL,whenviscerafromPoliceStationisreceivedinthe officeofDirector,CFSL,thefileisopenedofconcernedcasewhichis sent to the concerned division which collects the exhibits and gives permanentnumberonthevisceraboxwhichiscorrespondingtothefile number.Theboxisthenopenedforchemicalanalysiswhereworksheet is maintained and after chemical examination, permanent report is preparedagainwiththesamenumberwiththeworksheet. Itwasfurtherarguedthat inthepresent case,A5K.K.Arora conducted chemical examination ofvisceraofdeceased Gopi Ramin caseFIRNo.3356/86PoliceStationPatelNagarandthevisceraboxand permanent report were given number CFSL87/T4611. The Investigating Agency,however,collectedthevisceraboxbearingNo. CFSL87/T1295,asreflectedintheseizurememoEx.PW3/Aandthus the reports of analysis of this viscera by FSL, Arga as well as by MedicalBoardwereboundtodifferfromthereportofA5K.K.Arora. Insupportoftheaforesaidarguments,myattentionwasdrawnto the crossexamination of PW2 Dr.S.R.Singh, Director, CFSL,who explainedtheentireworkingandprocedurefollowedbyCFSLtoopena fileandmarkingofboxintheCFSL.Ld.DefenceCounselvehemently argued that record of the CFSL file bearing No. CFSL87/T1295 pertainingtoDDNo.30Adated27.2.87ofPoliceStationPatelNagar wasexhibitedduringthecrossexaminationofPW2.ThesaidfileisEx.

:41: PW2/DX3. It was contended that PW2 has made clear distinction between viscera box and its file bearing No. CFSL86/T4611 i.e. pertainingtodeceasedGopiRambeingFIRNo.336/86PoliceStation PatelNagarandthevisceraboxbearingNo.CFSL87/T1295pertainsto DDNo.32Adated27.2.87PoliceStationPatelNagar.Itwascontended thatfromthedepositionofPWDr.S.R.Singh,ithasbeenestablished thatvisceraboxbearingNo.CFSL87/T1295asmentionedinseizure memo Ex. PW3/A collected by the IO is entirely different from the visceraboxbearingNo.CFSL86/T4611senttoAccusedK.K.Arora forchemicalanalysis.ItwasarguedthatA5K.K.Arorahasgivenhis reportonthebasisofviscerareceivedvideNo.CFSL86/T4611while theCFSL,AgraandtheMedicalBoardopinedonthebasisofviscera received vide marking CFSL87/T1295 pertaining to DD No. 32A. Hence,thedifferenceinboththereports. Itwascontended thatPW2Dr.S.R.Singhhasclarifiedinhis crossexaminationstatingthereferencenumberofthereportisreflected onthepackinginwhichexhibitsarereturnedandontheexhibits. Ontheotherhand,Ld.APPdrewmyattentiontothedepositionof PW26HCRamesharSinghandtheentryEx.PW26/Dthattheviscera box in respect of CFSL87/T4611 pertaining to DD No. 32A was destroyed on 29.11.88 vide order of the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Itwasfurtherpointedoutthatpostmortempertainingto that Accused was conducted by Dr. Brijesh Singh and accordingly, contention of A5 that viscera box pertaining to deceased Subhash

:42: ChandbearingDDNo.32AwassenttoCFSL,AgrabyCBIwithoutany basis. It wascontended that sincethesaidvisceraboxinrespect of CFSL87/T1295(Ex.PW17/B)wasdestroyedon29.11.88,thereisno questionofsendingthesametoFSL,Agraon13.6.89. Ihaveconsideredtheaforesaidrivalsubmissionsinthelightof thematerialonrecord. ItisborneoutfromtherecordthatasperPostmortemReportof deceased Gopi Ram Ex. PW29/A, the following injuries were found uponpersonofdeceasedGopiRam: (i)Bruisebluishincolour5x1presenttransverselyontheleftside frontofchest1belowthenipple,clevicalareaispaleandinjuriesare bluishredincolour. (ii) Multiple bruises reddish purpose in colour 2 to 5 long present transverselyontheposterolateralaspectofleftarm,elbowandpostero lateralaspectofleftforearm. (iii)Diffuseswellingonthebackoflefthand. (iv)Threebruises3to5longx1widepresenttransverselyonthe posterolateralaspectofrightarm. (v)Swellingonthebackofrighthand. (vi)Fivebruises3to4longx1widepresenttransverselyonthe anteriorlateralpartofrightthighhavingpalecentralareaandreddish injuries. (vii)Twobruises4to9x1ontheanterioraspectofleftthigh. (viii)Multiplebruises(89)scatteredonbuttocksandbackofthighs.

:43: (ix)Threebruisesmars4x1sizeeachontheposteroaspectofleft leg. (x)Bruises2x1onthelateralaspectofrightlegandabrasion. PW11 HC Harnam Singh deposed that on asking of police officialsthesearchofdeceasedGopiRamwastakenandfivepudiasof smack wererecovered. PW11furtherdeposedthatDr.Y.K.Mishra recorded in theMLC,history ofdeceased Gopi Ramaspatient was addictedtoganja,smackandalcohol,ontheaskingofpoliceofficials ofPoliceStationPatelNagarwhohadaccompaniedthedeadbodyalong withSudesh.ItisrelevanttonotethatthoughAccusedsoughttosetup a defencethatdeceased GopiRamwasfoundlyinginparkinPrem Nagar, yet no search of body of deceased was conducted by police officialsatthetimeofallegedrecoveredofhisbodyfromtheparkin PremNagar. Itisalsopertinent tonotethatasperPW21Dr.A.K. Singh,deceasedwastakentoKheraNursingHomeat8AM.However, admittedly,doctorsatKheraNursingHomewerenotaskedtosearch body ofdeceased GopiRam. Rather,whenDr.A.K.Singhtoldthe police officials who had brought him that he can issue medical certificate to the effect that Gopi Ram was brought dead in Khera Nursing Home, the police officials refused and took him to RML Hospitalinstead.Theallegedrecoveryoffivepudiasofsmackfromthe bodyofdeceasedGopiRamatRMLHospitalonlyandnotpriorthereto. Thus makes the case assought tobeput upbytheDefenceentirely doubtful.Apparently,oncethepoliceofficialscametoknowthatGopi

:44: Ram is dead, the entire case of planting of smack upon him was manipulatedandthefalseentrywasmadeinthegeneraldiaryvideEx. PW15/A. Ifindmyselfinagreement withtheProsecutiononthisground inasmuchasitisonlywhendeceasedwasfinallytakentoRMLHospital whentheexaminingdoctorwasspecificallyaskedtosearchthebodyof GopiRamatRMLHospitalandnotpriortothat. Further,asperpostmortemreportEx.PW29/A,as manyasten injurieswerefoundonthebodyofdeceasedGopiRam. Thoughthe examining doctornamelyDr.L.T.Ramaniwasnotexaminedbythe Prosecution, however, it is a matter of record that on an application movedbyProsecution,postmortemreportEx.PW29/Awaspermittedto beprovedbyDr.L.K.BarauwhowasexaminedinplaceofDr.L.T. Ramani,whichwasallowedbycourtvideorderdated08.6.07,which admittedlywasnotchallengedbytheDefence. Hence,itnowdoesnotlieinthemouthofDefencetoraisethat postmortemreportEx.PW29/Acannotbereadinevidenceonaccount ofnonexaminationofDr.L.T.Ramani.Further,perusalofpostmortem report Ex. PW29/A show that as per said report fruity smell was emanating from stomach contents. The cause of injuries in the postmortemwasgivenashavingbeencausedduetouseofbluntobject object/weapons and all the said injuries were described to be ante mortem.Itisalsoamatterofrecordthatinviewoftheallegedhistory of drug addiction of deceased and at the request of police, report

:45: regarding cause of death was deferred till the receipt of chemical analysis report of the viscera of deceased. The said viscera of the deceasedGopiRamwassentbytheofficialsofCrimeBranchthrough roadcertificateEx.PW26/BtoCFSL.AsperdepositionofPW26HC Rameshwar Singh, viscerawasexamined by Accused K.K.Aroraat CFSL,Delhividereportdated30.9.86Ex.PW2/Bandaspersaidreport examinationofvisceragavepositivetestformorphineandethylalcohol. Inviewofthesaidreport,Dr.L.T.Ramanimadeendorsementon thereportitselfrequestingtogetthealcoholbloodconcentrationlevel done.Consequently,asperreportEx.PW2/FofAccusedK.K.Arora,it wasopinedbyhimthatbloodofthedeceasedwasafoundcontaining 294mgofethylalcoholper100mlofblood.Onthebasisofsaidreport Ex.PW2/F,Dr.L.T.RamaniopinedvidehisreportEx.PW29/Cdated 13.1.87 that in view of such high blood alcohol and presence of morphine,hewasoftheopinionthatalcoholandmorphinebyitselfis sufficienttocauseseveralrespiratorydepression,deathandinjuriesas such were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Relying on the said report, it is contended by Defence that deceased GopiRamdiedonaccountofextremequantityofpresenceofalcohol andmorphineinhisblood,asdiscussedabove.Itisfurtherthepleaof the Defence that viscera of the deceased sent to FSL, Agra and subsequentlytotheMedicalBoarddidnotbelongtodeceasedGopiRam astheboxhadmarkingof87/T1295.Itwasthuscontendedthatsince thewrongvisceraboxwassenttoFSL,AgraandtotheMedicalBoard,

:46: theirreportsregarding absenceofanymorphineoralcoholingredient cannotbereliedupon. Per contra, Prosecution has vehemently argued that viscera of deceased Subhash Chand pertain to DD No. 32A was destroyed on 29.11.88asperordersofMsDeepaSharma,thethenLd.MM/Delhiand reliance has been placed on Ex. PW26/D as proved by PW26 HC RameshwarSingh.ItwascontendedthatsincevisceraboxofSubhash ChandpertaintoDDNo.32AwasalreadydestroyedinNovember1988, thereisnoquestionofithavingbeensenttoFSL,AgraortotheMedical Board,asarguedbyDefence. Prosecution further argued that at the time of conducting of postmortemofdeceasedGopiRam,Dr.L.T.Ramaniwasassistedby PW6KrishanLal,PostmortemTechnician.Hedeposedthatduringhis depositionPW6identifiedsignaturesofDr.L.T.RamanionEx.P3on portionencircledredwhichisvialcontainingvisceraofdeceasedGopi Ram.ItwasthuscontendedthatfromthedepositionofPW6alsoithas beenestablished thatviscerawhichwassenttoFSL,Agraaswellas MedicalBoardisvisceraofdeceasedSubhashChandpertainingtoDD No.32A,whichwasnotexaminedbyDr.L.T.Ramanibutwasinfact examined by Dr. B. Singh as the vial Ex.P3 could not have borne signaturesofDr.L.T.RamaniandthusthefactthatPW6identifiedpart of signatures of Dr. L. T. Ramani on vial clearly proves that it was viscera which was sent to FSL, Agra for examination during the investigationbyCBI.

:47: Ld.APPcontendedthatDr.L.T.Ramanifailedtonoticethatthe CFSLreportEx.PW5/Bmentioned100mlofbloodreceivedatCFSL, DelhibyA5,K.K.Arora.Healsofailedtonoticesubsequentlywhen thesecondopinionofCFSLEx.PW2/Fwasreceived,ithadmentioned receiptofblood60ml.Itdidnotoccurtohismindastowhythereceipt ofbloodinCFSLismentioned100mlinitiallyandthesecondtime,60 mlwhereasasperthedepositionofPW29,PW17andMedicalBoard opinionEx.PW16/A,only5to10mlofbloodispreservedforchemical analysis. It has been conclusively established that K.K.Arora, A5 knowingly incorrectly mentioned receipt of 100 ml blood in the first instance. Thereasonforthesameisthatwhenheconductedthefirst timeanalysisofthevisceraofdeceasedGopiRam,hehaddetectedon thebehestofAccusedA1toA4,presenceofmorphineandethylalcohol inthevisceraofdeceasedGopiRam.Butsincethepercentageofethyl alcohol in the blood concentration was not mentioned, there was no option but to conduct further chemical analysis of the blood as demandedbyDr.L.T.Ramani. Itwasarguedthatmerepresenceof alcoholinthebloodisnotsufficienttocauserespiratorydepressionand untilunlessitisveryhighinquantity. Sincetheneedhadarisenfor secondchemicalanalysisoftheviscera,A5,K.K.Arorafalselyshowed receiptof100mlofbloodcontrarytoactualreceiptof10mlofblood. Inthisregard,MedicalBoardopinionEx.PW16/Aisveryimportantand relevantwhereinithasbeenmentionedthatDrL.T.Ramaniwasmisled bythetwoCFSLreportmadebyA5,K.K.Aroraandwhichledtohis

:48: opinionaboutcauseofdeathasmentionedinhissubsequentopinionEx. PW29/C. Ihavegivenmythoughtfulconsiderationtotherivalsubmissions inthelightoftheevidenceonrecord. However,afterconsideringtheevidenceinitstotality,Iamunable tosubscribetotheargumentsraisedonbehalfofAccused,particularly AccusedNo.5K.K.Arora. ItisthecontentionofAccusedK.K.Arorathatwrongviscerabox wassenttoFSLandtotheMedicalBoardwhichgaveitsopinionbased onthesamewhichwasboundtodifferfromhisearlieropinionasthe saidvisceradidnotbelongtodeceasedGopiRam. Beforegoing into this controversy,itmaybenecessaryinmy opinion, to read deposition of PW16 Dr. Vishnu Kumar carefully. PW16Dr.VishnuKumarwastheMemberoftheMedicalBoardwho gaveitsreportvideEx.PW16/A. PW16deposedthatfinalopinionof theBoardwasthatthecauseofdeathinthiscasewasshockconsequent uponmultipleinjuriesonthebodyofthedeceasedcausedbysomeblunt object like lathi. He further deposed that doctor who conducted postmortemgotmisledbychemicalanalysisreportfromCFSL,Delhi whichaccordingtoboardwerenottenable.Acarefulreadingofthe aforesaid deposition of PW16 and the opinion of Medical Board Ex. PW16/AwouldthusrevealthataspertheopinionoftheMedicalBoard thecauseofdeathofdeceasedGopiRamwasshockconsequentupon multiple injuries on the body of the deceased caused by some blunt

:49: objectlikelathi. TheBoardwasfurtheroftheopinionthatthedoctor who conducted the postmortem got misled by the chemical analysis reportofCFSL,Delhi.Inotherwords,asperopinionoftheBoard,the actualcauseofdeathofdeceasedGopiRamwasshockconsequentupon multiple injuries on the body of the deceased caused by some blunt objectlikelathiandexaminingdoctorshouldnothavebeenmisledby thechemicalanalysisreportofCFSL,Delhi. It cannot be disputed that opinion of the Medical Board comprisingofthreedoctorsfromvariousfieldsofmedicineswouldbe farmoreacceptablethanthereportofsingledoctorandthereportof MedicalBoardmustthereforebegivenprecedenceoverthepostmortem reportofsingledoctor.TheBoardnotonlyfoundthereportofchemical analysisofCFSL,Delhinottenable,butalsostronglyopinedthecause ofdeathofdeceasedwasduetoinjuriescauseduponhimbybluntobject likelathi. Thus,though Dr.L.T.Ramanimayhaveopinedcauseof deathofdeceasedGopiRamtobeexcessivealcoholandmorphine,yet thereportofMedicalBoardcertainlymustbepreferredoverthesame. InsofarasthecontentionofDefenceisconcernedthatvisceraof wrongpersonwassenttoFSL,AgraandtotheMedicalBoard,Iam unable to accept this contention also. In view of the deposition of PW26, it has clearly emerged on record that viscera of the deceased pertainingtoDDNo.32AwasdestroyedvideentryEx.PW26/Basper orders of concerned court. It has also come on record by way of depositionofPW6whohadseenDr.L.T.Ramaniworking,hebeinghis

:50: assistantduringvariouspostmortemsthatthepartofsignaturesofDr.L. T.RamaniappearonvialEx.P3onportionencircledinredcolour. Thus,itstandsprovedonrecordbeyondanyreasonabledoubtthat thevialExP3whichwassenttoFSL,Agra,boxcontainedremenantsof visceraofdeceasedGopiRamwhichhadearlierbeenexaminedbyDr. L.T.RamaniofCFSL,Delhi. The argument of Defence that CBI sent the viscera of wrong person,thus,cannotbesustainedinthelightoftheaforesaidevidence. Moreover, in view of the fact that Medical Board was of the opinionthatdoctorwhoconductedpostmortemofdeceasedGopiRam was misled by the report of chemical analysis of CFSL, Delhi and deceaseddiedonaccountofinjuriessustainedbyhimbybluntobject, theProsecutioninmyopinion,hasalsobeenabletoprovethatdeceased GopiRaminfactdiedonaccountofinjuriessustainedbyhimbymeans ofbluntobjectlikelathi. Consequently, I am of the view that the allegations of offence punishable under Section 218 IPC against Accused K. K.Arora also standestablishedonrecord. Inotherwords,sinceitstandsestablishedthatvialEx.P3infact containedvisceraofdeceasedGopiRamonly,andvisceraofdeceased pertainingtoDDNo.32AhadalreadybeendestroyedasperDDentry Ex.PW26/Bundercourtorders,thevisceraexaminedbyA5wasthe visceraofdeceasedGopiRam.However,hisfindingsvideReportsEx PW22/A and Ex. PW2/F were clearly different from Report of FSL,

:51: Agra Ex. PW17/B and the opinion of Medical Board Ex. PW16/A. Thus, A5 clearly returned incorrect findings vide his Reports dated 30.6.86 Ex.PW22/AandReport dated 29.12.86Ex.PW2/F,witha viewtosaveA1toA4,andtherebycommittedoffenceunderSection 218IPC. However,atthesametime,ithascomeonrecordthatviscerabox handedovertotheCBIwashavingmarkingof 87/T1295ofCFSL. But,inviewoftheaforesaidfindingsarrivedataftercarefulanalysisof evidenceonrecord,ithasbeenheldthattheviscerabox,thoughbearing markingof87/T1295,infactcontainedthevisceraofdeceasedGopi Ramonly.Inviewthereof,keepingthetotalityoffactsofthecase,Iam oftheviewthattheconnivanceofofficialsofPoliceStationPatelNagar whereAccusedNo.1to4werealsopostedattherelevanttimecannot beruledout. Apparently, theofficials ofPoliceStationPatel Nagar, changed theCFSLnumberonthevisceraboxofGopiRamandthe beneficiaryofthesameiscertainlynoneotherthantheAccusedfacing trial. Hence,thoughthereisnochangeofcriminalconspiracyagainst theAccused,itduly stands establishedonrecordthatAccusedSatish Kadian, Inder Singh Rana, Ramesh Chand and Jagmal Singh Yadav (since expired) committed offence punishable under Section 218 r/w Section109IPCbyabettingthecommissionofoffenceunderSection 218byAccusedK.K.Arora. Iwould,atthisjunctureplacerelianceonaruleoftheHonble ApexCourtin StateofMadhyaPradeshVsShyamSunderTrivedi

:52: 1995(4)SCC262.TheHonbleSupremeCourtwhileconsideringthe questionofstandardofproofrequiredincasesrelatingtocustodialdeath observed that The High Court erroneously overlooked the ground realitythatrarelyincasesofpolicetortureorcustodialdeath,direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available. It was further observed that Exaggerated adherence and insistenceuponestablishmentofproofbeyondanyreasonabledoubt,by the Prosecution, ignoring ground reality, the facts situation and the peculiar of given case.......often result in miscarriage of justice and makesthejusticedeliverysystemasuspectintheultimateanalysisthe societysuffersandcrimegetsencouraged. Tortureinpolicecustody, whichoflateareontheincrease,receiveencouragementbythistypeof anunrealisticapproachofthecourtbecauseitreinforcesbeliefinthe mindofthepolicethatnoharmwouldcometothem,ifaodddiesinthe lockup because there would hardly be any evidence available to the Prosecutiontodirectlyimplicatethemwiththetorture,thecourtsmust notlosesightofthefactthatdeathinpolicecustodyisperhapsworst kindofcrimesincivilizedsocietygovernedbyruleoflawandcausesa seriousthreattoanorderlycivilizedsociety.Tortureincustodyflouts thebasicrightofthecitizensrecognizedbytheIndianconstitutionand is afferent to human dignity......The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve otherwise common man maylose faith in the judiciary itself

:53: which will be sad day. Similarly, in Prithpal Singh Vs State of Punjab(Supra),HonbleSupremeCourtcategoricallylaiddown: Inacasewherethepersonisallegedtohave dieinpolicecustody,itisdifficulttogetany kind of evidence. Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence is available of the complicity of the police personnel, who alone can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custodyhaddid.Boundastheyarebytheties of brotherhood, this is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to savetheircolleagues. Onthebasisofabovecaselaw,theevidenceonrecordandthe aforesaiddiscussion,IamofhteviewthattheProsecutionhasbeenable to prove that deceased Gopi Ram and Sudesh were picked up by Accused A1 to A4 on the intervening night of 22/23.8.86 and were givenbeatingsbythem.ThestorysoughttobeputforthbytheDefence that they had raided thehouse of deceased Gopi Ramonreceipt of information regarding presenceofnarcoticshasnotbeenacceptedon recordforthereasonsdiscussedhereinabove.ThepleaoftheDefence thatdeceasedwasfoundlyinginaparkonthenextmorningisalsonot acceptable in view of the deposition of PW21 and PW11, as already

:54: discussedindetailabove. Ithasbeenbroughtonrecordthatdeceasedwastakenbypolice officialsfirstlytoKheraNursingHomeandfromtheretoRMLHospital despitethefactthatdoctoratKheraNursingHomehadtoldthepolice officials that Gopi Ramis dead and hecanissue acertificateto this effect. Further,thefactthatallegedrecoveryoffivepudiasofsmack fromthebodyofdeceasedGopiRamonlyafterreachingRMLHospital alsoshowsthatthesamewasplantedasnosuchrecoverywaseffectedat KheraNursingHome.Further,presenceofcomplainantSudeshKumar, bothatKheraNursingHomeandthentoRMLHospitalalsodemolishes thepleaoftheDefencethatdeceasedGopiRamhadmanagedtoescape fromhishouseandwasfoundlaterlyinginaparkonthenextmorning. ThefactumofdeceasedGopiRamandSudeshhavingbeengiven beatingsbytheAccusedandpickedupfromtheirhousehasbeenduly established from the deposition of PW8 who has been found to be credibleandtrustworthy.Ithasalsocomeonrecordthatthepersonsof the locality were raising hue and cryin front of Police Station Patel Nagaronthedateoftheincident.Ithasalsobeenprovedonrecordthat body of the deceased Gopi Ram was not handed over to his family membersand wasratherhurriedlycremated. TheentryEx.PW15/A recorded by A1 in the general diary also stand disbelieved and it apparentlyamountstocreationoffalseevidenceasitstandsprovedon recordthatdeceasedGopiRamwaspickedupfromhishousebyA1to A4ontheinterveningnightof22/23.8.86andwasalsogivenbeatings.

:55: Ithasnotbeenprovedthathewasfoundlyinginaparkonthenext morning. The cause of death of deceased Gopi Ram as shock consequentuponmultipleinjuriesonthebodyofthedeceasedcausedby somebluntobjectlikelathiandthereportofDr.K.K.AroraEx.PW5/B arenotworthyofrelianceforthereasonsasdiscussedaboveandthe report of the Medical Board Ex. PW16/A must prevail on the postmortemreportofDr.L.T.RamaniEx.PW29/A. From the above evidence, it has been proved on record that deceasedGopiRamdiedonaccountofinjuriesfounduponhispersonas perpostmortemEx.PW29/AandasperreportofMedicalBoardEx. PW16/Aandinthesecircumstances,theProsecution,inmyopinion,has beenabletoestablishbeyondanyreasonabledoubtthatdeceasedGopi RamandSudeshwerebeatenbyAccusedatPoliceStationPatelNagar on the intervening night of 22/23.8.86 and deceased Gopi Ram died consequentuponreceiptofmultipleinjuriesonhisbodybysomeblunt objectlikelathi. Itmust bereiteratedthat ithasnotbeenproved that deceased escaped from the clutches of Accused on the intervening night of 22/23.8.86orthathewasfoundlyinginaparkonthenextmorning.It is, however, established that deceased who was picked up on the interveningnightof22/23.8.86byfourAccusedpersonsdiedinpolice custodyonaccountbeatingsgiventohimbyA1toA4. I am unable to subscribe to the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel that since testimony of Sudesh/complainant who was an eye

:56: witnesscannotbereadinevidence,theProsecutioncouldnothaverelied on theruleof burden ofproof underSection 106EvidenceActand contend that the injuries found on the person of deceased Gopi Ram werecausedbyA1toA4whiledetaininghiminillegalpolicecustody. In this regard, Ld. Defence Counsel placed reliance on judgment of Honble Supreme Court titled as Murlidhar & Ors. Vs State of RajasthanIV(2005)SLT271. Ihavegonethroughthesaidjudgmentandhaveconsideredthe sameinthelightoffactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase.Inthe saidjudgmentrelieduponbytheDefencetherewasnootherevidence but for the deposition of the witnesses who were not found to be trustworthy and it isin these circumstances that Honble ApexCourt observed that Prosecution having put forward case that what transpired after R was dragged away by assailants was within knowledgeofwitnesses,utterlyfailedinprovingsaidfacts:Oncethisis established, not open for High Court to have fallen back on rule of burdenofproofunderSection106ofEvidenceAct. However,inthepresentcase,however,thoughthedepositionof the eye witness cited by the Prosecution namely complainant Sudesh cannot be looked into, yet there are numerous circumstances as highlightedhereinabovewhichcategoricallypointouttowardsguiltof alltheabovenamedAccusedandnoneother.Thequestionofshifting of burden of proof underSection 106 Evidence Act,hence,does not arise in the present case inasmuch as the Prosecution witnesses have

:57: dulyprovedonrecordthatdeceasedGopiRamandSudeshwerepicked upfromtheirhousebyA1toA4andgivenbeatingstothem. The storyassoughttobesetupbyAccusedthatdeceasedGopiRamwas foundlyinginaparkhasnotbeenaccepted.Thedeceasedisprovedto havediedonaccountofinjuriessustained byhimbymeansofblunt objectlikelathi.TheDDentryEx.PW15/ArecordedbyA1hasbeen foundtobefalse. TheothercircumstancesappearingagainstAccused have discussed in detail hereinabove completing entire chain of circumstanceswhichunerringlypointouttowardsguiltoftheAccused andareratherincapableofanyotherhypothesisbutfortheguiltofthe Accused. Hence, in my humble opinion, judgment of Honble Apex CourtrelieduponbyLd.DefenceCounselhasnoapplicationtothefacts andcircumstancesofthepresentcase. RathertheHonbleSuperiorCourtshaveincatenaofjudgments, whiledealingwiththeoffenceofcustodialdeathhasobservedasunder: (i) In Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab 1996 (3) RCR

(Criminal)763,HonblePunjabandHaryanaHighCourtobservedthat Though onus of proving the charge is always on Prosecution in ordinarycasesofcustodialdeath,allcasesofcustodialdeathisnotan ordinary cases. It further observed that in cases of custodial death though initial onus to prove the charge would of course lie on the ProsecutionbuttheduringthecourseoftrialDefencewouldnotbeable toshirktheirdutyshowingthatitwascaseofsuicidaldeathandnot murder.

:58: (iii) In DilipSinghVsStateofHaryana1993AIRSC2302=1993

CLJ 2094, Honble Supreme Court while dealing with appeal in custodialdeathdecidedthequestionofonusofproofandheldthatIn casesofdeathinpolicecustodywheretheevidenceestablishesthatthe deceasedwastakenincustodybythepoliceofficer,insuchacaseitis responsibilityoftheAccused/policeofficertoshowastohowdeceased wentoutoftheircustody.Thedenialofentirestorybythepoliceisonly afalseexplanation. Accuseddiedofbeatingsbypolice. Thestoryof policethatAccuseddiedofbusaccidentwasnotbelieved. (iv) In GoriShankarSharmaVsStateofUttarPradesh1990AIR

SC709,HonbleSupremeCourtagainheldthatItisgenerallydifficult tosecureevidenceagainstthepolicemensincetheyareInchargeofthe PoliceStationandcanmanipulateanditisonlyinfewcasesthatsome directevidenceisavailable. (v) InyetanothercasestitledasBrijLalaPrasadVsStateofBihar

1998AIR2443,HonbleSupremeCourtheldthat Convictionofthe policeofficialswas upheldonthebasisofcircumstantialevidenceto theeffectthatpolicepartyleftthePoliceStationonavandulyarmed andreturned withthreedeadbodies. Itwasheldthatitwasforthe policetoexplainunderwhatcircumstances,thesaidthreepersonswere killedandinabsenceofanyexplanationbythepolice,itwasheldthatit was linking in chain of circumstances that police killed the three personsandtheguiltofthepoliceofficialswasestablishedbywayof circumstantialevidence.

:59: I also find myself unable toagree with the submissions ofLd. Defence Counsel that Prosecution has not been able to establish the chargeunderSection342IPCframedagainstAccusedSatishKadian, InderSinghRanaandRamesh. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsels that there is no evidenceon record to showthat thedeceasedGopi RamandSudesh were wrongfully confined at Police Station Patel Nagar on the interveningnightof22/23.8.86bytheabovenamedAccused. Inthis regard, reliance was placed on the crossexamination of PW28 J. P. Verma,DSPSpl.CrimeBranch,CBIwhoconductedinvestigation of thiscaseuponitbeingreferredtoCBIontheordersofHonbleSupreme Court. Inhiscrossexamination,PW28admittedthatontheintervening night of 22/23.8.86, 67 other persons werearrested and werein the group.Hefurtherdeposedthathehadexaminedthepersonsdetainedin thelockuponthatnightduringinvestigationofthiscaseandtheyhad informedhimthatnobeatinghadtakenplaceinsidethelockup.Healso admittedthathedidnotrecordthestatementofConstablepostedatthe entrygateofthePoliceStationonthatnightortheConstablepostedat thelockupatthelockontheinterveningnightof22/23.8.86. ItwasfurtherpointedoutthataspercrossexaminationofPW25 HCRamSinghtherewasentryatpointX2ondocumentEx.PW25/Aat 0.50hoursandtheforcefromCRPFwaspresentinthePoliceStation.It wasarguedthatdespitewhichnoofficialfromCRPFwasexaminedto

:60: support the case of the Prosecution that deceased Gopi Ram and complainantSudeshweregivenbeatingsbytheAccusedandconfinedin thePoliceStationontheinterveningnightof22/23.8.86. IhaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsandIfindongoing throughtheevidenceonrecordthatthoughthereisnospecificevidence to establish the case of theProsecution regarding confinement of the deceased GopiRamandcomplainant Sudeshwithinthefourwallsof Police Station Patel Nagar on the intervening night of 22/23.8.86. However,atthesametime,Iamoftheopinionthatthereissufficient material on record, as discussed hereinabove which establishes that deceasedGopiRamandcomplainantSudeshwerepickedupbyA1to A4ontheinterveningnightof22/23.8.86andweregivenbeatingsby theabovenamedAccusedpersons.Ithasalsobeenestablishedbythe Prosecution,asdiscussedhereinabovethatdeceasedGopiRamdiedon accountofshockconsequentuponmultipleinjuries onthebodyofthe deceased caused by some blunt object like lathi. TheAccused have failedtoprovethatdeceasedmanagedtoescapefromtheirclutcheson theinterveningnightof22/23.8.86whentheyraidedathishouseasper entryEx.PW15/A. Ithasalsonotbeenestablishedthatdeceasedwas found lying in a park on the morning of 23.8.86. Rather, from the evidenceledbytheProsecution,ithasbeenestablishedthatdeceased GopiRamalongwithcomplainantSudeshwerefirstlytakentoKhera Nursing Home where the police officials accompanying him did not acceptthecertificateofthedeceasedbeingdeadandrathertookhimto

:61: RMLHospital.Fivepudiasofsmackapparentlyplantedupondeceased recoveredfromhispossessionandcaseunderSectionNDPoliceStation ActwasregisteredagainstdeceasedGopiRam,adeadperson. Further,thefactumofthedeceasedhavingbeenpickedupfrom hishousealongwithcomplainantSudeshhasbeendulyestablishedfrom the deposition of the various witnesses, as discussed hereinabove particularlyPW8ShankarLal.Thefactthatheremainedincustodyof thepoliceofficialstill8AMon23.8.86whenhewastakentoKhera NursingHomealsostandsestablishedfromthedepositionofPW11HC HarnamSinghandPW21Dr.AnilKumarSingh.Thefactthathewas declared dead at RML Hospital from where planted smack was recoveredfromhispossessionhasalsobeendulyproved.TheAccused havefailedtoestablishtheirpleathattheyhavebeenfalselyimplicated inthiscaseandinthesecircumstancesthereProsecution,inmyopinion, hasbeenabletoestablishthatdeceasedwasinillegalcustodyofA1to A4 from the intervening night of 22/23.8.86 when he was picked up from his house by them and that while was detained, he sustained multipleinjuriesonhisbody,asborneoutfromthepostmortemreport Ex.PW29/Awhichwereopinedtobeantemortemandcausedbyblunt object/weapon and whichinjuriesultimatelyfoundtobesufficient to have caused death of deceased Gopi Ram as per opinion of Medical BoardEx.PW16/A. Consequently, from the above discussion and the evidence on record,IfindthatProsecutionhasbeenabletoestablishthatdeceased

:62: GopiRamandSudeshwerepickedupbytheAccusedSatishKadian, Inder Singh Rana, Ramesh Chand and Jagmal Singh Yadav (since expired)onthenightof22.8.86fromtheirhouseandalsobeinggiven beatingsbythemonthespotandwerefurthertakenawayalongwith them. ItisalsoprovedonrecordthatbothGopiRam(deceased)and Sudesh(i.e.PW9whodiedduringtrial)werebeatenbyAccusedA1to A4whileintheircustodyduringtheinterveningnightof22.8.86and 23.8.86andbecauseofwhichGopiRamdiedinillegalpolicecustody. The cause of death of deceased Gopi Ram has also been proved as shockconsequentuponmultipleinjuriesonthebodyofthedeceased causedbysomebluntobjectlikelathihasalsobeendulyprovedon recordaspertheabovediscussion. Accordingly,inthelightoftheaforesaiddiscussion,andevidence onrecord,Accused SatishKadian,InderSinghRanaandRameshare herebyconvictedforoffencepunishableunderSection323/342/304/34 IPCandSection218IPCR/wSection109IPCwhileAccusedK.K. AroraisconvictedforoffencepunishableunderSection218IPC.Let thembeheardonthepointofsentence. AnnouncedintheOpenCourt onAugust09,2012 (KaveriBaweja) AdditionalSessionsJudgeFTC(Central) TisHazariCourts:Delhi.

:63: CBIVsSatishKaidanEtc. RCNo.:16(S)/88 CBI/SCB/NewDelhi SCNo.:51/09 09.8.12 Present: Sh.RajanDahiyaLd.SPPforCBI. Allaccusedonbail.

Videjudgmentannouncedofevendateonseparatesheets, Accused Satish Kadian, Inder Singh Rana and Ramesh are hereby convictedforoffencepunishableunderSection323/342/304II/34IPC andSection218IPCR/wSection109IPCwhileAccusedK.K.Arorais convictedforoffencepunishableunderSection218IPC. LetallconvictsexceptK.K.Arorabetakenintocustody. Putupforargumentsonsentenceon18.8.12.

(KaveriBaweja) AdditionalSessionsJudgeFTC(Central) TisHazariCourts:Delhi.

:64: IntheCourtofMs.KaveriBaweja AdditionalSessionsJudgeFTC(Central) TisHazariCourts:Delhi. SessionsCaseNo.:51/09 UniqueIDNo.:02401R0000081995 CBI versus (1)SatishKumarKadian S/oSh.RamSingh R/o233,SectorII R.K.Puram,N.Delhi (2)InderSinghRana S/oSh.J.S.Rana R/oH75,SarojiniNagar, NewDelhi (3)JagmalSinghYadav S/o Sh. Surjan Singh Yadav R/oVPOTajpur PoliceStationAtali Distt.Mohindergarh, Haryana Expired ProceedingsAbated] (4) Sh.RameshChand S/oSriChand R/oVillageLadarawan Police Bahadurgarh, Haryana Station. [Since

:65: (5)KewalKishanArora S/oSh.KahanChand R/o64,PriyaEnclave NewDelhi Casearisingoutof: RCNo. PoliceStation UnderSection R/w Judgmentpronouncedon : : : 16(S)/88 PatelNagar 323/342/304/34 IPC and Section 218 IPC Section109IPC : 09.8.2012

ORDERONSENTENCE: 1. Videjudgmentdated09.8.12,ConvictSatishKadian,InderSingh

RanaandRameshChandhavebeenconvictedforoffencepunishable underSection323/342/304/34IPCandSection218IPCR/wSection 109 IPC while Accused K. K. Arora is convicted for offence punishableunderSection218IPC. 2. IhaveheardthesubmissionsmadebyLearnedDefenceCounsel

forconvictInderSinghRanaandRameshChandandandarguments ofaccusedSatishKadianandaccusedK.K.Arora onthepointof sentence.Ihavealsoconsideredthesubmissionsmadeonbehalfof

:66: Prosecution. 3. Itiscontendedonbehalfofalltheconvictsthattheyhavefaced

protractedtrialinthiscaseandhaveprayedforlenientviewonthis ground. Ld.Counsel forconvict InderSinghRanaalsocontended thatsaidconvictissolebreadearnerofhisfamilywhichincludestwo daughterswhoarestudyingincollege.Heisstatedtobeoutstanding policeofficerwhowasrecruitedinpoliceservicein1983andwason hisfirstpostingatthetimeoftheincidentinquestion.Hewasalso statedtobeoutstandingsportsmanandscholar.Itwascontendedthat severaldocumentshavebeenplacedonrecordinsupportofthesaid submissions. Ld.CounselforconvictInderSinghRanathusprayed forreleaseonprobationstatingthatthereisnopreviousrecordofany convictagainstthesaidconvict. 4. Convict Satish Kadian who argued in person also prayed for

probation stating protractive trial as one of the reasons. He also contendedthathewasnewlyrecruitedandwasonhisfirstpostingat thetimeoftheincidentinquestion.Hefurthersubmittedthathehad alreadybeendeniedpromotionandgallantrymedalduetopendency

:67: ofthiscase. 5. Ld. Counsel for convict Ramesh Chand contended that he is

havingoldagedparentswhoaresufferingfromvariousailments.His familyalsocomprisesoftwogrownupchildren. Itwascontended thatthereisnopreviousrecordofanyconvictionagainsthimandhe may be extended benefit of probation. Ld. Counsel for convict RameshChandrelieduponjudgmentofHonbleHighCourttitledas PawanKumarAndOthersVsState2004Crl.L.J.2310insupport ofhisarguments.

6.

Ld. Counsels for convicts also submitted during the course of

argumentsonthepointofsentencethatconvictsarereadyandwilling topaycompensationtothewidowofdeceased. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Prosecutor for CBI placed reliance on

judgment of Honble Supreme Court titled as State of M. P. Vs Kashiram & Ors. 2009 Crl. L.J.1530 wherein Honble Supreme Court had laid down PenologyPunishment to be awarded for a crimemustnotbeirrelevantItshouldconformtoandbeconsistent

:68: withatrocity and brutalitywithwhichcrimehasbeenperpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrenceAnd it should respondtothesocityscryforjusticeagainstthecriminal.Hehas relied upon another judgment of Honble Supreme Court titled as Ramnaresh&Ors.VsStateofChhattisgarh 2012Crl.L.J.1898 whereinHonbleSupremeCourthasdealtwithvariousaggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered while awarding sentence. On the basis of aforesaid case law, Ld. Prosecutor has stronglyprayedformaximumprescribedpunishmenttobeawardedto theabovenamedconvicts.Hecontendedthattheoffenceinquestion isseriousoffencewhereinthepoliceofficialswhoweredutyboundto protectthecitizenshavethemselvescommittedatrocitiesandthereis noscopeforanyleniency. 8. Ihaveconsideredthesubmissionsmade.Itisamatterofrecord

thatconvictSatishKadian,InderSinghRanaandRameshChandwere servinginDelhiPoliceatthetimeoftheincidentinquestion.Ithas been proved on record that above named persons caused death of deceasedGopiRambygivinghimbeatingsonthenightof22.8.86

:69: whilehewasintheircustody.Thereisalsoevidencetoestablishthat records were manipulated by convict K. K Arora, Sr. Scientific Officer,CFSL,whopreparedincorrectreportswithaviewtosave othercoaccusedfromlegalpunishment.

9.

Theoffencesthusprovedtohavebeencommittedbytheabove

namedconvictsarenotordinaryinnature.Ithasbeenlaiddownby HonbleSupremeCourtincasetitledas StateofU.P.VsKishan 2005 Crl. L. J. 333 wherein Honble Supreme Court held that PenologySentenceAwarding ofObject is to protect society and detercriminalTakingliberalattitudebyimposingmeagresentences ortakingtoosympatheticviewmerelyonaccountoflapseoftime Will be resultwise counterproductivePunishment awarded should conformtoandbeconsistentwithatrocityandbrutalitywithwhich crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and should respond to the societys cry for justice againstcriminal. 10. TheHonbleSupremeCourtobservedthat ....thecourtsmust

:70: notlosesightofthefactthatdeathinpolicecustodyisperhapsworst kindofcrimesincivilizedsocietygovernedbyruleoflawandcauses aseriousthreattoanorderlycivilizedsociety. Tortureincustody flouts the basic right of the citizens recognized by the Indian constitution and is afferent to human dignity......The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases inarealistic manner andwiththe sensitivitywhichtheydeserveotherwisecommonmanmaylosefaith inthejudiciaryitselfwhichwillbesadday 11. Keepinginviewtheaforesaidcaselaw,Iamoftheopinionthat

this isnot afit casewhereconvicts should begranted benefit ofthe benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Rather, the convicts being protectors ofcitizens havebeen found tobe guilty of causingdeathofinnocentpersonswhileintheirillegalcustodyandin thesecircumstances,Ifindmyselfunabletoagreewiththesubmissions of Ld. Defence Counsels that above named convicts are entitled are entitledtobereleasedonprobation,asprayed. 12. Accordingly, keeping in view the seriousness of the offences

provedtohavebeencommittedbytheabovenamedconvicts,convict Satish Kadian, Inder Singh Rana and Ramesh Chand are hereby sentencedasunder:

:71: i)ForoffencepunishableunderSection304/34IPC,eachoftheabove namedconvictsaresentencedtoundergoRigorousImprisonmentfor10 yearsaddition topaymentoffineofRs.25000/eachwhichshallbe paid by way of compensation to Smt. Kashmiri Devi, Widow of the deceased. In default of payment of the aforesaid, the above named convictsshallundergoforSimpleImprisonmentforoneyear. ii) For offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC, all the above namedconvictsaresentencedtoundergoRigorousImprisonmentfor01 year. iii) For offence punishable under Section 342/34 IPC, all the above namedconvictsaresentencedtoundergoRigorousImprisonmentfor01 year. iv)ForoffencepunishableunderSection218IPCr/wSection109IPC, all the above named convicts are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmentfor03yearseach. 13. Convict K. K. Arora who has been convicted for offence

punishable under Section 218 IPC is hereby directed to undergo RigorousImprisonmentfor03yearsinadditiontopaymentoffineof

:72: Rs.5000/,indefaultwhereof,heshallundergoSimpleImprisonment for06months. 14. It is thus ordered accordingly. All the sentences shall run

concurrently. Theconvicts shall beentitled tobenefit of Section 428 CrPC.Copyofjudgmentandorderonsentencebeprovidedtoconvict freeofcost.15. FilebeconsignedtoRecordRoom.

AnnouncedintheOpenCourt onAugust18,2012 (KaveriBaweja) AdditionalSessionsJudgeFTC(Central) TisHazariCourts:Delhi.