ranbir singh uttarakhand fake encounter case judgement
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
1/139
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI-03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Sessions Case No.-01/11
RC Number : 6(S)/2009 CBI/SCB/Lucknow
CBI Vs (1) Sh. S.K. Jaiswal,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Bahadur SinghR/o. Civil Lines, Kutub Khana
Road,Opp. Telephone Exchange,
PS Kotwali, Barreilly.
(2) Sh. Gopal Dutt BhattS/o Sh. Puran Chandra Bhatt
R/o Village Matola, PS Jageshwar,
Tehsil Bhanauti, Distt.: Almora,
Uttrakhand.
(3) Sh. Rajesh Bisht
S/o Sh. Jhoon Singh
R/o House no. 7, Type III,
PS Raipur, Dehradun.
(4) Sh. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o. Type-III, Near PS Raipur,Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
(5) Sh. Nitin Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh Chauhan
R/o. H.No. 19, Vivek Vihar,
Pocket-II,GMS Road, Dehradun.
S C No.01/11 1/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
2/139
-2-
(6) Sh. Chander Mohan Singh Rawat
S/o Late Sh.Shobha Singh Rawat,
R/o Deepnagar, Near Water Tank,
Ajabnpur, Kalan, Dehradun.
(7) Sh. Ajeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Om Pal Singh
R/o Village Gadarjudda,
Post Manglore, Haridwar.(8) Sh.Satbir Singh
S/o Shri Rakam Singh
R/o. 5, Cement Road, Kanranpur,
PS Dalanwala, Dehradun.
(9) Sunil Saini
S/o Shri Kadam Singh
R/o Village Kurdi, PS Manglore,Haridwar.
(10) Chander Pal
S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram
R/o Village Kankhal Barakothi,
Pahari Bazar, Haridwar.
(11) Saurabh Nautiyal
S/o Shri Hiramani Nautiuyal ,
R/o Village Kairada, Post Nagraja
Dhar, Distt. Tehri Garhwal.
(12) Nagendra Rathi
S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh ,
R/o. Village Narsangh Kalan,
PS Manglar, Haridwar.
S C No.01/11 2/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
3/139
-3-
(13) Vikas Chandra Baluni
S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Baluni,
R/o Village Baluni Banek,
PO Banek, Distt.:Pauri,Garhwal.
(14) Sanjay Rawat
S/o Shri Sain Singh Rawat ,
R/o. Village Kundali, PS Satbuli,
Ekeshwar Block,Tehri Garhwal.(15) Mohan Singh Rana
S/o Shri Pratap Singh Rana
R/o. Village Reni , PS Joshimath,
Chamoli.
(16) Inder Bhan Singh
S/o Shri Janmadeo Singh
R/o.Village Saga Rai, PS Darauli,District Seewan (Bihar).
(17) Jaspal Singh Gosain
S/o Late Shri Manbar Singh Gosain ,
R/o. Village Kamoldi, Post Kwalli,
Tehsil Agast Muni,Rudraprayag.
(18) Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri Tej Pal Singh
R/o. Village & Post Chunsa,
APS Bhorakalan, Mujjafar Nagar.
Under Section: 120-B r/w 364, 302 & 201 IPC and substantive
offences u/s 364, 302 & 201 IPC
S C No.01/11 3/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
4/139
-4-
Date of Institution : 22.12.2009
Date of conclusion of arguments: 29.05.2014
Date of judgment : 06.06.2014
JUDGMENT:-
1. Accused no.1, S.K. Jaiswal, was posted as SHO,
P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand on 03.07.09, and onthe basis of statement made by him, two cases being case
Crime no. 98/09 under Section 307 I.P.C, and case Crime no.
99/09 under Section 25 Arms Act, were registered at P.S.
Raipur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. The cases being Crime nos.
98/09 and 99/09, were registered relating to an incident in the
afternoon of 03.07.09 in Ladpur forest area of Dehradun,
wherein a young boy named Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder
Pal Singh R/o Village Nirojpur Emma, P.S. and Tehsil Khekra,
Distt. Bagpat , U.P., was killed. The version of the police as
per the statement of accused no.1, S.K. Jaiswal, relating to the
incident was that the said person was killed in a cross firing
when the police had to resort to the firing in self-defence after
the deceased fired at the police party, when it was chasing him
to apprehend him, as he alongwith two of his associates had
entered into a scuffle with accused no.2, G.D. Bhatt, at Mohini
S C No.01/11 4/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
5/139
-5-
Road, near Gurudawara, Dehradun City and those miscreants
including the deceased, had run away from the spot after
snatching the revolver of SI G.D. Bhatt. A-2, G.D. Bhatt, was
posted at P.S. Dalanwala as Sub-Inspector and was on routine
checking in the area. Her Excellency, Smt. Pratibha Devi
Singh Patil, the then President of India, was visiting Dehradun
City on 03.07.09.
2. However, after the incident was highlighted and
news regarding the incident were telecast on T.V. channels,
questions were raised as regard the genuineness of the version
of the police and relatives of deceased Ranbir Singh including
his father, Ravinder Pal Singh protested claiming that deceased
Ranbir Singh had been killed by police officials, while in
custody, and a false story of encounter had been concocted by
the police. After the hue and cry was raised, investigation of
Crime nos. 98/09 and 99/09, both of P.S. Raipur, were
entrusted to Insp. D.C. Baunthiyal, SHO, PS Cantt. District
Dehradun, as per directions of SSP Dehradun on 05.07.09.
3. A case FIR no. 101/09 under Sections
147/148/149/302/506 I.P.C, was registered at P.S. Raipur,
S C No.01/11 5/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
6/139
-6-
Dehradun on 06.07.09, on a complaint by Sh. Ravinder Pal
Singh, father of deceased Ranbir Singh.
4. However, father, relatives and family members of
deceased Ranbir Singh were not satisfied with the investigation
of the case, and they had approached the Chief Minister of
Uttarakhand and other higher-ups in the Government of
Uttarakhand and vide order no. 723/XX(3)-14/CB/CID/2009
dated 05.07.09, Government of Uttarakhand transferred the
investigation of the cases Crime nos. 98/09 and 99/09 P.S
Raipur, Dehradun to CB-CID. Father, relatives and family
members of deceased, Ranbir Singh continued to agitate and
there was apparent criticism of the investigation, forcing
Government of Uttarakhand to hand over the investigation of
the cases, Crime No. 98/09 under Section 307 I.P.C and Crime
No. 99/09 under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Raipur, Distt.
Dehradun and Crime No. 101/09 under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Raipur, Distt, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and
Crime no. 143/09 under Section 394 I.P.C, P.S. Dalanwala,
relating to death of Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh.
Crime no. 143/09 P.S Dalanwala, was in regard to the case
S C No.01/11 6/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
7/139
-7-
registered on the basis of statement of accused no.2, G.D.
Bhatt, as regards snatching of his pistol on 03.07.09 at Mohini
Road, near Gurudwara, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to CBI, and
issued Notification no. 542/XX(1)/126/CBI/2009 dated
08.07.09, gave its consent for investigation of the case by CBI.
Pursuant to the Notification dated 08.07.09, issued by
Government of Uttarakhand, Government of India also issued
Notification no.228/37/2009-AVD-2 dated 09.07.09, gave its
consent for investigation of the cases by CBI.
5. The present case relates to case Crime no. 101/09,
P.S. Raipur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, registered on the
complaint of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, father of deceased Ranbir
Singh, which was taken over by CBI, and regular case RC No.
0532009S006, hereinafter to be referred as RC 6(S)/2009, was
registered at CBI/SCB at Lucknow, U.P. on 30.07.09
6. After completion of investigation, CBI filed the
chargesheet in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate(CBI),
Dehradun on 22.12.09, which was produced before Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, as Special Judicial Magistrate
was on leave on 22.12.09, against 18 accused, i.e. A-1 Santosh
S C No.01/11 7/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
8/139
-8-
Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4
Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh
Rawat and A-7 Ajit Singh, A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini,
A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15
Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal,
A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar,
A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7
Ajit Singh, were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under
Section 120-B r/w Sections 364,302 and 201 I.P.C and
Substantive offences punishable under Sections 364,302 and
201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C and u/s 218 I.P.C.
A-8, Satbir Singh, was charge-sheeted for offence punishable
under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and under section
201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C. A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10
Chander Pal Singh, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Baluni and A-14 Sanjay Rawat, were
charged for offences punishable under Section 201 I.P.C r/w
Sections 364 IPC and 302 I.P.C as well as under Section 218
S C No.01/11 8/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
9/139
-9-
I.P.C. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17
Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar, were charged
for offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. Sanction for
prosecution as required under Section 197 CrPC against the
accused persons, they being the police officials, were obtained
from the State Government. A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini,
A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15
Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar, were not arrested in the case
by the CBI. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, were in judicial custody, when the chargesheet was
filed. A-1 to A-7 were granted bail by Hon'ble Uttarakhand
High Court vide order dated 20.01.2010. Ravinder Pal Singh,
father of deceased Ranbir Singh, and complainant, challenged
the order, passed by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court, before
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Crl. Appeal Nos. 748/2011 to
753/2011, relating to A-1 to A-7, and vide order dated
S C No.01/11 9/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
10/139
-10-
17.03.2011, the appeals filed by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the
complainant, were allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
order passed by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court, granting bail
to A-1 to A-7, was set aside.
7. Again, in Transfer Petition (Crl.) no. 222/2010,
filed by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, the complainant, Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2011, transferred the
case Crime no. 03/2010 titled as State through CBI Vs. S.K.
Jaiswal, from the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI,
Dehradun, to the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, for its
assignment to appropriate court, as the Special Judge may
consider it fit and proper.
8. However, during the period, vide order dated
10.12.2010, Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun, had
committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge, Dehradun
and by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, the case was assigned
for trial to IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, Anti Corruption(CBI), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Record
of the case being ST no. 237/2010, CBI Vs. Santosh Kumar
Jaiswal & Ors, was received by Sh. Pradeep Chadha, Special
S C No.01/11 10/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
11/139
-11-
Judge(CBI-01), Central/Delhi, on 04.04.2011 vide letter dated
02.04.2011 of Sh. Pradeep Pant, IIIrd Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Branch(CBI), Uttarakhand,
Dehradun. The case was assigned to Sh. V.K. Maheshwari,
Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, my Ld. Predecessor. On
04.04.2011 itself, my Ld. Predecessor, Sh. V.K. Maheshwari,
entertained some reservations as he was dealing with the cases
pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act only, and he
directed to put up the file before Ld. District & Sessions
Judge-1, Central District, for appropriate orders. Vide order
dated 05.04.2011, the case file was directed to be sent to the
Court of Sh. V.K. Maheswari, my Ld. Predecessor, Special
Judge, CBI, Delhi, and it was observed by Ld. Sessions Judge,
Delhi that apart from being Special Judge/CBI, he was also
competent to deal with and decide the case as Additional
Sessions Judge.
9. The facts, in brief, as per the investigation carried
out by CBI, as per the chargesheet filed, is that deceased
Ranbir Singh had gone to Dehradun on 02.07.09 alongwith his
accomplices Shekhar Tyagi, Ram Kumar, Ashok Panwar, after
S C No.01/11 11/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
12/139
-12-
they had entered into a conspiracy to commit theft at the house
of Smt. Kavita Saxena, who was a cousin of one Amit
Bhatnagar, who was also a party to the conspiracy. Deceased
Ranbir Singh and his associates Ram Kumar and Ashok
Panwar, stayed at Flat no.9 of Jain Dharamshala, Gandhi Road,
Dehradun. The other accomplice Shekhar Tyagi, after pointing
out the house of Smt. Kavita Saxena, returned back to Meerut.
House of Smt. Kavita Saxena was situated at 14, Madhuban
Enclave, Mohini Road, Dehradun. On 03.07.09 at about 12.30
noon, deceased Ranbir Singh and Ashok Panwar left Jain
Dharamshala with one black bag containing Katta, ropes and
Cello Tape etc. on a motorcycle no. HR 06G 9093, which was
used by deceased Ranbir Singh and Ram Kumar for reaching
Dehradun from Meerut. Ram Kumar followed them. Ashok
Panwar was sent to see the lane, where house of Smt. Kavita
Saxena was located. While Ranbir Singh and Ram Kumar were
waiting for Ashok Panwar at a place near Gurudwara at
Mohini Road, Dehradun at around 12.45 hours, SI G.D.
Bhatt(A-2), Incharge Aaraghar Post under P.S. Dalanwala,
Dehradun, reached while patrolling on routine checking. While
S C No.01/11 12/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
13/139
-13-
he was questioning the deceased Ranbir Singh and his
associate Ram Kumar, there was a scuffle between them.
Deceased Ranbir Singh caught hold of service pistol of SI G.D.
Bhatt. One passer-by Anjum Parvez Khan, came at the spot,
fired two rounds in the air from his licensee pistol. Deceased
Ranbir Singh was caught on the spot, whereas his associate
Ram Kumar was able to run away from the place, who had in
the meantime snatched the service pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt
(A-2) from Ranbir Singh, alongwith service pistol of SI G.D.
Bhatt (A-2). As per the case of CBI, a case being Crime no.
143/09 of P.S Dalanwala, was registered as regard the scuffle
and robbery of pistol of SI G.D. Bhatt (A-2). However, after
the deceased Ranbir Singh had been caught on the spot, there
was a conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and
particularly, A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
Singh, has been named by CBI in the chargesheet, to kill
deceased Ranbir Singh. He was not shown to have been
arrested in case Crime no. 143/09 P.S Dalanwala, was
S C No.01/11 13/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
14/139
-14-
abducted and was killed claiming that he had been killed in
cross-firing with the police in an encounter, when he fired at
the police party, which was chasing him, he having run away
alongwith two of his accomplices on the motorcycle, in the
area of Ladpur forest, Dehradun. It was the case put up by the
local police, including the accused persons, that deceased
Ranbir Singh was not caught on the spot of incident at Mohini
road, Dehradun, and he had been able to run away from the
place alongwith two of his accomplices. It was the case put up
by the local police of P.S. Dalanwala and others, claiming to be
involved in the said encounter, that two of accomplices of
deceased, had been able to run away from Ladpur forest area.
10. The case, as put up by CBI, after investigation is
that to cover up the story of deceased Ranbir Singh having
been caught from Mohini Road near Gurudwara, information
of which was given by A-1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, Dehradun to
City Control Room at 1.12 P.M., to the effect that one person
with Tamancha had been brought to police station Dalanwala,
and so, the search for the miscreant be stopped, story of one
Karunesh was inserted, who as per GD entry at 1.10 P.M. of
S C No.01/11 14/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
15/139
-15-
P.S. Dalanwala was shown that Cheetah-VI, Ct. Satbir and Ct.
Jitender Joshi had brought one miscreant to P.S. having
revolver and then G.D. Entry at 1.20 p.m that said Karunesh,
was a Constable and was shadow of Kunwar Pranav Singh,
MLA, and was having his service revolver. The role attributed
to each of the accused person individually, had been stated as
revealed during investigation, by CBI.
11. Charge for offences punishable under Section
120-B I.P.C r/w Sections 302, 364,201 and 218 I.P.C, was
framed against all the accused on 02.06.2011. Further charge
for substantive offences punishable under Sections 302 and
364 I.P.C was framed against A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal,
A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar,
A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7
Ajit Singh. Further, charge for substantive offences punishable
under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 302,364 IPC and
substantive office punishable under Section 218 I.P.C were
framed against A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt
Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj Kumar, A-5 Nitin
Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and A-7 Ajit
S C No.01/11 15/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
16/139
-16-
Singh, A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal,
A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas
Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat. Further, accused no.8,
Satbir Singh, was charged for substantive offences punishable
under Section 201 I.P.C r/w Sections 364 and under Section
201 I.P.C r/w Section 302 I.P.C. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana,
A-16 Inderbhan, A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj
Kumar, were further charged for substantive offence
punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
12. Pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2011 of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, cancelling the bail of A-1 Santosh Kumar
Jaiswal, A-2 Gopal Dutt Bhatt, A-3 Rajesh Bisht, A-4 Neeraj
Kumar, A-5 Nitin Chauhan, A-6 Chander Mohan Singh Rawat
and A-7 Ajit Singh, they had surrendered in the Court on
different dates. Thereafter, an application was filed by Sh.
Ravinder Pal Singh, the complainant for cancellation of bail of
A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal, A-11
Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander
Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16
S C No.01/11 16/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
17/139
-17-
Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj
Kumar, on the ground that charge for offences punishable
under Section 120-B I.P.C r/w Sections 364,302, 201 and 218
I.P.C, had been framed against all the accused persons.
Earlier, as per the chargesheet, there were allegations of only
bailable offences against A-8 Satbir Singh, A-9 Sunil Saini,
A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal, A-12 Nagender
Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14 Sanjay Rawat, A-15
Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar, and after the framing of
charge, they had been charged for offences of criminal
conspiracy in commission of offences punishable under
Sections 364 & 302 I.P.C, which were non-bailable. The
application was disposed of by my Ld. Predecessor vide order
dated 17.11.2011 and the bail granted to A-8 Satbir Singh,
A-9 Sunil Saini, A-10 Chander Pal, A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal,
A-12 Nagender Rathi, A-13 Vikas Chander Baluni, A-14
Sanjay Rawat, A-15 Mohan Singh Rana, A-16 Inderbhan
Singh, A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain and A-18 Manoj Kumar,
were cancelled. The issue was agitated by A-8 to A-18 before
S C No.01/11 17/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
18/139
-18-
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as before Hon'ble
Supreme Court and vide order dated 29.05.2012 in Special
Leave to Appeal ( Crl.) no. 4396/2012, Hon'ble Supreme Court
declined to entertain the Special petition filed by the accused
persons. In this way, all the 18 accused persons, are in judicial
custody.
13. Prosecution examined 122 witnesses in order to
substantiate the allegations against the accused persons.
14. Accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC
and their statements were recorded.
15. The stand taken on behalf of accused nos. 1 to 7 is
that, it was a case of genuine encounter and deceased Ranbir
Singh was killed in cross-firing with the police and it was
when the deceased Ranbir Singh had fired at the police party,
which was chasing him and that the police was compelled to
return fire in self-defence.
16. The allegations against A-8 Satbir Singh as
regards the specific role played by him were that he was
instrumental in introducing the story of bringing Ct. Karunesh
at P.S. Dalanwala alongwith Ct. Jitender Joshi while on duty
S C No.01/11 18/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
19/139
-19-
on Cheetah-VI( being riders of motorcycle), was claiming that
the boy(Ct. Karunesh) was seen by them, when they reached at
Mohini Road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, the place of the
incident, who was matching the description as per the
information being given from the City Control Room and was
found running towards Laxmi Road. A-8 Satbir Singh denied
that he was knowing Ct. Karunesh before he was apprehended
by them that he was a member of the police force and was
deputed as a shadow of an MLA. A-8 Satbir Singh had also
taken the stand that it was a genuine case of deceased Ranbir
Singh, having been killed in exchange of fire, with the police
and he at the time of encounter at Ladpur forest, had taken
cover behind a tree.
17. A-9, Sunil Saini has also taken the stand that it
was a genuine encounter and deceased Ranbir Singh was killed
in exchange of fire at Ladpur forest. A-9 Sunil Saini had also
claimed that on 03.07.09 he had accompanied A-4 Neeraj
Kumar to Sahastradhara Crossing at Dehradun, checking for
the miscreants, who had run away from the Mohini Road near
Gurudawara, after robbing the service pistol of A-2, G.D.
S C No.01/11 19/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
20/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
21/139
-21-
Incharge, Special Operation Group on 03.07.09, and remained
present in SOG office from morning till evening. The role
assigned to him was that he was with A-5 Nitin Chauhan,
Incharge SOG on 03.07.09 and also, at the time of alleged
encounter, and was a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill
deceased Ranbir Singh. A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal has claimed
that he was also forced to sign documents and was called to
reach P.S. Raipur on that day by A-5 Nitin Chauhan, and it was
only under pressure of A-5 Nitin Chauhan, Incharge, Special
Operation Group, that he had reluctantly signed the documents
in P.S. Raipur in the morning of 04.07.09 which are Ex.
PW-36/A, Seizure Memo dated 03.07.09 Ex. PW-38/G and
Ex.PW38/H.
20. A-12 Nagender Rathi in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC has taken the stand that it was a case of
genuine encounter, deceased Ranbir Singh having been killed
in exchange of fire between the deceased and the police
officials. The role assigned to A-12 Nagender Rathi is that he
was accompanying A-1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S. Dalanwala on
03.07.09 and was also a party to abduct and kill deceased
S C No.01/11 21/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
22/139
-22-
Ranbir Singh.
21. A-13 Vikas Baluni has taken the stand that on
03.07.09, he was detailed for VVIP duty at GTC Helipad,
Cantt. Dehradun, due to the visit of President of India in
Dehradun City, on that day, and he had not accompanied SO
Rajesh Bisht, Incharge of P.S. Nehru Colony on 03.07.09. The
role assigned to A-13 Vikas baluni is that he had accompanied
A-3 Rajesh Bisht, SO, P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun on
03.07.09, was present at the time of alleged encounter and was
a party to the conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir
Singh. A-13, Vikas Baluni has taken the stand that being
detailed for VVIP duty on 03.07.09 in the afternoon, he was on
rest in the morning hours, and was present at his house when at
about 2.00 P.M., he received a call from A-3, Rajesh Bisht,
asking him to reach Pullia No.6 in the area of P.S. Nehru
Colony, Dehradun, and also to convey the same message to
A-14, Ct. Sanjay Rawat. As per the stand taken by A-13 Vikas
Baluni, he conveyed the message to Ct. Sanjay Rawat A-14
and reached at Pullia no.6 where Ct. Sanjay Rawat A-14 had
also reached, but SO Rajesh Bisht did not meet them there.
S C No.01/11 22/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
23/139
-23-
They were not able to connect to SO Rajesh Bisht(A-3), but
somehow they were able to call A-16 Inderbhan Singh on his
mobile, the driver of the vehicle of SO Rajesh Bisht(A-3), who
instructed them to reach Ladpur forest. A-13 Ct.Vikas Baluni
claimed that when they reached in the Ladpur forest, they
found a crowd and a person lying on the ground. A-13
Ct.Vikas Baluni also claimed that he was forced to sign the
documents by A-3 Rajesh Bisht, as well as other senior
officers.
22. A-14 Sanjay Rawat, has also taken the stand like
A-13 Ct. Vikas Baluni, he was also detailed for VVIP duty on
03.07.2009, and was not accompanying A-3 Rajesh Bisht, SO,
P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun, and he was called through A-13
Ct. Vikas Baluni, and was also forced to sign the documents by
A-3 SO Rajesh Bisht, and other senior police officers, when he
had reached Ladpur forest alongwith A-13 Ct. Vikas Baluni.
23. A-15 Mohan Singh Rana has also taken the stand
that he was not involved in any conspiracy to abduct or kill
deceased Ranbir Singh. The role assigned to A-15 Mohan
Singh Rana is that he was Ct Driver of P.S. Dalanwala on
S C No.01/11 23/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
24/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
25/139
-25-
Colony on 03.07.09, was party to the conspiracy to abduct and
kill deceased Ranbir Singh on 03.07.09, was present at the time
of alleged encounter and made false entries in the log book of
vehicle regarding movement of the vehicle.
25. The stand taken by A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain in
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he was not party
to any conspiracy to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir Singh.
A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain has claimed that he was not known
to any of the co-accused prior to 03.07.09, and was not even
having telephone number of any of the accused, and had no
contact with any of the co-accused on 03.07.09. The role
assigned to A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain is that on 03.07.09, he
was posted as Head Operator in City Control Room of
Dehradun Police, and made false entries in the log book of
City Control Room to the effect that information has been
received from Panther(SP City) that three miscreants were
running towards Nehru Colony, Dehradun City on motorcycle
no. HR 06G 9093 and same was done by him despite the fact
that intimation as given by T-5 (SHO P.S.Dalanwala, A-1) at
1.12 P.M. that the boy alongwith Tamancha had reached P.S.
S C No.01/11 25/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
26/139
-26-
Dalanwala, and so, the checking for the boy be stopped and
only routine checking be continued. A-17 Jaspal Singh
Gosain has stated that all the informations received by him
between 10.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M., while he was on duty in the
City Control Room, from Senior officers, were recorded by
him correctly in the log book and he had flashed the
information, so received.
26. A-18 Manoj Kumar has denied being party to any
conspiracy on 03.07.09, to abduct and kill deceased Ranbir
Singh. The role assigned to A-18 Manoj Kumar, as per the
case of the prosecution is that on 03.07.09, he was functioning
as Ct GD Munshi at P.S. Dalanwala, Delhi, and had made
incorrect entries. It is claimed, as per the case of the
prosecution, that at 1.10 P.M. on 3.07.09, he made an entry to
the effect that one suspect wearing green T-shirt has been
brought by Ct. Jitender Joshi and Ct. Satbir of Cheetah-VI and
then making an entry at 1.20 P.M ( overwriting and cutting) to
the effect that the suspect brought, was in fact Ct Karunesh,
and this was done by him to prevent and save himself and
other accused persons from legal punishment. Allegations were
S C No.01/11 26/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
27/139
-27-
also to the effect that he was a party to the conspiracy. In his
statement, A-18 Manoj Kumar, took the stand that the
information received by him were recorded correctly, in GD
diary at P.S. Dalanwala.
27. In all 30 witnesses were examined on behalf of the
accused persons including A-11 Saurabh Nautiyal and A-13
Vikas Baluni, who have also examined themselves, on oath
under Section 315 CrPC, pursuant to the applications moved
by them.
28. Arguments were heard on behalf of the
prosecution as well as on behalf of the accused persons. On
behalf of A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18,
submissions were made by Sh. R.M.Tufail, Advocate. On
behalf of remaining accused being A-10, A-11, A-13, A-14
and A-15, submissions were made by Sh. Anupam Sharma,
Advocate. Written submissions were also placed on record on
behalf of A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18 and also on
behalf of complainant.
29. To prove the fact that it was deceased Ranbir
Singh, who was apprehended at the place of incident at Mohini
S C No.01/11 27/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
28/139
-28-
road near Gurudwara on 03.07.2009 and was taken to P.S
Dalanwala, prosecution has examined several witnesses to the
incident. PW-9 Anil Vohra (r/o Mohini road, Dehradun) is one
of them, who has testified as regard the scuffle which was seen
by him on 03.07.2009, when he saw a police man in hands up
position and two boys standing in front of him, one of the boy
having revolver. PW-9 Anil Vohra also deposed that from the
gesture, he gathered that the police man was helpless and the
boys were dominating him. PW-9 Anil Vohra was passing by
the place on his motorcycle and on seeing the situation, he
made a call at number 100 and told the lady who picked up the
phone on other side the situation and asking to send someone
immediately at Mohini road, Gurudwara.
30. Another witness examined on behalf of the
prosecution is PW-11 Surender Singh, who was working at a
godown of M/s Himani Gas Service and deposed that on
03.07.2009, when he reached at Circular Road near
Gurudwara, Dehradun, after taking 20 cylinders from the
godown, he saw a scuffle taking place near the Gurudwara and
he had seen two boys in scuffle with a Daroga. PW-11
S C No.01/11 28/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
29/139
-29-
Surender Singh further deposed that Daroga had caught hold of
a boy and the other boy was having a pistol and was pointing
towards Daroga in a manner, as he was about to fire. PW-11
Surender Singh did not support the case of prosecution beyond
that and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution by
Ld. Sr.PP.
31. PW-12 Raksh Pal also deposed that on
03.07.2009, he had reached the Gurudwara situated at Mohini
road in Dehradun, with his three wheeler Vikram loaded with
gas cylinders and between 12.30 to 1.00 noon, he had noticed a
crowd near Gurudwara. PW-12 Raksh Pal was also working at
Himani Gas Agency, Dehradun. PW-12 further deposed that
two boys were seen by him beating a Daroga and one of the
boy was pointing a revolver at the Daroga. Beyond this,
PW-12 Raksh Pal also did not support the case of the
prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
32. PW-13 is Ravinder Kumar, who was having a
tailoring shop under the name and style of M/s Patiyala Shahi
Boutique nearby. The witness did not support the case of the
S C No.01/11 29/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
30/139
-30-
prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
33. PW-14 is Smt. Farhad Naaz, who has deposed that
on 03.07.2009, she was working in a tailoring shop named
Patiyala Shahi Boutique at Mohini road, Dalanwala, Dehradun
and at about 12.00/12.30 noon, she heard a lot of noise from
outside near the Gurudwara and also heard sound of two fire
shots and when she came outside, she had seen people running
and had also seen one person running from the place, having a
pistol in his hand. Beyond that, PW-14 Smt. Farhad Naaz also
did not support the case of prosecution and was cross
examined by Ld. Sr.PP on behalf of the prosecution.
34. PW-15 is Anjum Parvez Khan, who has deposed
that he was a resident of 24/61, Circular Road, Dalanwala,
Dehradun and on 03.07.2009 between 12.45 and 1 noon, when
he had come to his house for changing clothes to offer Namaaz
of Jumma, he saw a lot of crowd near the Gurudwara and three
persons were quarreling among themselves. PW-15 further
deposed that due to curiosity, he went to the place and when he
reached near the crowd, he saw two boys beating a person,
S C No.01/11 30/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
31/139
-31-
who was in police uniform. The two boys had pushed down
the police personnel on the ground. PW-15 Anjum Parvez
Khan, in order to save the police personnel, had fired twice
from his licensed pistol, which he brought from his house.
PW-15 further deposed that after he fired in the air, there was a
stampede in the crowd and the boys also ran away with the
crowd. This witness also did not support the case of the
prosecution fully and was also cross examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
35. PW-26 Ram Anuj was working as Crime Reporter
for Time T.V at Dehradun in month of July 2009 and had
deposed that on 03.07.2009, he had followed the Ranbir
encounter case for T.V reporting and he had recorded the byte
of PW-15 Anjum Parvez, with regard to the incident of
fighting, which occurred near the house of Anjum Parvez.
36. Statements of PW-12 Raksh Pal, PW-13 Ravinder
Kumar, PW-14 Farhad Naaz and PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan
were also recorded Under Section 164 CrPC, which was
confronted to them in the cross examination on behalf of the
prosecution. PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan admitted having
S C No.01/11 31/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
32/139
-32-
made the statement Under Section 164 CrPC which is
Ex.PW15/A and also admitted correctness of the same. PW-15
also admitted the correctness of CD Ex.P-1 which was inter
alia having the recording of PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan,
saying that the Badmash who was having pistol in his hand had
run away on foot from the place and the other boy was caught
by the police of P.S Dalanwala. However, in cross
examination on behalf of the accused persons, he again stated
that the person who was apprehended from the stampede was
taken away by the police personnels, who had come on the
motorcycle, on their motorcycle.
37. It is the case of the local police of Dehradun as
well as the defence taken on behalf of accused that instead of
deceased Ranbir, it was one Ct. Karunesh, who was
apprehended on the spot by Cheeta-6 i.e. rider Ct. Satbir Singh
(A-8) and Ct. Jitender Joshi and he was taken away by them,
on their motorcycle.
38. Another witness examined on behalf of the
prosecution is PW-10 Ram Kumar, cousin of deceased Ranbir,
who as per the case of the prosecution, was accompanying
S C No.01/11 32/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
33/139
-33-
deceased Ranbir Singh and was present at Mohini Road near
Gurudwara, Dehradun on 03.07.2009, at the time of quarrel
between them and A-2 G.D.Bhatt. However, PW-10 Ram
Kumar, despite being the cousin of deceased Ranbir Singh, had
totally betrayed the case of the prosecution and had even
deposed that it was in fact an encounter in the Ladpur forest
area while he, deceased Ranbir and one more accomplice were
running away on the motorcycle, being chased by policemen
and the deceased Ranbir had in fact opened fire, when their
motorcycle fell down in the Ladpur forest. Statement of
PW-10 Ram Kumar was also recorded Under Section 164
CrPC, but he was evasive while answering the questions put to
him by Ld. Sr.PP, when confronted with the statement, just
stating that he was not remembering what was told by him to
the Magistrate, recording his statement Under Section 164
CrPC Ex.PW102/D (proved by PW-102 Sh. Arvind Nath
Tripathi). PW-10 Ram Kumar also stated that whatever was
told by him to the Magistrate recording his statement Under
Section 164 CrPC was, as told by the CBI to him to state.
PW-10 was seen supporting the case of the accused persons, in
S C No.01/11 33/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
34/139
-34-
their defense.
39. There is PW-24 Smt. Sushma Bansal (nearby
resident), who had made a call at number 100 to police Control
Room on 03.07.2009 after a passerby had come to her house
and requested to make a call to the police. PW-24 stated that
she had not seen the incident herself and was cross examined
on behalf of the prosecution.
40. PW-25 is Mala Singh (nearby resident), who had
deposed that on 03.07.2009 between 12.30 to 12.45 noon, she
had heard a lot of noise and sound of fire and when she went to
the roof of her house to see the incident, she saw a crowd from
the terrace of her house. The witness also did not support the
case of prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. Sr.PP on
behalf of the prosecution.
41. Thus, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of
the prosecution as regard the incident of 03.07.2009 at Mohini
road near Gurudwara, Dehradun, involving A-2 G.D.Bhatt,
deceased Ranbir Singh and his cousin-cum-associate PW-10
Ram Kumar, has supported the case of the prosecution to the
fuller extent. However, from their testimonies, particularly of
S C No.01/11 34/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
35/139
-35-
PW-9 Anil Vohra, PW-11 Raksh Pal, PW-15 Anjum Parvez
Khan, it has come on the record that there were only two boys
who were involved in the scuffle with A-2 G.D.Bhatt on
03.07.2009. All these witnesses have deposed consistently and
none have stated that they had seen the third boy also, who was
either involved in the scuffle with A-2 G.D.Bhatt or that three
boys had run away from the place, on a motorcycle, as is the
case, which was set up by the local police and is the defense of
the accused persons. PW-11 Surender Singh Rawat, has
deposed only, that the two boys who were in scuffle with the
police man, had run away on the motorcycle, one driving the
motorcycle and other was sitting holding a pistol in his hand
and it was after, he had heard two fire sounds and there was a
stampede. PW-14 Smt. Farhad Naaz has deposed that after the
sound of shot was heard, people were seen running and she had
seen one person running from there having a pistol in his hand.
PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan has also deposed that after he fired
two shots in air from his licensed pistol, both the boys had run
away alongwith the crowd. PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan, no
where deposing that two boys had run away from the place, on
S C No.01/11 35/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
36/139
-36-
motorcycle. There was not even a suggestion to that effect on
behalf of the accused persons. PW-15 Anjum Parvez Khan
also admitted in cross examination on behalf of prosecution,
that whatever was recorded in CD Ex.P-1 was correct, and it
was what had been told by him in his interview, after about
three hours of the incident on 03.07.2009 and admitted that he
had stated in his interview that the badmash who were having
pistol in his hand had 'paidal -paidal bhag gaya tha (had run
away on foot)' and the other boy was caught by police of P.S
Dalanwala. Even in his examination-in-chief, PW-15 Anjum
Parvez Khan has deposed that during the stampede (bhagdad)
other police personnels had also reached the spot and one of
the boy was caught hold by those police personnels, who had
reached the spot.
42. It is the case of prosecution that the accused
persons had inserted the story of Ct. Karunesh, a shadow of
MLA, Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, was falsely
introduced while not arresting deceased Ranbir Singh in case
Crime No.143/09 P.S Dalanwala under section 394 I.P.C
which was registered in regard to the incident of robbery of
S C No.01/11 36/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
37/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
38/139
-38-
information to the SHO that the person, who was brought by
Cheeta-6 being Ct. Satbir and Ct. Jitender, was in fact Ct.
Karunesh, being the shadow of MLA Kunwar Pranav Singh
Champion.
45. It is the case of prosecution that GD entries of
1.10 P.M Ex.PW64/E-3 and 1.20 P.M Ex.PW64/E-4 made by
A-18 Manoj Kumar are fake entries and nothing of the sort had
happened and the entries were made only to facilitate, non-
reporting of deceased Ranbir Singh, having been apprehended,
in pursuance to the conspiracy to abduct and kill him.
Prosecution is claiming that on the ground that intimation to
that effect had already been given to the City Control Room at
1.12 P.M by A-1 S.K.Jaiswal, then SHO P.S Dalanwala to the
effect that the boy with the tamancha had been brought to the
P.S and search be discontinued.
46. Ct. Karunesh was a member of the police force
and as per GD No.29 Ex.PW64/E-4 recorded at 1.20 P.M in
the General Diary of P.S Dalanwala, was having his service
revolver. As per Ex.PW17/H (proved by PW-17 Ashwani
Raturi), which is a memorandum of voice file taken from
S C No.01/11 38/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
39/139
-39-
police Control Room in regard to the information given by Ct.
Karunesh to City Control Room on 03.07.2009 at 12.55.44 and
it is to the effect that Ct. Karunesh is telling the operator at
City Control Room that they should reach Mohini Road
immediately, scuffle is taking place with the Daroga and the
persons are also shooting Daroga. In case Ct. Karunesh was
having his service revolver with him when the scuffle was
going on with A-2 G.D.Bhatt, it was not expected from him,
not to intervene, he being the member of the police force and
having arms. Instead of depending on the arrival of other
police personnels, it was his duty to come to the rescue of A-2
G.D.Bhatt.
47. On behalf of accused persons, reliance has been
placed on the statement of Ct. Karunesh Kumar recorded in
case Crime No.l43/09 Ex.PW71/G-2 (proved by PW-71 SI
Bhaskar Lal Shah) wherein he had stated that on 03.07.2009,
when he was walking on foot and was proceeding towards
Aaraghar post for night pass, on reaching at Mohini road near
Gurudwara, he saw three boys in a scuffle with a Daroga and
the boys were also pointing a tamancha and a pistol at the
S C No.01/11 39/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
40/139
-40-
Daroga, one person came from the side of Circular road, fired
with his revolver and three boys, who were in scuffle with the
Daroga, had run away on a CBZ motorcycle towards Sanjay
Colony. Ct. Karunesh in statement Ex.PW71/G-2 (proved by
PW-71 SI Bhaskar Lal Shah) claimed that he chased those
three boys and while he was returning, he was apprehended by
Cheeta police, who did not listen, when he told them that he
was a member of the staff. Ct. Karunesh also claimed that he
was brought to P.S and after inquiries and confirming that he
was a police Constable, he was allowed to go. Ct. Karunesh is
claiming that he was not having his purse on that day and so,
could not show his ID card. Ct. Karunesh also stated that he
had given the information at 100 number, being puzzled at that
time in his statement recorded Under Section 161 CrPC in case
Crime No.143/09 Under Section 394,332 I.P.C PS Dalanwala,
Ct. Karunesh has not been examined in the case, on behalf of
either prosecution or the defence. Even otherwise, it is
difficult to believe the story being put up by Ct. Karunesh
Kumar, that he was not able to convince the staff of Cheeta-6,
being A-8 Satbir Singh and Ct. Jitender Joshi, that he was a
S C No.01/11 40/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
41/139
-41-
member of the police force. Again A-8 Ct. Satbir and Ct.
Jitender Joshi would be able to take him to the P.S on the
motorcycle, despite having the information that the boys
having scuffle, had run away with the service pistol of A-2
G.D.Bhatt and would not like to search the boy, after
apprehending him to ensure that he was not having any
weapon and may not harm them on way to P.S. Again entry
no.29 Ex.PW64/E-4 (proved by PW-64 Gopal Singh Negi) also
show some manipulations and overwriting and it is reasonable
to assume that same had been done intentionally and same is to
the effect that the person brought at P.S is Ct. Karunesh. In
entry no.28 Ex.PW-64/E-3 recorded at 1.10 P.M, it is also
mentioned that the Badmash brought is also having a revolver,
but there is no mention of the person stating that he was a
member of the police force and revolver, he was having, was a
service revolver. Ct. Karunesh was expected to tell the same,
when he was brought to P.S Dalanwala, as stated to the
officials of Cheeta-6, as claimed by him in his statement
Ex.PW71/G-2.
48. Then, there is an entry recorded in log book of the
S C No.01/11 41/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
42/139
-42-
City Control Room, Dehradun dated 03.07.2009 which have
been exhibited as Ex.PW16/B (proved by PW-16 Mahesh
Arya) and it is recorded in the entry made at 1.12 P.M that
information had been given by T-5 (SHO P.S Dalanwala) that
the said boy with tamancha (country made pistol) had reached
P.S and checking of that boy should be stopped.
49. It is also the case of prosecution that deceased
Ranbir Singh alongwith his associates, was staying in flat no.9
at Jain Dharamshala, on 03.07.2009 and immediately after
deceased Ranbir Singh,was apprehended and brought to P.S
Dalanwala, Dehradun, some police officials had gone to Jain
Dharamshala, had broken open the lock of flat no.9 and left the
place with a bag from the flat. It is the case of the prosecution
that it could have been possible so early only, when deceased
Ranbir Singh was apprehended and he had disclosed this fact
to the police officials. There is no other way for the police
officials to know this fact within half an hour of the incident,
except deceased Ranbir Singh, having been apprehended, and
disclosing the fact. For that, prosecution has examined Arun
Kumar Jain, who was working as Assistant Manager in Jain
S C No.01/11 42/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
43/139
-43-
Dharamshala, Dehradun in July 2009 and deposed that on
03.07.2009, around 1.30 (noon), 8 to 10 police personnels
came, enquired about room no.9, went there accompanied by
PW-3 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, a guard, broken open the lock of
room no.9, then went to flat no.9, broken open the lock of the
same and deposed that later on, he came to know that some bag
was taken away by the police personnels, as told by the guard.
The witness has also deposed that from the record, he came to
know that one boy named Ranbir was staying in flat no.9.
50. Another witness Ram Kumar Garg (PW-2) who
was also working in Jain Dharamshala, Dehradun deposed that
on 02.07.2009, flat no.9 in Jain Dharamshala was alloted to
Ranbir Singh, alongwith his two companions and on that day,
when he reached for duty around 1.20-1.25 P.M (noon), 8 to 10
police personnels had come there, enquired about the
accommodation no.9, PW-3 Jagdish Prasad Gairola,
Chawkidar was sent by PW-1 Arun Kumar Jain. PW-2 Ram
Kumar also deposed that they first broke the lock of room no.9
then broke the lock of flat no.9 and then from flat no.9, had
taken away one bag as told to him by Chawkidar Bhagwan
S C No.01/11 43/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
44/139
-44-
Singh.
51. PW-3 is Jagdish Prasad Gairola, who was working
as guard in Jain Dharamshala and deposed that on 03.07.2009,
he accompanied police personnels, who had reached Jain
Dharamshala. The police personnels were first taken by him to
room no.9 of which lock was broken by police officials, then
they went to flat no.9.
52. PW-4 Satender Jain, Manager of Jain
Dharamshala, Dehradun has testified that on 03.07.2009 while
he had gone to his house at about 1.00 P.M, he received a
telephonic call from PW-1 Arun Kumar Jain at about 1.30
P.M, who informed him about police personnels having
broken open the lock of room no.9 and proceeding towards flat
no.9 on 2 nd floor. PW-4 Satender Jain instructed PW-1, Arun
Kumar Jain to inform the Secretary of Dharamshala, Sh.
Praveen Kumar Jain. PW-4 deposed that Ranbir Singh, was
staying alongwith his two companions in flat no.9 and room
no.9 was allotted to one Dr. Bisht, who has been examined in
the case as PW-7. PW-4 deposed that after Dr. Bisht returned
to Dharamshala at about 3.00 P.M, and on being told that lock
S C No.01/11 44/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
45/139
-45-
had been broken by police personnels, he called at telephone
number 100. Some police officials came to Dharamshala and
met Dr. Bisht. PW-4 Satender Jain has proved the slip
Ex.PW4/B filled up by the visitor to Dharamshala for stay and
also proved the receipt Ex.PW4/C in the name of Ranbir
Singh. Daily summary for the date 02.07.2009, computer
generated printout Ex.PW4/D having the particulars of Ranbir,
has also been proved. PW-4 Satender Jain also proved the
diary maintained at the counter of Jain Dharamshala as
Ex.PW4/E having two mobile numbers written alongwith the
name of Ajit, Dalanwala Thana. PW-4 Satender Jain also
deposed that two mobile telephone numbers were written by
the police personnels in the diary of Dharamshala, which have
been proved by the witness as written in encircled portion
Ex.PW4/F.
53. PW-5 is Bhagwan Singh, also another Chawkidar
in Jain Dharamshala and has deposed as regard the police
personnels visiting Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.2009 and
deposed that he had seen four police personnels going through
the main gate, taking a red colour bag with them.
S C No.01/11 45/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
46/139
-46-
54. PW-6 Than Bahadur Kshetria was also working
with Jain Dharamshala. PW-6 deposed that on 03.07.2009, he
was working as guard in Jain Dharamshala and at about 1.30
P.M, he had seen 8 to 10 police personnels going out of
Dharamshala from the gate of Dharamshala to a gypsy.
55. PW-7 is Dr. Raje Singh Bisht, who was staying in
room no.9 of Jain Dharamshala on 03.07.2009. PW-7 deposed
that he returned to Dharamshala between 2.30 to 3.00 P.M on
03.07.2009 and found lock of his room broken and his luggage
including his clothes, scattered in the room. PW-7 Raje Singh
Bisht deposed that on inquiry, he was told by the Dharamshala
staff that some police personnels had come and had broken the
lock of room and thrown away the luggage in room no.9.
PW-7 also deposed that he gave a call at number 100 and had
also given a call to SSP, Dehradun and had talked to his Steno
as SSP had gone to his house for lunch. Thereafter, one SI and
3 constables had come and met PW-7 Dr. Raje Singh Bisht.
56. PW-8 is Praveen Jain, who was the Secretary of
Digambar Jain Panchayat Mandir Awam Jain Bhawan (Jain
Dharamshala) and has deposed that on 03.07.2009 at about
S C No.01/11 46/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
47/139
-47-
1.30 noon, he had received a telephonic call from Arun Jain,
Assistant Manager (PW-1) about police personnels reaching
Jain Dharamshala. PW-8 further deposed that after reaching
Dharamshala, he found 7/8 police personnels present and he
inquired from them why the lock of room no.9 had been
broken. PW-8, Praveen Jain also deposed that he had an
argument with the police officials and inquired from them as to
what had happened with the occupier of the room, to which the
police officials replied that they were leaving and whatever the
witness can do, should do. The witness was also cross-
examined on behalf of the prosecution, as he did not support
the case of the prosecution beyond that and also in cross-
examination stated that they had been informed by the local
police, prior to the visit of President of India to Dehradun City,
that some rooms were required in the Dharamshala for security
purpose.
57. Both A-1, Santosh Kumar Jaiswal and A-7 Ct. Ajit
Singh, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 CrPC,
has taken the stand that mobile numbers and his name etc.
were written by A-7, Ajit Singh in the diary of Jain
S C No.01/11 47/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
48/139
-48-
Dharamshala, Ex. PW-4/E not on 03.07.09, but A-7 Ct. Ajit
Singh was sent to Jain Dharamshala by A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, 2/3
days prior to 03.07.09 for making reservations in Jain
Dharamshala for staying of police force in Jain Dharamshala
on 03.07.09, which was to reach Dehradun for arrangements
relating to visit of the President of India to Dehradun on
03.07.09. A-1 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, had also taken the stand
in his statement that he had also requested Mr. Praveen Kumar
Jain, Secretary of Jain Dharamshala to book 2/3 rooms for stay
of police force in Jain Dharamshala. Praveen Kumar Jain has
been examined as PW-8, and it has been argued on behalf of
accused persons that PW-8 Praveen Kumar Jain in his cross-
examination had stated that police personnels had in fact came
to him for booking of rooms on 03.07.09, when he was sitting
in his chamber in Jain Dharamshala, and he had told them to
write their mobile phone numbers in the diary, for availability
of the rooms on respective dates. Otherwise, witnesses had
deposed that they were not making advance bookings for stay
in the Jain Dharamshala. From the witnesses examined being
the persons working at Jain Dharamshala, and its officials as
S C No.01/11 48/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
49/139
-49-
well as PW-7, Dr. Raje Singh Bisht, who had stayed at Jain
Dharamshala on 03.07.09, and lock of whose room was also
broken by the police officials, it is proved conclusively that it
was on 03.07.09 that the police personnels had come to Jain
Dharamshala, and it was on 03.07.09, when the mobile
numbers in the diary of Jain Dharamshala, which are in
encircled portion Ex. PW-4/F in the diary Ex. PW-4/E, were
written by A-7 Ajit Singh, and not on any other day, and it is a
make believe story of A-7 Ajit Singh, visiting Jain
Dharamshala, 2/3 days earlier to 03.07.2009, at the instructions
of A-1, S.K. Jaiswal.
58. Further, as per the transcript of the voice file
B0000220090703130557, Ex. PW-23/B, it was a call made
from City Control Room by Smt. Ganga Yadav to Police
Station, Dalanwala by A-18 Manoj Kumar, and it was
informed by A-18 Manoj Kumar that he had noted the
information and Inspector( A-1 S.K. Jaiswal), Incharge,
Aaraghar Post as well as Cheetah-VI, are reaching the place of
incident( Mohini Road near Gurudwara).
59. A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, in his statement recorded under
S C No.01/11 49/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
50/139
-50-
Section 313 CrPC has also taken the stand that on 03.07.09 at
about 12.55 P.M, he was near Welham Boys School on Laxmi
Road in Dehradun City, when he received the information
from City Control Room, and he rushed to Mohini Road near
Gurudwara. A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, further took the stand that
neither he nor the driver (A-15, Mohan Singh Rana)were
familiar with the colonies road, for reaching Gurudwara on
Mohini Road from Laxmi Road and when they ultimately
reached crossing of Mohini and Laxmi Road, they found 4 or 5
persons standing there. A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, further stated that he
had conveyed the information received by him to CO Ajay
Singh telling him that he was rushing to the place of incident.
In short, A-1 S.K. Jaiswal, has stated that by the time, he
reached the place of incident, the Badmash were told to had
run away from the place of incident and A-2 G.D. Bhatt, had
been taken on motorcycle, by someone.
60. There is one entry in the log book of City Control
Room recorded at 13.15 PM being Q-4 in Ex. PW-16/B, which
is in the handwriting of A-17, Jaspal Singh Gosain, who was
posted as Head Operator( Constable) in City Control Room on
S C No.01/11 50/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
51/139
-51-
03.07.09. The entry had been proved by PW-16 Mahesh Arya
of City Control Room, also posted as Head Operator. Another
witness is PW-22 HC Narender Kumar, who was posted at
City Control Room Wireless Section, as Radio Transmitter on
03.07.09. The writing at Q-4 on back page of Ex. PW-16/B
was examined by PW-110 R.S. Rana, Scientist at CFSL Unit,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, and he had proved his report Ex.
PW-110/B to the effect that the portion Q-4 at back page of Ex.
PW-16/B, had been inserted later on. The entry being in the
handwriting of A-17 Jaspal Singh Gosain, is not disputed by
him, but it is stated that entry was made on 03.07.09 at 1.15
P.M., as per the information received, regarding checking of
motorcycle no. HR 06G 9093, as directed by SP City. Even
without opinion of an expert, the entry at 1.15 P.M. at Q-4 on
the back of Ex. PW-16/B, being the log book of City Control
Room, Dehradun dated 03.07.09, it is clear with naked eye,
that entry has been made later on and the entry has been made
for a purpose. It makes no difference, if other entries recorded
at 1.20 PM on 03.07.09, and subsequent to that also speaks for
continuation of the checking to apprehend the miscreant, since
S C No.01/11 51/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
52/139
-52-
the information recorded at 1.20 PM, is the one having been
received from T-5(A-1 S.K. Jaiswal), and he had informed
City Control Room that checking is to continue, as per the
direction of SP City(Panther). If the information received from
SP City has already been recorded in the log book of City
Control Room at 1.15 PM, there was no question of further
information through T-5(A-1 S.K. Jaiswal) that checking shall
continue, which was to continue even otherwise, if the
information recorded at 1.15 PM, being Q-4, on the reverse
page of Ex. PW-16/B was correct and had been received from
S.P City.
61. The entry recorded in General Diary of Police
Station Dalanwala dated 03.07.09 vide entry number 29 at
13.20 hours ( cuttings and overwriting) Ex.PW64/E-4, it is
stated that the person brought by Cheetah-VI, was Ct.
Karunesh, was having a service revolver, and on this, SHO
immediately gave the intimation to City Control room as well
as to senior officers, and then, SP City gave the directions to
continue the checking. Directions from SP City to that effect
are already recorded at 1.15 PM being Q-4( Ex. PW-16/B) in
S C No.01/11 52/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
53/139
-53-
the log book of City Control Room, and another entry at 1.20
PM of the information being received from SHO, P.S.
Dalanwala, A-1 S.K. Jaiswal. Thus, the entry being Q-4 in Ex.
PW-16/B, being the log book of City Control Room dated
03.07.09, is a manipulated entry and circumstances points to
nothing else. Also, as per entry Ex. PW-64/E-4 being the entry
in General Diary of P.S. Dalanwala dated 03.07.09, Ct.
Karunesh was having a service revolver whereas in fact as
deposed by PW-68 Rajender Singh Negi, he was issued only a
rifle, and no effort was made to ascertain whether the revolver
in case, Ct. Karunesh was carrying, was the service revolver,
had been issued to him, particularly, when it is the case of the
local police as well as the defence of the accused persons that
he was apprehended, as a suspect of the incident of Mohini
Road and was taken to police station, Dalanwala by officials
on duty at Cheetah-VI, being the motorcycle riders.
62. DW-16, Ct.Paras Mani, examined on behalf of
A-1 to A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17 and A-18 has proved that the
entry Ex.DW16/B was recorded by him, as per the information
given to him by SO, Nehru Colony, Rajesh Bisht, and it was
S C No.01/11 53/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
54/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
55/139
-55-
alongwith his associates.
64. Postmortem in the matter was conducted by a
panel of two doctors, being PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola and PW-92
Dr. Anil Arya. PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola has proved the
postmortem report Ex.PW92/A, which was also proved by
PW-92 Dr. Anil Arya, and as per the external examination of
the body of deceased, following injuries were noticed-
External injuries -
1. lacerated wound size 2 X 1.5 cms on left side of chin.
2. Abrasion size 4 cm X 1.5 cm on front of chest.
3. Abrasion size 2 cm X 1 cm on right shoulder 10 cm below
acromion.
4. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on right side of chest 9 cm
below supra sternal notch margins inverted, blackening
present.
5. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left side of chest 10 cm
above sub costal margins inverted, blackening present.
6. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 4 cm
below injury no.5 margins inverted, blackening present.
7. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 4 cm
S C No.01/11 55/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
56/139
-56-
below injury no.6 margins inverted, blackening present.
8. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of chest 7 cm
above left nipple margins inverted, blackening present.
9. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left arm medially 10 cm
below shoulder margins inverted, blackening present.
10. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm in upper part of left arm 4
cm lateral to injury no.9 margins inverted, blackening present.
11. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm on left side of abdomen in
lumber area 5 cm above iliac crest margins inverted,
blackening present.
12. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on thigh upper part left
side just medial border of iliac crest inverted margins,
blackening present.
13. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on left thigh mid part
medially margins inverted, blackening present.
14. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on mid of left thigh
medially margins inverted, blackening present.
15. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm in left thigh 2 cm lateral to
injury no.14 margins inverted, blackening present.
16. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left thigh 3 cm above
S C No.01/11 56/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
57/139
-57-
knee joint inverted margins, blackening present.
17. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X .5 cm 4 cm lateral to injury no.
16 margins inverted, blackening present.
18. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on left forearm 9 cm
above wrist joint.
19. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on right side of abdomen
in lumber area 9 cm above iliac crest.
20. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back of left knee joint
in popliteal fossa margins inverted, blackening present.
21. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on back of lower part of
left thigh margins inverted, blackening present.
22. Abrasion size 3 cm X 2 cm on back of upper part of left leg.
23. Abrasion size 2 cm X 1 cm on left side of wrist at the base of
left thumb.
24. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on left side of chest
margins everted.
25. Lacerated wound size 1 cm X 1 cm on back at lumber area 14
cm above margin of sacrum margins everted.
26. Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 1 cm on back of lower part 1 cm
below injury no.25 everted margins.
S C No.01/11 57/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
58/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
59/139
-59-
the lower lobe of the size of 3 cm X 2 cm and 3 cm deep.
Heart was normal and peritoneum was torn at places.
Abdominal cavity was full of blood. The stomach was filled
with some semi solid digested food about 500 ml.
There was rupture of right lobe of liver size 10 cm X 6 cm and
left side 2 cm X 2 cm.
There was a laceration on left kidney size 2 cm X 2 cm. Right
kidney was normal.
The cause of death has been given by the doctors as shock and
hemorrhage, caused by the injuries to the vital organs as a result of
fire arms.
66. It has been argued on behalf of accused persons
that postmortem on the body was suggesting that encounter
was genuine and is based on the deposition of PW-86 to the
effect that kind of injury no.13 is possible only in a situation
when the subject is moving and the injury of joint, no.9 would
be caused only when the arm is stretched. Defence is drawing
the conclusion that manner of receiving injury no.9 and 13
clearly suggest that deceased Ranbir Singh was moving and
was having his arms stretched forward for firing at the police
S C No.01/11 59/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
60/139
-60-
team. No one has deposed as regard the manner in which the
injuries were received by the deceased and once, it is proved
from the uncontroverted circumstances that deceased Ranbir
Singh had been apprehended by the police from Mohini Road,
no inference can be drawn from the kind of injuries, being
injury no.9 and 13, received by the deceased. Further, defence
has relied upon deposition of PW-81 Bimla Gunjial, Addl.SP
of CB-CID, Dehradun by whom the investigation was
conducted initially that in site plan Ex.PW81/L, Point-1 was
written, after she had made the observation to the effect that
there were marks of bullets on a teak tree and defense has
argued that such mark on tree is possible, only in cross fire.
No such inference can be drawn, in the circumstances of the
case. It was also argued on behalf of accused persons, that it
was only a Class-IV employee who had conducted the
postmortem instead of doctors and it is only because PW-86 in
his cross examination stated that it was the attendant, who told
him that track of projectile could not be found or that incision
was given by the Class-IV employee, but it has been deposed
by PW-92, that same was being done as per the directions of
S C No.01/11 60/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
61/139
-61-
the doctors. It was also argued on behalf of the accused
persons that there had been a random numbering of the injuries
done by the doctors, which might have resulted in counting of
an injury again and again, thus showing large number of
injuries on the body of deceased. It was also argued that there
were about 8 injuries mentioned in the sketch Ex.PW38/A
prepared on the spot after PW-38 D.M. Unial, the Tehsildar
and Magistrate, reached there, whereas 28 injuries were
shown in the postmortem report Ex.PW92/A. Certain other
discrepancies have been pointed out as regard the number of
holes in the clothes which were not matching the injuries on
the body of the deceased. It was also argued, as admitted by
PW-86 in cross examination, that body tissues and skin
surrounding the wound was not taken, the residue surrounding
the injury was not preserved for chemical examination and that
the blackening which was residue deposit, could not be seen by
naked eye and instead is sent to lab after scrapping the same,
which was not done. On behalf of defense, it was also argued
that PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola also admitted in his cross
examination that a medical expert is a competent person to find
S C No.01/11 61/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
62/139
-62-
the track and not a ballistic expert and that only a medical
doctor can tell the impact or influx of foreign substance like
gun shots, splinters, any other projectile and also stated in
cross examination that he cannot tell if the bullet recovered,
were from rifled one or of smooth bore. It was also argued on
behalf of defense that PW-86 Dr. Ajit Gairola stated that he
was not aware if black powder was used for smooth barrel
weapon and in rifled weapon, smokeless powder was used, and
was also not in a position to comment on a suggestion that in
case of close range, carboxyhaemoglobin in the soft tissues in
and around the wound of entrance is suggestive and was also
not able to tell if any carboxyhemoglobin in the soft tissue was
found. It was also argued that it was a false report prepared by
the doctors without examining the body and there was also
lack of competence and skill in the doctors performing the
postmortem. It was also argued that despite directions by
PW-38 Dinesh Mohan Unial, the Tehsildar, who had reached
the spot, vide memo Ex.PW38/A, no video recording at the
time of postmortem was done. As per Ex.PW38/A, PW-38
D.M.Unial had only sought the permission from the doctors
S C No.01/11 62/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
63/139
-63-
conducting the postmortem, to allow videography, while the
postmortem was conducted by the doctors. No arrangements
were made by the administration or the local police to get the
postmortem videographed and same is clear from the
deposition of PW-77 Ct. Gopal Gyansu. PW-77 Ct. Gopal
Gyansu had gone to Chander Nagar mortuary for maintaining
law and order as postmortem of deceased Ranbir Singh was
being conducted there and he was asked by CO, Sh. Girish
Chand Tamta, as deposed by him, to perform the job of video
recording. PW-77 deposed that he was able to record the
postmortem a little bit, and he was forced to leave the place as
the persons who had gathered there, had entered the
postmortem room. As per the injuries noticed by PW-38
D.M.Unial, recorded vide sketch Ex.PW38/D, there were two
injuries on the left chest and five injuries on left leg apart from
some abrasions on right arm. It was argued on behalf of
accused persons that despite glaring discrepancies in the
number of injuries, as per sketch Ex.PW38/D, where 8 injuries
were mentioned and postmortem report Ex.PW92/A where 28
injuries were noticed by the doctors, neither IO was contacted
S C No.01/11 63/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
64/139
-64-
nor crime scene was visited by the doctors, conducting the
postmortem. Merely because the panch witnesses being
PW-33 Dinesh Kaemwal, PW-34 Akash Kumar Bhaskar,
PW-35 Vipin Dabaral, PW-36 Kapil Vohra, PW-37 Rajesh
Kumar apart from PW-38 Dinesh Mohan Unial, have deposed
as to the correctness of Panchnama Ex.PW33/A written by
PW-73, SI Kushal Pal Singh on the dictation of PW-38
D.M.Unial, there is no reason to question the postmortem
report Ex.PW92/A, as same had to be considered in the light of
charged situation, on 03.07.2009. PW-38 has deposed that he
had reached the place of incident in Ladpur forest after
receiving a call from his ADM at about 4.00 P.M. on 03.07.09 .
Press Reporter and villagers were there. There was a crowd.
It was a forest area. There is nothing on the record to suggest
that someone, after the Panchnama had been prepared and the
body sealed as per the instructions of PW-38 D.M.Unial, had
caused additional injuries on the body of the deceased and
there is no reason for that. CBI was no where in the picture by
then and even investigation was not entrusted to CB-CID. It
was with PS Raipur, till the time postmortem was conducted
S C No.01/11 64/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
65/139
-65-
on 04.07.2009.
67. Even otherwise, postmortem is relevant only to
the extent, that a large number of injuries and the nature of
injuries shows that it was a case of indiscriminate firing on the
deceased resulting in large number of injuries. It is not in
dispute that deceased Rajbir Singh died and was killed because
of being shot, repeatedly. It was only a piece of corroborative
evidence and by itself, cannot be conclusive proof whether or
not, it was a genuine encounter.
68. It was argued on behalf of accused persons that no
TIP was conducted in the matter to identify the police officials
who had gone at Mohini road spot near Gurudwara, Dehradun
to prove the fact that a boy was brought by them from there
and also to identify the police personnels who had gone to Jain
Dharamshala. Not holding of the TIP in the case cannot be held
to be fatal to the case of prosecution, as identity of the accused
persons, is established from other facts and evidence on record.
69. Prosecution has also relied upon the Call Details
Records relating to the mobile numbers of the accused persons,
which showed their locations at different times on 03.07.09.
S C No.01/11 65/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
66/139
-66-
PW-18 Ranjeet Kumar has proved the chart Ex. PW-18/A, in
regard to the location of four spot namely Mohini Road spot,
PS Dalanwala spot, Jain Dharamshala spot and Ladpur
encounter spot, which was downloaded by him from Google
earth. The witness has testified that each place as per the chart,
is covered by major signals of which tower of BSNL, deposing
that tower is divided into three sectors, which are either named
as 1,2 and 3 or A B and C. PW-21 Dinesh Kumar Sahay of
BSNL, Indira Nagar, Dehradun, has deposed as regard the Call
Details Records of 17 mobile numbers, which were certified by
SDE Neeraj Gautam, and had been handed over to CBI vide
covering letter dated 27.09.09, signed by SDE Neeraj Gautam.
Witness has proved the forwarding letter Ex. PW-21/A. SDE
Neeraj Gautam, himself was also examined on behalf of the
prosecution as PW-119. Another witness examined is PW-85
Rajeev Singh, Chief Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, Lucknow,
U.P, who has testified as regard the attested hard copies of
several mobile numbers and Consumer Application Form,
which were sent to CBI vide letter dated 17.12.2009 Ex.
PW-85/A, and has proved the same as Ex. PW-85/B-1 to Ex.
S C No.01/11 66/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
67/139
-67-
PW-85/B-121. It was argued on behalf of the accused persons
that PW-119, Neeraj Gautam, Jr. SDE at BSNL at the relevant
time, has deposed that server was in Chandigarh, and he had
the access to the Tracia system in his official capacity,
admitting that it was possible that certain informations were
not there in the Call Details Records. It is argued that PW-119,
was not exclusive custodian of the data and others were also
having access to the said data, and so, the authenticity of CDR
Ex. PW-21/B-1 to Ex. PW-21/B-30, was doubtful. It was also
argued on behalf of the accused persons that there was no
Certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act,
and reliance in this case was placed on a case decided by
Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Rakesh Kumar & Ors.
Vs. State 1V(2009) DLT (CRL) 353 DB , wherein it was held
by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the Call Details Records
could not have been proved by any of the modes prescribed
under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. It was further held by
Hon'ble High Court that admittedly, no Certificate in terms of
Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act has been issued in the
present case. It was also held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
S C No.01/11 67/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
68/139
-68-
the said case that irrespective of the compliance of
requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, there was no
bar to adduce secondary evidence under the provisions of
Evidence Act, namely Sections 63 and 65. In the present
proceedings also, the call records have not been proved in
terms of Section 63 or Section 65B (2) or Section 65B(4) of
the Evidence Act, and as such, it is held that prosecution has
not been able to prove the call records. Section 65B (2) of the
Evidence Act provides the conditions for making a document
being paper print out of electronic records stored in an optical
or magnetic media produced by a computer and reads as under:
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section(1) inrespect of a computer output shall be the followingnamely:- (a) The computer output containing theinformation was produced by the computer during theperiod over which the computer was used regularly to storeor process information for the purposes of any activitiesregularly carried on over that period by the person having
lawful control over the used of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of thekind contained in the electronic record or of the kind fromwhich the information so contained is derived was regularlyfed into the computer in the ordinary course of the saidactivities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period,the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in
S C No.01/11 68/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
69/139
-69-
respect of any period in which it was not operating properlyor was out of operation during that part of the period, wasnot such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy ofits contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronicrecord reproduces or is derived from such information fedinto the computer in the ordinary course of the saidactivities.
Sub-section (5) of Section 65B provides thatinformations shall be taken to be supplied to a computer by
means of an appropriate equipment, in the course of normal
activities intending to store or process it in the course of
activities and a computer output is produced, be it whether
directly or by means of appropriate equipment. It was also held
by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar's case(supra)
that Sub-section (4) of Section 65B provides for an alternative
method to prove electronic record. Sub-section (4) allows the
proof of the conditions set out in Sub-section (2) by means of a
certificate, issued by the person described in Sub-section (4)
and certifying contents in the manner set out in the Sub-
section. It was further held that the sub-section makes
admissible an electronic record when certified that the contents
of a computer print out are generated by a computer satisfying
S C No.01/11 69/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
70/139
-70-
the conditions of Sub-section (1), the certificate being signed
by the person described therein.
70. Similar is the position as regard the Global
Positioning System evidence recording which has been
produced on behalf of the prosecution on the basis of location
of the vehicles used by the accused persons on 03.07.09. First
witness is PW-17 Ashwani Raturi, who was posted at City
Control Room, Dehradun, and was an employee of HCL.
PW-17 Ashwani Raturi has deposed that he was maintaining
the Global Positioning System installed in police vehicles and
Voice Logger System installed in the City Control Room. The
witness has proved the seizure memo dated 02.08.09 through
which the documents were seized by CBI. Vehicle history of
vehicle T-5(A-1, S.K. Jaiswal, SHO, P.S.Dalanwala), has been
proved by the witness as Ex. PW-17/B, identifying signature of
one witness Mr. Martulaya. Similarly, vehicle history of
vehicle T-6( relating to P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun) on
03.07.09, identifying signature of Mr. Martulaya, has been
proved as Ex. PW-17/D. Similarly, vehicle history in respect of
vehicle T-5 has been proved by the witness(running into 124
S C No.01/11 70/139
-
8/12/2019 RanbirSingh Uttarakhand Fake Encounter Case Judgement
71/139
-71-
sheets) Ex. PW-17/F and Ex. PW-17/G, and that in respect of
vehicle T-6 as Ex. PW-17/E, running into 6 sheets. Call details
of