{"id":882,"date":"2010-01-18T10:36:32","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T05:06:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/332-1998\/"},"modified":"2010-01-18T10:36:32","modified_gmt":"2010-01-18T05:06:32","slug":"332-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/332-1998\/","title":{"rendered":"False case and Damage"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0Criminal Appeal No. 332-DB of 1998 and Criminal Misc. No.35100 of 2009<\/p>\n

\u00a0 Dated of Decision:- September 23,2009<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 Nachhattar Singh alias Khanda and others ….APPELLANTS\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 VERSUS<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 State of Punjab ….RESPONDENT\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

CORAM<\/strong>: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN<\/p>\n

\u00a0Present<\/strong>:- Sh.Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the appellants.\u00a0 Sh. Satinder Singh Gill,Addl. A.G. Punjab.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sh. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G.Haryana (Amicus Curiae). Sh. K.S.Dadwal,Addl. A.G.Punjab.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sh. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for Amar Singh, respondent No.2 and Sukhdev Singh respondent No.7.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sh. H.R.Nauhria, Advocate for Mukhtiar Singh resp. No.4, Karnail Singh respondent No.5, Jangir Singh respondent No.6, and Surjit Ram respondent No.8.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sh. Puran singh Hundal, Sr. Advocate with<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sh. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for Sarabjit Rai respondent No.10.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sh. Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for DSP Darshan Singh. Sh. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for Madan Gopal SP. Sh. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for National Human Rights Commission.
\n\u00a0This is an appeal against the judgment dated 18.7.1998 of the\u00a0 learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby he convicted Nachhattar\u00a0 Singh alias Khanda son of Bant Singh, Sira alias Jagsir Singh son of\u00a0 Nachhattar Singh, Amarjit Singh son of Kaula Singh, Nikka Singh son of\u00a0 Bawa Singh, Surjit Singh son of Jang Singh under Sections 364\/302,\u00a0 148\/149,201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo\u00a0 rigorous imprisonment for\u00a0 five years, RI for life, R.I. for one year and R.I.for five years respectively.\u00a0 Further they were directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- each under Sections\u00a0 302 and 201 IPC, in default to undergo three months R.I.\u00a0 During the pendency of the appeal, Seera alias Jagsir Singh son\u00a0 of Nachhattar Singh died allegedly by committing suicide, after he had been released on bail. Appeal against him thus abated.\u00a0 We will be deciding both Criminal Appeal No.332-DB of 1998\u00a0 and Crl. Misc. No.35100 of 2009 by a common order, as they are co-\u00a0 related.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nachhattar Singh alias Khanda and Jagsir Singh alias Sira\u00a0 were
\nalso convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to undergo five\u00a0 years
\nR.I.and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-, in default to further undergo R.I.\u00a0 for
\nthree months. All the sentences were to run concurrently.\u00a0 The case of the
\nprosecution is unfolded by the statement of\u00a0 Sukhdev Singh PW7 son of Bhag
\nSingh, resident of Village Tallewal given\u00a0 to SI Sarabjit Rai PW14.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sukhdev Singh stated, that he is an agriculturist and lives in Village Tallewal. He has three children. Jagseer Singh @ Sira is his elder son, Sukhdev Singh is younger to him and has a daughter, who is elder to\u00a0 both
\nhis sons. All are married. He has 12 acres of land, out of which 8\u00a0 acres was
\ngiven on lease to the Sarpanch of their village Nachhattar Singh\u00a0 @ Khanda son
\nof Bant Singh for one year. Nachhattar Singh did not pay\u00a0 the lease money. He
\nand Jagseer Singh demanded the money many times,\u00a0 but Nachhattar Singh refused
\nto pay. Jagseer Singh then asked Nachhattar\u00a0 Singh to either pay the money or
\nvacate the land so that they could lease the\u00a0 land to someone else. Nachhattar
\nSingh started abusing them and stated,\u00a0 that he will not pay the money and also
\nwill not vacate the land. On 5.6.96,\u00a0 Sukhdev Singh along with his son Jagseer
\nSingh and his daughter Sito were\u00a0 present in their house, at about 7.00 p.m.,
\nNachhattar Singh and his son\u00a0 Seera Singh came to his house and in their
\npresence asked Jagseer Singh to\u00a0 accompany them to their house and they would
\npay the lease money.\u00a0 Jagseer Singh went with them. Jagseer Singh did not
\nreturn. Sukhdev Singh\u00a0 went to the house of Sarpanch Nachhattar Singh and
\nenquired about Jagseer\u00a0 Singh from Nachhattar Singh’s wife. She stated, that
\nJagseer Singh was not\u00a0 present in the house and he had gone away. Statement of
\nSukhdev Singh\u00a0 was recorded by SI\/SHO Sarabjit Rai on 11.6.96. Sukhdev Singh
\nfurther\u00a0 stated, that he has apprehension that his son had been kidnapped by
\nNachhattar Singh and his son Seera Singh with an intention to murder him.\u00a0 The
\nmotive for the commission of the offence was that Jagseer Singh used\u00a0 to demand
\nthe lease money of their land from Nachhattar Singh, which was\u00a0 not liked by
\nhim. Jagseer Singh had told them to vacate the land. Sarpanch\u00a0 Nachhattar Singh
\nfelt offended.<\/p>\n

\u00a0On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PE was recorded on\u00a0 11.6.96 at 11.20
\na.m. at Police Station Bhadaur and the special report\u00a0 reached the J.M.I.C.,
\nBarnala, on the same day at 5.30 p.m.\u00a0 The prosecution to prove its case brought
\ninto the witness box,\u00a0 Dr. Krishan Gopal PW1, Amar Singh PW2, Gurdev Singh PW3,
\nMukhtiar\u00a0 Singh PW4, Karnail Singh PW5, Jangir Singh PW6, Sukhdev Singh PW7,
\nSurjit Kaur PW8, Bikkar Singh PW9, Harcharanjit Singh PW10, Chamkaur\u00a0 Singh
\nPW11, HC Ajaib Singh PW12, ASI Darshan Singh PW13, SI Sarabjit\u00a0 Rai PW14, C.
\nDavinder Pal Singh PW15 and Sukhvinder Pal Singh PW16.\u00a0 During the course of
\narguments when the case came up for\u00a0 hearing, Sh. Vinod Ghai, learned counsel
\nfor the appellants moved Crl.\u00a0 Misc. No.35100 of 2009. It was stated in the
\napplication that Jagseer Singh\u00a0 son of Sukhdev Singh is not dead, he is alive
\nand a false and fabricated case\u00a0 has been registered against the appellants,
\nwhich led to their conviction.\u00a0 Appellants had pleaded before the investigation
\nofficer and the police that\u00a0 they were innocent.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Before proceeding with the case, we held an enquiry to verify\u00a0 as
\nto whether Jagseer Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Village\u00a0 Tallewal, was
\nalive or dead. We were told that he was lodged in Ludhiana\u00a0 jail in FIR No.171
\nof 2008 Police Station Raikot. He was summoned to this\u00a0 Court. On his appearance
\nin Court, he prayed that a counsel be appointed to\u00a0 assist him. We appointed Sh.
\nS.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G. Haryana as Amicus\u00a0 Curiae. We sent him back to Judicial
\nlock up for a few days so that he could\u00a0 think over the matter.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Before recording Jagseer Singh’s statement, Sh. Randhawa\u00a0 stated,
\nthat he had explained all the legal pros and cons to Jagsir Singh son of Sukhdev Singh and also advised him to state nothing but the truth.
\nThereafter Jagsir Singh’s statement was recorded in Punjabi language, not\u00a0 on
\noath, which was read over and explained to him and he signed it, in\u00a0 token of
\nits correctness.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jagsir Singh stated that he was Jagseer Singh son of Sukhdev
\nSingh, resident of Village Tallewal. His statement reads as under: –\u00a0 ” I know
\naccused Nachattar Singh, Jagsir Singh @ Sira, Amarjit Singh, Nikka Singh and
\nSurjit Singh and they belong to my village. Our land was leased out to Nachattar
\nSingh etc. accused persons. The land belonging to some other person was also
\nsituated along with this land and this land was also leased out. Jagsir Singh @
\nSira called me at about 7 O’ clock and took me away from my house. Thereafter, I
\nwent to my fields along with Jagsir Singh etc. Jagsir Singh asked me to start
\nthe motor. That is why, I accompanied them. When I went to the fields alongwith
\nthem, then a quarrel took place with Jagsir Singh etc. on the issue of
\nirrigating the fields. When the accused persons namely Nachattar Singh, Nikka
\nsingh, Jagsir Singh and Amarjit Singh and other 2-3 persons who are not known to
\nme, started giving me beatings, then I ran away and went to Barnala. I remained
\nunderground there for 1\/2 days. Thereafter I started working with trucks and
\ncontinued working there for 5-6 years. I stayed at Village Dhanas, near
\nChandigarh for three years and went to Seonk for one year. During my stay for
\n12-13 years outside my house, I could not contact my parents and I did not go to
\nmy village. During this period, I could not contact any person of the village
\nnor I could meet any of my relative. I even do not know that a false case of
\nmurder has been foisted against Nachattar Singh etc.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The name of my father is Sukhdev Singh and the name of my
\nmother is Gurdev Kaur. I have four maternal uncles whose names are Jeet Singh,
\nGurdev Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Baaru. I do not know Karnail Singh son of Jagir Singh. I also do not know
\nJagir Singh son of Harnam Singh, who is a resident of Bhadaur.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dated 8.9.09 R.O.& A.C. Signed Jagsir Singh in Punjabi.”<\/p>\n

\u00a0From the statement of Jagsir Singh, we were convinced that he\u00a0 is the same
\nperson for the murder of whom the appellants have been\u00a0 convicted for committing
\nhis murder. None of the respondents arrayed in\u00a0 Crl. Misc. No.35100 of 2009
\ncontradicted the statement that the person in\u00a0 Court, is not Jagsir Singh son of
\nSukhdev Singh r\/o village Tallewal, nor\u00a0 any prosecution witness contradicted
\nthe statement.\u00a0 Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that Jagsir Singh
\nson of Sukhdev Singh is alive. A case FIR No.171, dated 8.12.2008, under
\nSections 420\/465\/467\/468\/471\/195\/211 read with Section 120-B IPC,\u00a0 Police
\nStation Raikot, Ludhiana was registered against Jagsir Singh son of\u00a0 Sukhdev
\nSingh for giving false evidence and fabricating a false lease deed\u00a0 Ex.PF. The
\ncomplainant was S.I. Gurdial Singh, SHO Police Station Raikot.\u00a0 He has further
\nargued that proceedings under Sections 82\/83 of the Cr.P.C.\u00a0 have been initiated
\nagainst Sukhdev Singh son of Bhag Singh, Surjit Kaur\u00a0 D\/o Sukhdev Singh, Gurdev
\nKaur W\/o Sukhdev Singh, Amar Singh son of\u00a0 Gurdial Singh, Karnail Singh son of
\nJangir Singh and Jangir Singh son of\u00a0 Harnam Singh which are pending before the
\nJudicial Magistrate 1st Class,\u00a0 Jagraon in this very FIR. FIR No.171 and all the
\nconsequential proceedings\u00a0 did not have any meaning and are a farce. The main
\nculprits have not been\u00a0 named in the FIR and only Jagsir Singh son of Sukhdev
\nSingh has been\u00a0 named.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Learned counsel has vehemently argued, that the statements\u00a0 given on oath in
\nCourt by Amar Singh PW2, Gurdev Singh PW3, Mukhtiar\u00a0 Singh PW4, Karnail Singh
\nPW5, Sukhdev Singh PW7, Surjit Kaur PW8,\u00a0 Bikkar Singh PW9 and the two
\nInvestigating Officers i.e. ASI Darshan\u00a0 Singh PW13 and Sarabjit Rai PW14 were
\nmade falsely to implicate the\u00a0 appellants, though these witnesses knew that
\nJagsir Singh son of Sukhdev\u00a0 Singh was alive. They have been successful having
\nthe appellants\u00a0 convicted. Because of the false and fabricated evidence brought
\nbefore the\u00a0 Court, documentary as well as oral, appellants had to undergo five
\nyears\u00a0 rigorous imprisonment for no fault of their’s. All those who gave false
\nevidence on oath be adequately punished as per law.\u00a0 Learned counsel for the
\nState has argued, that when the State\u00a0 came to know that Jagseer Singh son of
\nSukhdev Singh resident of Village\u00a0 Tallewal was alive, FIR No.171, dated
\n18.12.2008, under Sections\u00a0 420\/195\/211\/465\/467\/468\/471\/120-B IPC, Police
\nStation Raikot, District\u00a0 Ludhiana was registered against him by SI Gurdial
\nSingh, SHO, Police\u00a0 Station Raikot. Proceedings under Sections 82\/83 of the
\nCr.P.C. were\u00a0 initiated against Sukhdev Singh son of Bhag Singh, Surjit Kaur D\/o
\nSukhdev Singh, Gurdev Kaur W\/o Sukhdev Singh, Amar Singh son of\u00a0 Gurdial Singh,
\nKarnail Singh son of Jangir Singh and Jangir Singh son of\u00a0 Harnam Singh in the
\nCourt of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon.\u00a0 Exemplary punishment be
\ngiven to the prosecution witnesses and others\u00a0 who falsely implicated the
\nappellants.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused\u00a0 the
\nrecord with their assistance.<\/p>\n

\u00a0A false and fabricated case was registered against the\u00a0 appellants. Jagsir
\nSingh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Village Tallewal\u00a0 was alive when FIR
\nEx.PE under Sections 364\/201 IPC was registered\u00a0 against the appellants. Later
\non, Section 302 IPC was also added. He was\u00a0 shown to be murdered but in fact he
\nhad run away. False evidence was\u00a0 procured and a false story was built up, to
\nhave the appellants convicted\u00a0 which the complainant party was succeeded in
\ndoing so. Personal enmity\u00a0 was the sole driving force.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Going through the statements of the witnesses given in Court\u00a0 which
\nhave been reproduced as under, it is clear that the prosecution\u00a0 witnesses knew
\nthat they were stating falsehood before the learned trial\u00a0 Court with the sole
\npurpose to falsely implicate the appellants, so that they\u00a0 be convicted, which
\nthey succeeded in doing so.\u00a0 Amar Singh PW2 is the alleged eye witness to the
\noccurrence.\u00a0 He has stated on oath as under: –<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ” I found that Jagsir Singh s\/o sukhdev Singh was lying on the
\nground in a passage. I found that Nikka Singh had caught hold of his arms and
\nJagsir Singh s\/o Nachhattar Singh accused was exhorting that he should be
\nkilled. Nachhattar Singh was armed with Kasia and he inflicted a injury on the
\nback side of chest. Amarjit Singh with his gandasa inflicted an injury on his
\nneck on back side. Surjit Singh who was armed with Kasia inflicted injury on the
\nright foot. All the accused told me that in case I disclosed about this incident
\nto anybody then they shall also inflict injuries to me. On account of fear I
\nleft that place and sat at a distance of about 11\/2 Killas. Thereafter I found
\nthat they left the place of occurrence in a tractor of blue colour and one red
\ncolour cultivator was attached to it. I found on bundle lying on the
\ncultivators. After about 10 days I<\/p>\n

\u00a0suffered a statement to the police in which I narrated the incident. Out of
\nfear I did not go to the police earlier”.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gurdev Singh PW3, the real maternal
\nuncle of Jagseer Singh\u00a0 son of Sukhdev Singh allegedly identified the dead body.
\nHe has stated on\u00a0 oath as under: –<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ” Jagsir Singh deceased was the son of my sister. I alongwith
\nothers had been searching for Jagsir Singh. When we reached at village Ghareli
\nwe found that his dead body was lying in water channel. The information
\nregarding this had already been given to the police which was present at that
\nplace. I identified the dead body. I also identified the dead body at the time
\nof post-mortem examination”.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Mukhtiar Singh PW4, who has allegedly given the last seen\u00a0 account, his statement on oath is as under: –<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ” On 5.6.96 I was present at Changra Patti in my fields at about
\nmid night. I was irrigating my Narma crop. Electric bulb installed at my motor
\nwas emitting light at that time. I found one tractor of blue colour make
\nMohindra to which one cultivator was attached coming from the side of Tajoke.
\nOne bundle was lying on the cultivator. The accused present in court were on
\nthat tractor. They are known to me. It was being driven by Amarjit Singh. They
\nstopped their tractor near the Kanal minor and threw the bundle which was lying
\non the cultivator into the canal minor. All the accused returned on the same
\npassage. My statement was recorded by police”.\u00a0\u00a0 Karnail Singh PW5 has allegedly
\nstated on oath the extra\u00a0 judicial confession made by appellant Nachhattar
\nSingh, Seera @ Jagsir\u00a0 Singh and Amarjit Singh, which is as under: –<\/p>\n

\u00a0” About 7 months ago Nachhattar Singh and his son Seera and Amarjit Singh came
\nto my house at about 8 AM. Nachhattar Singh was known to me earlier. They
\ndisclosed to me that the son of Sukhdev Singh known as Seera was killed by them.
\nThey further disclosed that Nikka Singh and Surjit Singh also joined hands with
\nthem for killing him. They also told me that they had thrown his dead body in a
\nminor canal. They also narrated to me individually the facts of the crime
\nlateron. I produced all the three of them to the police”.\u00a0\u00a0 Sukhdev Singh PW7,
\nfather of Jagseer Singh, is the\u00a0 complainant. He has stated on oath as under: –
\n” Jagsir Singh deceased was my son. Sito is my daughter. I won 12 killas of land
\nat village Tallewal. I had given on lease 8 Killas of land to Nachhattar Singh
\nfor a period of one year. Two Killas of land was given to Amar Singh on share
\nbasis. No money was given by Nachhattar Singh to me. Number of times I raised
\ndemand regarding this lease money from Nachhattar Singh. My son also raised a
\ndemand from Nachhattar Singh or in the alternative he should vacate the land so
\nthat the same be given to some other person. Nachhattar Singh bore a grudge with
\nregard to this demand made by my son. He openly proclaimed that neither he would
\nvacate the land nor he would pay lease amount.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 About 11 months ago I was present at my house alongwith my daughter and my son. At about 7 P.M. Nachhattar Singh and his son Jagsir Singh @ Seera entered our house and told my son Jagsir Singh
\nthat they were ready to pay the lease money and he should accompany them. My son
\nleft with them. But he did not come back. Late in the evening I went to the
\nhouse of Nachhattar Singh and I met his wife and enquired from him as to where
\nwas Nachhatar Singh and she told that he had gone to my house. Next day I
\nsearched for my son and Nachhattar Singh and his son but they were not available. I searched
\nfor my son for about 7 days and then on 11.6.96 I lodged a report at
\nP.S.Bhadaur. My statement was recorded by police which was read over to me and
\nafter admitting it to be correct I signed the same in token of its correctness.
\nEx.PE is the carbon copy of the FIR which bears my signatures. Police
\naccompanied me to my house and recorded the statement of my daughter Sito.
\nPolice also prepared site plan of my house at my instance. While going to Sandhu
\nKalan I met Gurdev Singh alongwith police and he disclosed that in the minor
\ncanal located in the area of Ghareli one dead body is lying. We visited that
\nplace and I identify the dead body of my son. On examination of dead body I had
\nfound that he had injury on his left leg and his hair had grown grey. My son was
\naged 19 years. Writing was scribed with regard to lease of land with Nachhattar
\nSingh, which was scribed by my daughter and it was thumb-marked by me. The same
\nis Ex.PF. Nachhattar Singh also thumb-marked this writing. Again said I had
\nsigned this writing. Bikkar Singh attested it alongwith Lal Singh”.\u00a0\u00a0 Surjit
\nKaur (PW8) D\/o Sukhdev Singh has stated qua the\u00a0 motive. She is the scribe of
\nlease deed Ex.PF. She has stated on oath: –\u00a0 ” My father owns 12 Killas of land
\nout of which 8 Killas of land was leased out to Nachhattar Singh accused.
\nWriting was scribed in this regard by me and the same is Ex.PF. I identify the
\nsignatures of my father on this writing. Nachhattar Singh thumb-marked it and
\nLal Singh and Bikkar Singh attested it. No money was given by Nachhattar Singh
\nto my father. On 5.6.96 my father and my brother Jagsir Singh and myself were
\npresent at the house. At about 7 P.M. Nachhattar Singh came to our house with
\nhis son Jagsir Singh. They told my brother Jagsir Singh that they were ready to
\ngive money and he should accompany them and collect the same. My brother went with them
\nbut did not return. Search was carried out and lateron his dead body was
\nrecovered. Police visited our house and my statement was recorded”.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Bikkar Singh PW9 is the alleged attesting witness to the lease\u00a0 deed Ex.PF.
\nThis was forcibly got signed from appellant Nachhattar Singh\u00a0 in the police
\nstation. He has stated on oath as under: –\u00a0 ” A writing was scribed regarding
\nland of Sukhdev Singh in favour of Nachhattar Singh. I attested the same. It is
\nEx.PF. It was also attested by Lal Singh and thumb-marked by Nachhattar Singh”.<\/p>\n

\u00a0The two investigating officers i.e. Darshan Singh ASI PW13\u00a0 and SI Sarabjit Rai
\nPW14 arrested the appellants and planted Kasia Ex.P1\u00a0 on Nachhattar Singh,
\ngandasa Ex.P2 on Amarjit Singh, tractor Ex.P4 on\u00a0 Nikka Singh and kasia Ex.P3 on
\nSurjit Singh.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 SI Sarabjit Rai PW14 has stated on oath, that he recovered\u00a0 gandasa
\nEx.P2 from Amarjit Singh vide Recovery Memo Ex.PK\/1. He has\u00a0 further stated,
\nthat he recovered kasia Ex.P1 from Nachhattar Singh vide\u00a0 Recovery Memo Ex.PL.
\nHe recovered kasia Ex.P3 on 20.6.96 from\u00a0 appellant Surjit Singh vide Recovery
\nMemo Ex.PN. He recovered tractor\u00a0 No.PB-31-3099 on 20.6.96 vide Recovery Memo
\nEx.PO\/1. SI Sarabjit Rai\u00a0 PW14 and ASI Darshan Singh PW13 were part and parcel
\nto falsely\u00a0 implicate the appellants. They were also part of the conspiracy in
\nfalsely\u00a0 giving evidence before the learned trial Court so that appellants are
\nconvicted. Recoveries were made from appellants of weapons they never\u00a0 used.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Jagseer Singh son of Sukhdev Singh was not murdered, he was\u00a0 alive. Since he
\nwas not murdered the question of kasia ExP1, gandasa\u00a0 Ex.P2 and Kasia Ex.P3,
\nbeing used could not arise. Not only this, the\u00a0 Serologist report Ex.PX shows
\nhuman blood on kasia Ex.P1, gandasa\u00a0 Ex.P2 and kasia Ex.P3, which as per the
\nChemical Examiner report Ex.PB\u00a0 were blood-stained. From where did this human
\nblood come on the kasia\u00a0 and gandasa? Learned counsel for the appellants has
\nargued that appellants\u00a0 were tortured in Police custody and it is their blood
\nwhich has been planted\u00a0 on the weapons of offence.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the Inquest report Ex.PC, the maternal uncles of Jagseer\u00a0 Singh
\nson of Sukhdev Singh, namely, Gurdev Singh son of Chuhar Singh\u00a0 PW3 and Jeet
\nSingh son of Chuhar Singh identified the unknown dead body\u00a0 to be that of Jagsir
\nSingh son of Sukhdev Singh. Both these witnesses also\u00a0 identified the dead body
\nof some unknown person as that being of Jagseer\u00a0 Singh son of Sukhdev Singh,
\nresident of Village Tallewal, when it was\u00a0 brought before Dr.Krishan Gopal PW1,
\nwho prepared the post mortem\u00a0 report Ex.PA.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 From the above statements given on oath, the alleged\u00a0 recoveries
\nmade, identifying an unknown body, it is clear that false and\u00a0 fabricated
\nevidence both oral and documentary was created by Amar Singh\u00a0 PW2, Gurdev Singh
\nPW3, Mukhtiar Singh PW4, Karnail Singh PW5,\u00a0 Sukhdev Singh PW7, Surjit Kaur PW8,
\nBikkar Singh PW9, ASI Darshan\u00a0 Singh PW13, SI Sarabjit Rai PW14 and Jeet Singh
\nson of Chuhar Singh.\u00a0 Both Darshan Singh PW13 and Sarabjit Rai PW14 investigated
\nthe case\u00a0 with a bent of mind, to falsely implicate the appellants. This was
\ndone for\u00a0 extraneous considerations. Darshan Singh DSP and Madan Gopal S.P., the<\/p>\n

\u00a0supervisory officers, also did not scrutinize the case diary and the investigation in a professional manner.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Appellants as per their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.\u00a0 have
\nstated, that right from the beginning they were telling the police\u00a0 officials,
\nthat they were being falsely implicated, but no one listened to\u00a0 them.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Perjury has been committed by the complainant party and the
\nInvestigating Officers. They stated lies before the learned trial Court, to get
\na favourable verdict of conviction against the appellants, which they\u00a0 succeeded
\nin doing so.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 With the above discussion, appeal is allowed. Appellants are
\nacquitted of all the charges framed against them. Their conviction and
\nsentences are set aside.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nachhattar Singh alias Khanda son of Bant Singh, Sira alias\u00a0 Jagsir
\nSingh son of Nachhattar Singh, Amarjit Singh son of Kaula Singh,\u00a0 Nikka Singh
\nson of Bawa Singh, Surjit Singh son of Jang Singh filed\u00a0 Criminal Misc. No.
\n35100 of 2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for awarding\u00a0 compensation of Rs.20 lacs
\neach, for the mental torture they suffered for 13\u00a0 years, for illegal
\nconfinement of 5 years and for malicious prosecution. It\u00a0 has been urged that
\nAmar Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Village\u00a0 Tallewal, Gurdev Singh son
\nof Chuhar Singh resident of Village Raisar,\u00a0 Mukhtiar Singh son of Kishan Singh
\nresident of Tajoke, Karnail Singh son\u00a0 of Jangir Singh resident of Dhilwan,
\nNabha, Jangir Singh son of Harnam\u00a0 Singh resident of Bhadaur, Sukhdev Singh son
\nof Bhag Singh resident of\u00a0 Tallewal, Surjit Kaur d\/o Sukhdev Singh resident of
\nTallewal, ASI Darshan\u00a0 Singh and SI Sarabjit Rai be prosecuted for giving false
\nevidence.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Notice of Crl.Misc.No.35100 of 2009 was given to the above\u00a0 and all of them
\nwere arrayed as respondents.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mukhtiar Singh son of Kishan Singh, resident of Village\u00a0 Tajoke,
\nKarnail Singh son of Jangir Singh resident of Village Dhilwan\u00a0 Distt. Barnala,
\nJangir Singh son of Harnam Singh, resident of Bhadaur\u00a0 Distt. Barnala, Surjit
\nKaur D\/o Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Tallewal\u00a0 Distt, Barnala, State of
\nPunjab through Harbhajan Singh, SP Headquarters\u00a0 Barnala, ASI Darshan Singh, SI
\nSarabjit Rai, DSP Darshan Singh and SP\u00a0 Madan Gopal filed their replies.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 State of Punjab in its reply stated, that Gurdial Singh SI, SHO
\nPolice Station Raikot, received secret information on 18.12.2008, that Jagsir
\nSingh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Tallewal, Police Station
\nBhadaur, was living at Village Rattewal, Tehsil Balachaur, Distt. Bhagat\u00a0 Singh
\nNagar (Nawanshehar) and had changed his name to Baldev Singh son\u00a0 of Prem Singh.
\nJagsir Singh had knowingly run away from his house in\u00a0 1996 on account of some
\ndispute with Nachattar Singh alias Khanda son of\u00a0 Bant Singh (Present
\nappellant). A false case was registered against the\u00a0 appellants. Raid was
\nconducted on the basis of this information and FIR\u00a0 No.171, dated 18.12.2008
\nunder Sections 420, 195, 211, 465, 467, 468, 471,\u00a0 120-B IPC at Police Station
\nRaikot, was registered, against Sukhdev Singh\u00a0 son of Bhag Singh, Jagsir Singh
\nson of Sukhdev Singh, Gurdev Singh son\u00a0 of Chuhar Singh, Jeet Singh son of
\nChuhar Singh and Balwinder Singh alias\u00a0 Binder son of Sukhdev Singh. Proceedings
\nunder Sections 82 and 83\u00a0 Cr.P.C. were initiated against Sukhdev Singh son of
\nBhag Singh, Surjit\u00a0 Kaur D\/o Sukhdev Singh, Gurdev Kaur w\/o Sukhdev Singh, Amar
\nSingh\u00a0 son of Gurdial Singh, Karnail Singh, Ex. Sarpanch son of Jagir Singh,
\nJagir Singh son of Harnam Singh, as they were not named in FIR No.171, but\u00a0 their
\nnames cropped up during the course of investigation. The person for\u00a0 whose
\nmurder accused (Appellants) were convicted is alive. Final report\u00a0 under Section
\n173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the J.M.I.C., Jagraon.\u00a0\u00a0 Sukhdev Singh PW7 is
\nthe complainant. In his reply, he has\u00a0 stated that Jagsir Singh his son was
\nalive and he informed SHO, Mahal\u00a0 Kalan on 18.12.2008. The SHO then informed DSP
\nRaikot Narinder Pal\u00a0 Singh Ruby. It was Balwinder Singh brother of Jagsir Singh,
\nwho got Jagsir\u00a0 Singh arrested.<\/p>\n

\u00a0In FIR Ex.PE there is no mention of the lease deed Ex.PF. The\u00a0 lease deed came
\ninto existence after the appellants were arrested and\u00a0 tortured in the police
\nstation by Sarabjit Rai SI\/SHO PW14, the\u00a0 Investigating Officer and thereafter
\nthis document Ex.PF was prepared in\u00a0 connivance with the complainant party, as
\nper the appellants, they were\u00a0 tortured to sign on blank papers in the Police
\nStation.\u00a0 An eye witness account was given by Amar Singh PW2, who\u00a0 happens to be
\nthe neighbour of Sukhdev Singh PW7. In his reply, he has\u00a0 reiterated what has
\nstated on oath before the Court. His statement was\u00a0 recorded under Section 161
\nCr.P.C. on 15.6.96 i.e. after 10 days of the\u00a0 occurrence.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mukhtiar Singh PW4 in his reply has stated that he is not aware
\nwhether alleged Jagsir Singh has been found alive or not. In his statement
\nunder Section 161 Cr.P.C. given on 15.6.96, he was the witness to the last\u00a0 seen
\nevidence. All he said that he got ill and was afraid of the appellants (accused) and is the reason that he gave his statement to the police after 10 days. He has stated that he is related to Sukhdev Singh PW7.
\nSurjit Kaur PW8 in her statement in her reply has stated that\u00a0 she is not aware
\nwhether Jagsir Singh is alive or not. She has admitted that\u00a0 FIR No.171, dated
\n18.12.2008 has been registered at Police Station Raikot.\u00a0 She has been named in
\nthat FIR. She has scribed document Ex.PF and is\u00a0 also witness to the last seen
\nevidence.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Karnail Singh PW5 and Jangir Singh PW6 in their replies have
\nreiterated that Nachhattar Singh, Seera @ Jagsir Singh and Amarjit Singh\u00a0 have
\nmade extra judicial confession before Karnail Singh and Nikka Singh\u00a0 and Surjit
\nSingh before Jangir Singh. He is not aware whether alleged\u00a0 deceased Jagsir
\nSingh has been found alive or not.\u00a0 Darshan Singh ASI PW13 and the Investigating
\nOfficer\u00a0 Sarabjit Rai SI\/SHO PW14 have denied their involvement but it is clear
\nthat\u00a0 both these witnesses were hand in glove with the complainant party. They
\ncreated false evidence against the appellants. Darshan Singh DSP (retired)\u00a0 and
\nMadan Gopal SP(D), Barnala (retd.), who were the supervisory officers\u00a0 though
\nwent through the whole evidence in a casual and cavalier manner.\u00a0 Bikkar Singh
\nPW9 is an attesting witness to the lease deed\u00a0 Ex.PF.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gurdev Singh son of Chuhar Singh PW3 and Jeet Singh son of\u00a0 Chuhar
\nSingh, the real maternal uncles of Jagsir Singh son of Sukhdev\u00a0 Singh,
\nidentified the dead body of an unknown person in the Inquest report\u00a0 Ex.PC. They
\nalso identified the dead body of an unknown person before\u00a0 Dr. Krishan Gopal
\nPW1, who performed the post-mortem.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Learned counsel for the appellants (Accused) has vehemently\u00a0 argued, that all
\nthe above persons, who have been named above, should be\u00a0 prosecuted under
\nSection 340 of the Cr.P.C. and also under Sections\u00a0 193\/195\/196 IPC. Further FIR
\nNo.171, dated 18.12.2008 under Sections\u00a0 420, 195, 211, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
\n120-B IPC at Police Station Raikot,\u00a0 which was registered on the basis of the
\nstatement of a police official may\u00a0 be quashed, as this FIR was only to save the
\ninvestigating officer\/officers\u00a0 and the private individuals whose do not figure
\nin the FIR. If the police\u00a0 wanted to register an FIR truthfully, they would have
\nnamed the persons\u00a0 who gave false evidence against the appellants and also those
\nwho made the\u00a0 fictitious document Ex.PF.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lastly, the learned counsel has argued, that this is a case of
\nblatant misuse of law. A murder which never had taken place, by collecting\u00a0 and
\ngiving false evidence, for an offence which the appellants did not\u00a0 commit,
\nappellants (Accused) were convicted and sentenced to undergo life\u00a0 imprisonment.
\nAll the appellants after undergoing a sentence of five years,\u00a0 were released on
\nbail, on the basis of the law laid down in Dharam Pal vs.\u00a0 State of Haryana,
\n1999 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600. Appellants (accused)\u00a0 were tortured physically
\nin the police station, mentally and were boycotted\u00a0 socially. They be given
\ncompensation of Rs.20 lacs each, which should be\u00a0 paid by the State.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Learned counsel for the State has argued, that it is not only the
\nresponsibility of the State to give compensation but the private respondents
\nare also liable.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Learned counsel for the intervener National Human Rights
\nCommission, Sh. Akshay Bhan has cited two judgments of the Hon’ble\u00a0 Supreme Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610\u00a0 and Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 802.\u00a0 He has further pleaded, that monetary compensation not less than Rs.15 lacs\u00a0 per individual be granted to the appellants for the grave violation of their\u00a0 human rights.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Learned counsels Sh. Puran Singh Hundal, Sr. Advocate with\u00a0 Sh.
\nAbhishek Sethi, Advocate, Sh. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, Sh. H.R.Nauhria,\u00a0 Advocate,
\nSh. Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate and Sh. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu,\u00a0 Advocate have
\nargued, that as a case has been registered against some of\u00a0 their clients
\n(respondents), but proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. may\u00a0 be initiated
\nagainst them, they would not like to dwell on the merits and\u00a0 demerits of the
\ncase, which may jeopardize the rights of their clients in any\u00a0 proceeding in a
\nCourt of law, if so initiated by the Court or the State. We\u00a0 were in agreement
\nwith the learned counsels and thus did not insist that they\u00a0 should take a
\ndefinite stand.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Appellants had been in custody for five years and were released\u00a0 on
\nbail by this Court by suspending their sentences on the basis of the law\u00a0 laid
\ndown in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal)<\/p>\n

600. FIR Ex.PE was registered against the appellants on 11.6.96 and till\u00a0 date
\nthey are facing prosecution. The trial including appeal took 13 long\u00a0 years to
\nconclude. Seera @ Jagsir Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, one of\u00a0 the accused when
\nhe came on bail, committed suicide. Appellants faced\u00a0 insult and humiliation for
\nso many years. They were disgraced in society.\u00a0 The best years of their life
\nwere spent in jail. Not only were the appellants\u00a0 disgraced and humiliated in
\nsociety, but their kith and kin also must have\u00a0 gone through a lot of mental
\nagony and torture during this period.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Appellants were branded as murderers. Appellant Nachhattar Singh was the
\nSarpanch of the village. As per learned counsel Sh. Vinod Ghai, Advocate,
\nappellant Nachhattar Singh was also a candidate to contest elections for the
\nState Assembly, if this case had not been foisted on him. During this\u00a0 period,
\nappellants faced a lot of hardship economical also. It has been\u00a0 stated, that
\nappellant Nachhattar Singh had to sell his agricultural land to\u00a0 pursue the
\ncase. The productivity of his land also decreased, as there was\u00a0 no one to look
\nafter it. During these 13 years, if they were free men, they\u00a0 would have earned
\na substantial amount for their family members from the\u00a0 land they owned.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In D.K.Basu’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has\u00a0 held as
\nunder:-<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “17. Fundamental rights occupy a place of pride in the Indian
\nConstitution. Article 21 provides “no person shall be deprived of his life or
\npersonal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Personal
\nliberty thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution. The
\nexpression “life or personal liberty” has been held to include the right to live
\nwith human dignity and thus, it would also include within itself a guarantee,
\nagainst torture and assault by the State or its functionaries.”<\/p>\n

\u00a0Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 30 has stated as under:-\u00a0\u00a0 “30. How do we check
\nthe abuse of police power? Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are
\ntwo possible safeguards which this Court must insist upon. Attention is also
\nrequired to be paid to properly develop work culture, training and orientation
\nof the police force consistent with basic human values. Training methodology of
\nthe police\u00a0 needs restructuring. The force needs to be infused with basic human values and
\nmade sensitive to the constitutional ethos. Efforts must be made to change the
\nattitude and approach of the police personnel handling investigations so that
\nthey do not sacrifice basic human values during interrogation and do not resort
\nto questionable forms of interrogation. With a view to bring in transparency,
\nthe presence of the counsel of the arrestee at some point of time during the
\ninterrogation may deter the police from using third degree methods during
\ninterrogation.”<\/p>\n

\u00a0Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 40 and 41 has stated as under:-<\/p>\n

\u00a0“40. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium – There is no wrong without a remedy. The law wills
\nthat in every case where a man is wronged and endamaged he must have a remedy. A
\nmere declaration of invalidity of an action or finding of custodial violence or
\ndeath in lock-up, does not by itself provide any meaningful remedy to a person
\nwhose fundamental right to life has been infringed. Much more needs to be done.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 41. Prosecution of the offender is an obligation of State in case of
\nevery crime but the victim of crime needs to be compensated monetarily also. The
\nCourt, where the infringement of the fundamental right is established,
\ntherefore, cannot stop by giving a mere declaration. It must proceed further and
\ngive compensatory relief, not by way of damages as in a civil action but by way
\nof compensation under the public law jurisdiction for the wrong done, due to
\nbreach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right to
\nlife of the citizen. To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for
\nlegal injury is compulsion of judicial consequence.”<\/p>\n

\u00a0Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 43, 44 and 54 has stated as\u00a0 under:-<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “43. Till about two decades ago the liability of the Government for
\ntortuous act of its public servants was generally limited and the person
\naffected could enforce his right in tort by filing a civil suit and there again
\nthe defence of sovereign immunity was allowed to have its play. For the
\nviolation of the fundamental right to life or basic-human rights, however, this
\nCourt has taken the view that the defence of sovereign immunity is not available
\nto the State for the tortuous acts of the public servants and for the
\nestablished violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
\nof India. In Neelabati Bahera Vs. State [supra] the decision of this Court in
\nKasturi Lal Raila Ram Jain Vs. State of U.P. [1996 (1) SCR, 375] wherein the
\nplea of sovereign immunity had been upheld in a case of vicarious liability of
\nthe State for the tort committed by its employees was explained.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 44. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional
\ndeprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is
\nguaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is
\nin addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortuous acts
\nof the public servants. Public Law proceedings serve a different purpose than
\nthe private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement
\nof the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a
\nremedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to
\ncivilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a
\nlegal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and
\npreserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the
\nConstitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights
\nguaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for
\npenalising the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the
\nState which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the
\nfundamental rights of the citizen.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of
\nthe jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and
\nindeed an effective and sometime perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal
\nof the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by
\nthe public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The
\nclaim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the
\ndefence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the
\namount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be
\nindemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis
\nhas to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to
\napply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as
\nawarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation)
\nmust be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which
\nthe State, in. law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public
\nlaw jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit
\nfor damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the
\ndeceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed
\nby the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course,
\ndepend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be
\nevolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established
\ninvasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law
\njurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in
\nderogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid
\nby the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against
\nany amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil
\nsuit.”<\/p>\n

\u00a0 In Sube Singh’s case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has\u00a0 observed under: –<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “17. It is thus now well settled that award of compensation against
\nthe State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established
\ninfringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The
\nquantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances
\nof each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not
\ncome in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a
\ncivil court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the
\nway of the criminal court ordering compensation under section 357 of Code of
\nCivil Procedure.”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Strangely in FIR No.171, dated 18.12.2008 under Sections
\n420,\u00a0 195, 211, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station
\nRaikot, a number of names have been left out as already discussed. FIR\u00a0 should
\nhave been registered on the basis of the statement of one of the\u00a0 appellants
\n(alleged accused) and not on the statement of a police official of\u00a0 Police
\nStation Raikot. The FIR smells of mala fide and it has been registered\u00a0 to save
\nthe skin of a few private persons and police officials, especially the
\ninvestigating officers. Witnesses who gave false evidence on oath have also
\nbeen left out.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We have no alternative but to quash FIR No.171, dated\u00a0 18.12.2008
\nunder Sections 420, 195, 211, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC Police Station Raikot and further all its consequential proceedings are also set aside.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 SHO Police Station Bhadaur (District Barnala) is directed to
\nregister a fresh FIR on the basis of the statement of Nachattar Singh @\u00a0 Khanda
\nson of Bant Singh Village Tallewal or any other appellant (Alleged\u00a0 accused) and
\nto start investigation afresh and proceed as per law.\u00a0 We do not want to go any
\nfurther into the details of the reply\u00a0 respondents (witnesses) have given, lest
\nit affects their trial when a fresh\u00a0 FIR is registered against them.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Appellant Nachhattar Singh lost his son Jagsir Singh. In the
\npresent case, appellants had been arrayed as an accused. Appellants have
\nsuffered an irreparable loss. They have gone through a lot of mental agony\u00a0 and
\nhave been economically ruined by the misdeed of the functionaries of\u00a0 the State
\nof Punjab. It is not only the private respondents, who are\u00a0 responsible for
\nfalsely implicating the appellants, but a major part of the\u00a0 responsibility
\nfalls on the shoulders of four police officials i.e. the\u00a0 Investigating Officer
\nSarabjit Rai PW14, ASI Darshan Singh PW13,\u00a0 Darshan Singh DSP and Madan Gopal
\nSP. It is the solemn and sovereign\u00a0 function of the State to prosecute criminals
\nbut not the innocent. State is\u00a0 duty bound to do a fair and truthful
\ninvestigation and thereafter present the\u00a0 challan before the competent Court.
\nSuch was the meticulous falsehood\u00a0 presented before the trial Court that the
\ntrial Court also believed the\u00a0 evidence which was brought before it. The trial
\nCourt did not have any\u00a0 alternative but to convict the appellants.<\/p>\n

\u00a0We are of the considered opinion that the entire burden of\u00a0 paying compensation
\nto appellants i.e. Nachhattar Singh alias Khanda son\u00a0 of Bant Singh, Sira alias
\nJagsir Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, Amarjit\u00a0 Singh son of Kaula Singh, Nikka
\nSingh son of Bawa Singh, Surjit Singh\u00a0 son of Jang Singh rests squarely on the
\nshoulders of the State of Punjab.\u00a0 Taking all the circumstances into
\nconsideration i.e. five years rigorous\u00a0 imprisonment which the appellants have
\nundergone, mental agony and\u00a0 torture they have gone through, the loss of face
\nthey have suffered during\u00a0 the trial and till the date i.e. for the last 13
\nyears. An irreparable damage\u00a0 which has been done to them psychologically and
\nphysically cannot be\u00a0 repaid with any amount of money. They have demanded a
\ncompensation of\u00a0 Rs.20 lacs each, which in the present circumstances is a fair
\namount.\u00a0 We award Rs.20 lacs each to all the appellants, which shall be\u00a0 paid by
\nthe State of Punjab within 30 days from date of passing of this\u00a0 order. The
\nChief Secretary, Punjab and the Home Secretary, Punjab are\u00a0 directed to deposit
\na sum of Rs.One crore with the Registrar of the Punjab\u00a0 and Haryana High Court,
\nwhich shall be further paid to the appellants,\u00a0 namely, Nachhattar Singh alias
\nKhanda son of Bant Singh, Amarjit Singh\u00a0 son of Kaula Singh, Nikka Singh son of
\nBawa Singh, Surjit Singh son of\u00a0 Jang Singh and the legal heirs of Sira alias
\nJagsir Singh son of Nachhattar\u00a0 Singh (deceased).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The learned trial Court is directed to initiate proceedings under
\nSection 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Amar Singh PW2,\u00a0 Gurdev Singh
\nPW3, Mukhtiar Singh PW4, Karnail Singh PW5, Sukhdev\u00a0 Singh PW7, Surjit Kaur PW8,
\nBikkar Singh PW9, ASI Darshan Singh\u00a0 PW13, SI Sarabjit Rai PW14, Jeet Singh son
\nof Chuhar Singh, Jagsir Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, Balwinder Singh alias Binder son of Sukhdev Singh,
\nGurdev Kaur w\/o Sukhdev Singh and Jagir Singh son of Harnam Singh and\u00a0 any other
\nperson so liable for committing perjury.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (MEHTAB S.GILL)<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 JUDGE<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 September 23,2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) SKArora\/AS JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH \u00a0Criminal Appeal No. 332-DB of 1998 and Criminal Misc. No.35100 of 2009 \u00a0 Dated of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[3400,3415,3418,3412,3420,3407,3398,3397,3401,3406,3416,3413,3405,3396,3417,3422,3410,3414,3404,3402,3411,3409,3144,3399,3143,3421,3403,3408,3419],"class_list":["post-882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-addl-a-g-punjab","tag-amarjit-singh","tag-bawa-singh","tag-dsp-darshan-singh-sh-sant-pal-singh-sidhu","tag-jang-singh","tag-jangir-singh","tag-justice-jitendra-chauhan","tag-justice-mehtab-s-gill","tag-k-s-dadwal","tag-karnail-singh","tag-kaula-singh","tag-madan-gopal","tag-mukhtiar-singh","tag-nachhattar-singh-alias-khanda","tag-nikka-singh","tag-section-364-ipc","tag-sh-abhishek-sethi","tag-sh-akshay-bhan","tag-sh-h-r-nauhria","tag-sh-h-s-rakhra","tag-sh-jasdeep-singh-gill","tag-sh-puran-singh-hundal","tag-sh-s-s-randhawa","tag-sh-satinder-singh-gill","tag-sh-vinod-ghai","tag-sira","tag-sukhdev-singh","tag-surjit-ram","tag-surjit-singh"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/882\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}