ranbir singh uttarakhand fake encounter case judgement

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/139

-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


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,




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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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



S C No.01/11 15/139


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


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,




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


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


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


20/139


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


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


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


24/139


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


37/139


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


54/139


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.


S C No.01/11 55/139


56/139

-56-

below injury no.6 margins inverted, blackening present.


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


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


58/139


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

ranbir singh uttarakhand fake encounter case judgement

Documents