http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT BARASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 742        1996 SCALE  (4)416

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Court by the order dated December 7, 1993 directed the Central  Bureau of  Investigation (CBI)  to  investigate into the  mysterious and  most tragic  abduction and alleged murder of  Kulwant Singh,  Advocate, his  wife and their two year old  child. This Court noticed the inaction on the part of the High Court in the following words:      "The   High    Court   was   wholly      unjustified in closing its eyes and      ears to  the controversy  which had      shocked the  lawyer  fraternity  in      the Region.  For the  reasons  best      known to  it, the High Court became      wholly  oblivious   to  the  patent      facts on  the record  and failed to      perform the  duty entrusted  to  it      under   the   Constitution.   After      giving our thoughtful consideration      to the  facts and  circumstances of      this case,  we are of the view that      the least the High Court could have      done  in  this  case  was  to  have      directed       an       independent      investigation/enquiry   into    the      mysterious    and    most    tragic      abduction  and  alleged  murder  of      Kulwant  Singh   Advocate  and  his      family." The operative  part of  the order dated December 7, 1993 was as under:      "We, therefore,  direct the  CBI to      take up  the investigation  of  the      case F.I.R.  No.10 dated  8 10.1993      under sections  364/302/201, I.P.C.      and 3/4/5  T.A.D.A. (P) Act, Police      Station  Rupnagar,  District  Ropar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

    with immediate  effect. We  further      direct the Senior Superintendent of      Police, Ropar and the Station House      Officer, Police Station Rupnagar to      assist the  CBI in  conducting  the      investigation.   The    CBI   shall      exercise all  the powers  available      to it  under the Criminal Procedure      Code and  any  other  provision  of      law. The  State of  Punjab  through      its  Home   Secretary  is   further      directed to  provide all assistance      to the CBI in this respect.           We direct the Director, CBI to      depute  a  responsible  officer  to      hold the  investigation as directed      by us.  This may be done within one      week  from   the  receipt  of  this      order. The  CBI shall  complete the      investigation within  three  months      from the  date of  receipt of  this      order by  the Director  and  submit      its report  in accordance with law.      The proceedings  before  the  Addl.      Distt.  &  Sessions  Judge,  Rupar,      shall remain  stayed till March 31,      1994." This Court  granted extension  to the  CBI from time to time for the  completion of  the investigation. The CBI submitted the final  report to  this Court on March 7, 1996 whereunder following actions have been recommended:      "i) Harpreet  Singh  @ Lucky s/o of      Gurmit  Singh   Saini,  r/o   Vill.      Bahadurpur, who is presently facing      trial in  case FIR  No.10/93 of  PS      Sadar  Ropar   in  the   Designated      Court,  Nabha   has  been   falsely      implicated in the case.      ii)  SI   Avindervir   Singh,   ASI      Darshan Singh, Inspr. Balwant Singh      and DSP  Jaspal  Singh  are  prima-      facie  responsible  for  the  false      implication  of  Harpreet  Singh  @      Lucky in the aforesaid case and are      liable for prosecution for offences      U/S 194, 194, 211 and 218 IPC.      iii) The State Government of Punjab      is  to   be  requested  for  taking      suitable action against Shri Sanjiv      Gupta, DIG,  Punjab Police  for his      lack of supervision." Mr. Navkiran  Singh, Advocate,  appearing for the Punjab and Haryana High  Court Bar Association has vehemently contended that there is sufficient material on the record to prosecute the police  officers for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family. He has invited our attention to the following paragraphs from the CBI report:      "6. Now  the  question  arises,  if      Harpreet  Singh  @  Lucky  had  not      abducted   and   murdered   Kulwant      Singh.  Advocate  and  his  family,      then what  happened  to  them.  The      evidence of  the family  members of      Kulwant Singh  Advocate is there to      show that  Kulwant Singh had talked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    to PS  City, Ropar  on telephone at      about 9.30  PM on  25.1.93 and left      the house  alongwith his  wife  and      son to  the said police station for      bringing Manjit  Kaur and  her  son      who were reportedly detained by the      police.  It   is  also   in   their      evidence that  he left the house in      his Maruti Car No.DAQ-3804. Certain      shop    keepers/vendors     falling      enroute from  the house  of Kulwant      Singh  to   PS  City   Ropar   were      examined but  nobody confirmed that      they  had   seen   Kulwant   Singh,      Advocate and his family going to PS      City, Ropar  in his  Maruti Car. It      is a  fact that Manjit Kaur and her      son were there in PS City, Ropar on      25.1.93 night, although she and her      son are  denying it. Thus, the only      persons  who   could  enlighten  us      about the,  visit of  Kulwant Singh      to PS  City, Ropar  are either  the      police personnel  posted in  the PS      City Ropar  or Manjit  Kaur and her      son. Several  police personnel have      been examined  but they have denied      that  Advocate  Kulwant  Singh  had      visited  the  police  station  that      night. They  have also denied about      the detention  of Smt.  Manjit Kaur      or her  son in  the Police Station.      Manjit Kaur  and  her  son  Amarjit      Singh @  sonu, who are the only key      witnesses in  this case,  have also      changed their  versions and  denied      having been  ever detained  by  the      police in  the PS City, Ropar. Smt.      Manjit Kaur is now maintaining that      she  was   never  detained  by  the      police and  she  has  also  made  a      statement   before    the   Special      Magistrate, Patiala  on 3.7.95  U/s      164 Cr.P.C.  stating  therein  that      she was  not detained by the police      during  25.1.93   to  27.1.93.  Her      eldest son  Inderjit Singh  @ Lucky      has been  appointed  as  a  Special      Police  Officer   by  Ropar  Police      w.e.f. 21.8.94  without taking  any      application  from  him  and  he  is      working in  PS  Sadar  Ropar  under      Shri Avindervir Singh, SHO. Village      Budha Bhora  to which  Smt.  Manjit      Kaur  belongs   falls   under   the      jurisdiction of  PS Sadar Ropar. It      appears that  the version of Manjit      Kaur and  her son  is not  reliable      and Manjit  Kaur seems to have made      the statement before the Magistrate      under certain extraneous pressure.      7. A  very  significant  fact  that      remains unexplained is the recovery      of the  car by  the police from the      Bhakra Canal  on 12.2.93.  If Lucky

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    was innocent  and was  not involved      in the  crime, he  could  not  have      known where  the car  was. It is in      the evidence  of family  members of      Kulwant Singh  that  Kulwant  Singh      and his family had gone to PS City,      Ropar on  25.1.93 in  the said  car      allegedly  recovered   from  Bhakra      Canal  on   12.2.93.  As   per  the      records  prepared   by   Avindervir      Singh, SHO,  he had  recovered this      car at  the  instance  of  Harpreet      Singh @  Lucky. Now question arises      as to  how he could recover the car      if Lucky  was innocent  and was not      involved in  the crime.  Thus,  the      recovery of  the car by the police,      false implication of Harpreet Singh      @  Lucky,   subsequent  payment  of      money to  his father  under a false      name showing  him  as  an  SPO  and      appointment  of  Inderjit  Singh  @      Lucky,  as   an  SPO   during   the      investigation of this case possibly      to  keep  a  control  on  him,  his      mother Manjit  Kaur and his brother      Amarjit Singh @ Sonu and subsequent      denial by  Manjit Kaur  and her son      about their detention by the police      does point  the finger suspicion at      the police  but these circumstances      are not clinching in nature.      8.  The  recovery  of  the  car  of      Advocate Kulwant  Singh was made by      SI Avindervir Singh which obviously      could have  been done  on the basis      of  certain  information  available      with him  which shows  his personal      knowledge  about   the  occurrence.      Otherwise he  could not  have known      that the  car was  thrown into  the      canal.  This   is  a   circumstance      against Avindervir  Singh. The dead      bodies of  Kulwant Singh,  Advocate      and his family members could not be      recovered  inspite   of  our   best      efforts. The  precise  sequence  of      events after Advocate Kulwant Singh      and his  family left their house on      the night of 25.1.93 could also not      be   established    due   to    the      noncooperation of  Smt. Manjit Kaur      and her  son   Amarjit Singh @ Sonu      who were  the key witnesses in this      case.   Assuming    that   Advocate      Kulwant Singh  and his family, were      killed, there  is  no  evidence  on      record regarding the modus.      9.  We   have  collected   adequate      evidence to suggest that the police      version to  the effect that Kulwant      and his  family members were killed      by Harpreet  Singh @  Lucky, is not      correct.  It   is   proved   beyond      reasonable doubt that Lucky has not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    killed Kulwant Singh and his family      members. The  confession  of  Lucky      has  been   falsely  recorded.  The      recovery of the car U/s 27 Evidence      Act has been falsely shown.      10. However,  the investigation has      not been  able to  bring forth  any      evidence to  reveal the persons who      have committed  the act  of killing      of Kulwant  Singh  and  his  family      members. Their dead bodies have not      been found  in spite  of  our  best      efforts. There is no other evidence      which  may   connect  any   of  the      suspect police  officers  with  the      kidnapping/killing,       howsoever      strong the suspicion may be."      It is  no doubt  correct  that  the  CBI  investigation reveals circumstances  which do  point a finger of suspicion at the  police officers  but whether  the circumstances  are sufficient to prosecute them for the abduction and murder of Kulwant  Singh   and  his   family  is   a  matter  for  the consideration of the Designated Court which is seized of the trial. We  do  not  wish  to  go  into  this  question.  The appellant before  us and  the prosecutor shall be at liberty to argue  before the  trial court the the material collected by the  CBI  including  its  report  show  that  the  police officers are  prima facie  responsible for the abduction and murder of  Kulwant Singh  and his  family and are liable for prosecution for  offences under  the relevant  provisions of the Indian Penal Code.      The abduction  and murder  of  Kulwant  Singh  and  his family was  the most  heinous crime against humanity. It has taken a  mysterious and  an extremely  shocking turn  by the finding of  the CBI  that Harpreet  Singh @  Lucky has  been falsely implicated  in the  case. The  CBI report  indicates that under  pressure from  the police  and finding  no other alternative to  save his life he agreed to their proposal to accept the  murder of  Kulwant Singh and his family members. Mr. Navkiran Singh has rightly contended that the least this Court can  do at this stage is to compensate the old parents of Kulwant  Singh. J.S  Verma, J. speaking for this Court in Nilabati Behera  vs.State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 held as under:      "It follows  that a claim in public      law    for     compensation     for      contravention of  human rights  and      fundamental      freedoms,      the      protection of  which is  guaranteed      in   the    Constitution,   is   an      acknowledged remedy for enforcement      and protection  of such rights, and      such  a   claim  based   on  strict      liability  made   by  resorting  to      constitutional remedy  provided for      the enforcement  of  a  fundamental      right is  ’distinct  from,  and  in      addition to,  the remedy in private      law  for   damages  for  the  tort’      resulting from the contravention of      the fundamental  right The  defence      of   sovereign    immunity    being      inapplicable,  and   alien  to  the      concept of guarantee of fundamental      rights, there can be no question of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    such a  defence being  available in      the constitutional  remedy.  it  is      this  principle   which   justifies      award of  monetary compensation for      contravention of fundamental rights      guaranteed  by   the  Constitution,      when that  is the  only practicable      mode of  redress available  for the      contravention made  by the State or      its  servants   in  the   purported      exercise  of   their  powers,   and      enforcement  of   the   fundamental      right is  claimed by  resort to the      remedy  in  public  law  under  the      Constitution   by    recourse    to      Articles  32   and   226   of   the      Constitution.  This   is  what  was      indicated in  Rudul Sah  and is the      basis of  the subsequent  decisions      in which  compensation was  awarded      under Articles  32 and  226 of  the      Constitution, for  contravention of      fundamental rights.           We  respectfully  concur  with      the view  that  the  court  is  not      helpless and  the wide powers given      to this  Court by Article 32, which      itself  is   a  fundamental  right,      imposes a constitutional obligation      on this  Court to  forge  such  new      tools, which  may be  necessary for      doing    complete    justice    and      enforcing  the  fundamental  rights      guaranteed  in   the  Constitution,      which enable  the award of monetary      compensation in  appropriate cases,      where that  is  the  only  mode  of      redress   available.    The   power      available  to   this  Court   under      Article 142  is  also  an  enabling      provision  in   this  behalf.   The      contrary  view   would  not  merely      render the  court powerless and the      constitutional guarantee  a mirage,      but may,  in certain  situation, be      an incentive to extinguish life, if      for the  extreme contravention  the      court is  powerless  to  grant  any      relief against the State, except by      punishment of the wrongdoer for the      resulting offence,  and recovery of      damages under  private law,  by the      ordinary process.  If the guarantee      that  deprivation   of   life   and      personal  liberty  cannot  be  made      except in  accordance with  law, is      to be  real, the enforcement of the      right    in     case    of    every      contravention must also be possible      in the  constitutional scheme,  the      mode of redress being that which is      appropriate in  the facts  of  each      case. This remedy in public law has      to be  more readily  available when      invoked by  the have-nots,  who are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

    not possessed  of  the  wherewithal      for enforcement  of their rights in      private  law,   even   though   its      exercise  is   to  be  tempered  by      judicial   restraint    to    avoid      circumvention   of    private   law      remedies, where more appropriate.           We may  also refer  to Article      9(5) of  the International Covenant      on Civil and Political Rights, 1966      which indicates that an enforceable      right to  compensation is not alien      to the  concept of enforcement of a      guaranteed  right.   Article   9(5)      reads as under:           "Anyone  who   has  been   the      victim  of   unlawful   arrest   or      detention shall have an enforceable      right to compensation." We  direct   the  Punjab  Government  through  Secretary  to Government, Home  Department to  pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lac)  to the  parents (father  and mother)  of  Kulwant Singh, Advocate  as compensation.  The payment shall be made within two months of the receipt of this order.      Regarding Harpreet  Singh @  Lucky the  CBI reached the following conclusion:      "Facts    emerging     from     the      investigation lead us unequivocally      and  decisively  to  conclude  that      Harpreet  Singh   @  Lucky  is  not      responsible for  the  abduction  or      murder of  Kulwant Singh,  Advocate      and his family."      The Police Officers falsely implicated Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the case. We direct that he be released from jail forthwith.  We further  direct  the  Punjab  Government through Secretary  to Government,  Home Department  to pay a sum of  Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lac) to Harpeet Singh @ Lucky as compensation for the sufferings caused to him because of the false implication in the case in particular his remaining in jail for  a long period. The amount of compensation shall be paid within  two months  of the  receipt of  this order.  We further direct  the  Home  Secretary,  State  of  Punjab  to provide security  if he  considers it necessary to Harpeet @ Lucky. We  further direct that in the event of conviction of the police  officers, the  amount of  compensation  paid  to Harpeet @ Lucky shall be recovered from them personally.      We transfer  the trial  from the  Designated  Court  at Ropar to  the Designated  Court at Chandigarh. The CBI shall file the  necessary challan  in accordance  with the Code of Criminal Procedure  before the trial court at Chandigarh. We direct the  trial court  to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably  within six  months of  its commencement.  We direct the State of Punjab through the Home Secretary or any other appropriate authority to take up the question of grant of sanction  under Section  197, Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution  of the police officers immediately and take a decision  in this  respect within one month of the receipt of this order.      Keeping in view the facts and circumstances highlighted by the  CBI in  its report  it would  be in  the interest of justice to  suspend the police officers during the course of the trial. We therefore, direct the Home Secretary, State of Punjab to  take of  appropriate action  in this  respect. We accept the  recommendation/the  CBI  regarding  Shri  Sanjiv

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

Gupta, DIG   Punjab  Police and  direct  the  Government  of Punjab through  Secretary  to  Government,  Punjab  to  take suitable action  against Shri  Gupta in  the  light  of  the findings of the CBI.      The appeal is disposed of.