- (1.) Three connected Criminal Appeals have been preferred by seventeen appellants who have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. All the appellants except the appellant Jaipal Singh (who is on bail) in Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2012, are represented by a battery of lawyers. Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinod Singh learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of three appellants namely Dhirendra Singh Yadav, Shamim Khan and Shambhu Datt Sharma. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the same appellants in the connected criminal appeal. Sri Sudhir Dixit, Sri Chandra Bhushan Yadav, Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, Sri Braham Singh and Sri Shyam Lal appear for the remaining appellants. After conclusion of the arguments of the counsels for the appellants, which continued for about a period of one week, a request was made on behalf of Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) for adjournment of the hearing. We made it clear that we were not inclined to adjourn the hearing for absence of the counsel for the C.B.I. at that stage, but no one appeared to assist the Court on behalf of C.B.I. We are constrained to record our displeasure for absence of the counsel for the C.B.I., without any prior information to the Court or the counsels for the other side. Sri Dileep Kumar learned Senior Advocate ably assisted by Sri Vinod Singh learned counsel has addressed the Court at length on all issues in the appeals. All other advocates appearing for the remaining appellants have adopted the arguments extended by Sri Dileep Kumar learned Senior Advocate and added only on one or two points which would be dealt with at the appropriate stage in this judgment. It is informed by the learned Advocates that the appellant Doji Singh had died during pendency of these appeals and all other appellants except Jaipal Singh are in jail. Since only one appellant Jaipal Singh (who had been released on bail) is unrepresented, we have appointed Sri Vinod Singh learned Advocate as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on his behalf. During hearing, Sri Vinod Singh has adopted the arguments extended by Sri Dileep Kumar learned Senior Advocate, for appellant Jaipal Singh.
(2.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2012 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2002 (C.B.I. vs. Dhirendra Singh Yadav and others) under Sections 120-B, 302, 364 and 218 IPC, Police Station C.B.I., Delhi in R.C. No. 18(S)/93. Accused Dhirendra Singh Yadav, Raj Kumar, Brij Bhusan Sharma, Rajendra Giri, Shambhu Datt Sharma, Kalwa Singh, Lajwant Singh, Shamim Khan, Dinesh Chandra, Balbir Singh, Ram Niwas, Amarjeet Singh, Kiranpal Singh, Jagat Singh, Rashi Pal Singh and Jaipal Singh have been convicted for the offences under Section 120-B readwith Section 364 and Section 302 IPC and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment with fine to the tune of Rs. 5000/- each, with the condition that in case of non-deposit of fine, they would have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. The above named appellants except Jaipal Singh have also been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC, additionally, for rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with the condition that in case of non-payment of fine, they would have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. In addition to the above, accused Dhirendra Singh Yadav, Shambhu Datt Sharma, Kalwa Singh, Shamim Khan, Dinesh Chandra, Doji Singh, Jagat Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Rashi Pal Singh and Jaipal Singh have also been convicted under Section 120-B readwith Section 364 IPC for rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of non-deposit of fine, they would have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. Accused Dhirendra Singh Yadav has also been convicted under Section 218 IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment. All the above punishments are to run concurrently.
(3.) Before coming to the prosecution story, it would be appropriate to note certain relevant facts of the case. The first information report dated 15.11.1993 namely RC-18(S)/93-SIU.V was registered at about 11:30 AM in Delhi Special Police Establishment SIC-II Branch pursuant to an order dated 15.11.1993 of SP/CBI/SIC.II/New Delhi, which was passed in pursuance of the order dated 8.10.1993 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 632/92 filed by one S. Sharanjit Singh son of S. Mohinder Singh of Majithia, District Amritsar (Punjab) against Delhi Administration and others. The Apex Court therein had entrusted the matter relating to abduction of deceased Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa son of Bachan Singh resident of Majitha, District Amritsar (Punjab) to the Central Bureau of Investigation (In short as "the C.B.I.") for investigation. In the aforesaid petition, a copy of which was sent to the C.B.I. on the directions of the Apex Court alongwith its order, it was alleged that Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa aged about 30 years, a Sewadar of Gurudwara Rakabganj, New Delhi (in short hereinafter referred to as "the Gurudwara") was forcibly taken away by some unknown police personnel of the U.P. Police, on 30.10.1992 at about 8:30 AM from near a temple outside the Gurudwara. The matter was immediately reported at the Police Outpost North Avenue, New Delhi. In pursuance to the said information, lookout notices were issued to all SHO(s) and DCP(s) Delhi as also to all SP(s) in India including all SSP(s) of the State of U.P. It was alleged that Ajit Singh, the Manager, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee had also lodged a written complaint with the Police Station, Parliament Street, New Delhi at 8:50 AM on 30.10.1992 stating therein that deceased Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa was forcibly taken away at about 8:30 AM on 30.10.1992 by unknown persons who came in two vehicles, from the place near Talkatora Road-Gurudwara Rakabganj Road outside the Gurudwara. Some of the persons were said to be in plain clothes while others were in uniform. The Delhi Police registered a case namely FIR No. 400/92 on 17.11.1992 at 8:45 PM under Section 365 IPC. It was alleged that the U.P. Police had also registered a case namely FIR No. 187/92 dated 31.10.1992 under Section 392 IPC readwith Section 3/4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (In short as "the TADA Act"), at Police Station Baradhpur, District Bijnor (U.P.), reporting therein that the Police party led by Sri Dhirender Singh Yadav, Station House Officer of the Police Station Baradhpur had an encounter with two unknown Sikh militants near Village Kanshiwala and in exchange of fire one unidentified militant had been killed, whereas another managed to escape. After the encounter, the police recovered one AK-56 Rifle bearing No. 17036926, a DBBL Gun and one Magazine with 25 live cartridges of AK-56 Rifle etc. from the spot of encounter. The Apex Court in its order dated 15.12.1992 in the aforesaid petition had observed that as per the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, deceased Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa was taken away by the U.P. Police. A direction was issued to the Director General of Police, U.P. to look into the matter and submit a report. An affidavit was then filed by D.I.G. (Admin) on behalf of the Director General of Police, U.P. on 5th March, 1993 before the Apex Court stating therein that the allegations in the aforesaid writ petition could not be substantiated and that the matter had been entrusted to the Criminal Branch of CID for enquiry. In view of the aforesaid, following order dated 8.10.1993 was passed by the Apex Court:- "We have examined the Report produced before us by the Delhi Police during the investigation of the Case. There are material circumstances on the record which give a prima facie indication that Jaswinder Singh was taken away by UP Police from Delhi on 30.10.92. The UP Police has categorically denied the same. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to hold an enquiry into this matter and send a report to this Court within six months from the receipt of the Order. The Registry is directed to send a complete copy of the paper book to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi within one week from today. To be listed after a report from the CBI is received in this respect." ;