Shri Rang Lal v. The State of Delhi

25. Accordingly, in view ofthe above discussion, charge against Addl. SHO is liable to beframed u/s 304A/342 IPG and SHO,Inspector K.L. Meena is also liable to be summoned as an accused in the matter: I order accordingly. 26Issue B/Ws in the sum ofRf 5/000/- againstInspector K.L. Meena, the then SI 10 of P.S. Tilak Nagar, returnable on 05.11.2007."

11. Vide order dated 20.()3.20q^>: in Crl.M.C.2041/2007, the petitioner SI Rang Lai was^empled;ff^r^ersonalappearance before thelearned trialCourt,which orderisiniMi^eneethoughtherewasno stay ofproceedings as also clai^dd^lij^vffiis Court vide orders dated 26.10.2017 & 25.10.2018. In Crl. M.C.1009/2008 vide order dated 20.03.2009 Inspector 'K.L. ]VIeenaj;v:.t petitioner of Crl. M.C.1009/2008 was exempted from personal appearance in the learned trial Court,which order has continued till date with it having been clarified vide order dated 25.10.2018 by this Courtthatthere was no stay ofthe proceedings before the learned trial Court and that the learnedtrialCourtmay proceedinthe matterin accordance withlaw.

12. The petitioner of Crl.M.C.2041/2007 SI Rang Lai contended that he was on sanctioned leave upto 23.04.1997 and he reported on Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Pagel0of45 duty on 11 am in the police station Hari Nagar on 23.04.1997 and that the deceased accused Rattan Singh along with another accused Sandeep had been apprehended at 4.30 a.m. by Head Constable Braham Dev and Constable Raj Pal when they spotted the accused on Outer Ring Road near Ganesh Nagar at about 4.30 a.m. in the early morning of23.04.1997 which caused suspicion about their complicity in some cognizable offence and ofthe design to commit a cognizable offence and thus both the accused Sandeep and Rattan Singh (since deceased) were brought to the police station and were kept in room no.5 when the petitioner SI Rang Lai wason leave andjoined his duty at 11.00 a.m. on 23.04.1997. The petitioner SI Rang Lai thus submits thatthe apprehension ofRattan Singh£sinG& had been made in his absence and the case had bcpn entMsted to Shri Sunil Vashisht, Additional SHO for interrogation anMaLhe the petitioner herein was neither entrusted the custody ofthe deQ^ Rattan Singh nor was his interrogation entrusted to hint.]L

13. It has been submitted fottl%:b^Si|^ng Lai that at about 1.15 p.m., he along with his staffwent on patrolling duty and at about 3 p.m., three pick pocketk were a:iTested;alpri^g^^^ the knife in their possession by the petitioner herein and by two other police officials named Ved Prakash and Brahm Dev and three FIRs were recorded at the instance ofthe petitioner and two other police officials againstthe three pick pockets at about 6.30 p.m. and that till then, he was not aware ofthe deceased Rattan Singh or his co-accused Sandeep being detained by the AdditionalSHO in room no.5 allotted tothe petitioner and another Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar. The petitioner further Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page11of45 submits that at about 10.30 p.m.he was called by Shri Sunil Vashisht, Additional SHO that a stolen ear could be recovered at the instance of the deceased Rattan Singh and thatthe petitioner wassupposed to take the accused Rattan Singh to the site(where no car wasrecovered).The petitioner submits that this order was confirmed by Shri K.L. Meena (petitioner ofCrl. M.C.I009/2008),SHO,PS Tilak Nagar,Delhi who also asked the petitioner to take the accused Rattan Singh for the recovery of the stolen car under the monitoring and supervision of Additional SHO Sunil Vashisht,the10 ofthe case.

14. The petitioner SI Rang I.alfurther submits that Rattan Singh was taken to Kachi Colony,Najafgarh;by?M^ accompanied by Head Constable Brahm Dev and Cpnstabl|/^^ and Constable Ved Prakash but no recovery was made at hi^ and the petitioner returned to the Police Station'with'%ttah Singh at around 2 a.m. on 24.04.1997 and the petitioner the Police Station for night checking leaving Rattan Sin^||dee^ased) in the custody of Constable Brahm Dev and eon.§^)^|j;®^ and Rattan Singh(since deceased)was taken by Constable RajPal to room no.5 which is the office ofthe petitioner SIRang^Ld.an^^phlnspector Ashok Kumar Sharma.

15. The petitioner submits that within halfan hour.Constable Raj Pal walked out ofthe room to check ifthe Duty Officer could send someone elseto substitute him and atthatpointoftime.Constable Raj Palheardthe bolting oftheroom from inside by the deceased accused Rattan Singh and theSHO K.L.Meenawho wassleeping in hisroom inthePolice Station wasinformed by theDuty Officer JaiKishanthat Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page12of45 > somebody had bolted the room from inside and that there was an apprehension of something undesirable and thus, the SHO Inspector K.L. Meena (petitioner of Crl. M.C.I009/2008)ran to the room and ordered the other police personnel present at the site to break open the door and on opening the door,they saw Rattan Singh hanging from a ceiling fan with the help ofNivar rope.

16. The petitioner further submits that at about 3:25 a.m., the petitioner was called through a wireless message by the SHO when the petitioner was on patrolling duty^ ^d within 5-10 minutes, the petitioner reported at the Police Statidh and he was informed that the accused Rattan Singh had committed suicide in the room.no.5 which was being shared by the petitiqhef dfohg^with Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar. The petitioner SI Rang Ld further submits that he was not entrusted with the custody ofthe decease^'by the SHO or by the Addl. SHO Sunil Vashisht at any pqurt The petitioner further submits that as borne out.;-fix)W?lKe%ep|^4i|ider Section 176 Cr.PC, 1973 as well as from the stdeif®%;|todei?Section 161 ofthe Cr.PC, 1973 and that it was a matter ofrecord that Constable Rajpal(one of the accused charge sheetedr\yho,did not^-as^ order offraming of notice under Section 251 ofthe Cr.PC, 1973),had walked out ofthe room no.5 to check ifthe duty officer could send some other person to substitute him regarding the custody ofthe deceased Rattan Singh and thatatthatpointoftime,thepetitioner wason nightpatrolling and had no supervision or control over the custody of the deceased Rattan Singh and that because the deceased Rattan Singh had committed suicide when he was all alone in the room in the absence ofConstable Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.l009/2008 P^ge13of45 Raj Pal, the petitioner contends that there can be no allegations levelled against himofcommission ofany kind ofnegligence qua the deceased Rattan Singh. The petitioner thus submits that the impugned order dated 06.10.2001 ofthe learned ACMM,Delhi and order dated 13.04.2007 ofthe learned ASJ, Delhi are bad in law and on the facts liable to be set aside in as much as the petitioner had no role whatsoever to play in the commission ofthe offence.

17. The petitioner further submits,that the DD entries that have been made have been manipulated by the SHO concerned to escape his liability and it was further submitted by SI Rang Lai that the sanction that was accorded by the Qovemmcnt was invalid and defective and time barred and?/thab no prima facie case against him ofthe offences punishable:under Sections 304A/342ofthe ' ' ' Indian Penal Code, 1860, The petitioner further submits that cognizance had not been taken within a /d|r.ofthe commission ofthe offences and thus the charge kheet was time;b:arred under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act,1978 m as, the date of the alleged commission of the offence was 24.04.1997 and the enquiry report under Section 176 ofthe CrTG^;;T[9] on 31.03.1999 and the charge sheet wasfiled on 20.05.2000.

18. Vide order dated 13.04.2007, the learned ASJ observed to the effect: "8.Section 197 of Cr.PC makes a previous sanction mandatory when the person concerned commits an offence while acting orpurporting to actin the discharge of his official duty. Section 140 prescribes a period of limitation only when the person concerned isprosecuted.Crl.M.C.No.204i/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page 14of45 for any act done under the colour ofduty or authority. The important question is whether the revisionists were acting under colour ofduty or authority. In the instant case, the allegations against the revisionists are thatthey illegally confined Rattan Singh who later on committed suicide.In my view, the acts attribated to the revisionists had no nexus to their duty and,therefore, no sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. or under section 140 ofDelhi Police Act would be requiredfor their prosecution. The contention ofLd. Counselfor the revisionist is devoid ofanyforce and thesame is hereby rejected.

9. It has also submitted by Ld. Counselfor revisionist RangLai thatrevisionist was.notentrusted the custody of the deceased at any point of.time by the SHO or Addl. SHO.I have gone thrdugh'the fepprtrU/s. 173 Cr.P.C. and other material available]^(mjrecord. As per, the material available on.recpMiftb0qs0t.RajPaland HC, Braham Dev who broughjRatdn'S^ (since deceased) in thepolice station anfitwdsRevisionistRang Lai who interrogated the deceased Ratan Lai. There are allegations thai neither,M was made in the recordnorthefcMtiyes-(^d^asedwere informed regarding his arre^^f^i^;fa!^0ere is sufficient material on record'againft to show that deceasedwas illegally: ct^iMdMined in the police station. 10.lt has been submitted by Ld. Counselfor revisionist Braham Devha. LdjTriqlfcourtchgsfnpiiappreciated the fact that revisionist PiaR dhiy^brdughtthe suspect to the police station and it is the duty the Superior Officer to pass necessary directions or instructions, with regard to the custody of any suspect. 1 have gone through the record. There are allegations that Ratan Singh (since deceased) was taken to NajafGarh and after returning From NajafGarh in the night, Ratan Singh'scustody was handedover to Ct.RaipalandrevisionistBraham Dev by SIRang Lai and thefailed to take sufficientprecaution Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page15of45 for the safety ofdeceased. Therefore, the contention of Ld. Counselfor revisionistis devoidofmerit."

19. It is essential to observe that the statement dated 24.04.1997 of Head Constable Jai Kishan 320/W,PS Tilak Nagar which forms the basis of the FIR states to the effect that he was posted as the Duty Officer from 1 am to 9 am at P.S. Tilak Nagar,New Delhi and that at about 2:05 am SI Rang Lai(petitioner ofCrl. M.C.2041/2007), Head Constable Braham Dev and Constable Raj Pal had returned to the Police Station after conducting the investigation in FIR No. 155/97, registered under Section 379 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. TilakNagar,New Delhi and haftbfou^Mhthem ShriRattan Singh (since deceased)s/o Shri Rani:Cftandra^ t/o Village Tikla,P.S.Bawal, District Rewari,Haryana whose/name had been learnt on assailing the same and he was taken to theilOiRbp^ No.5 by the said police personneland afterabouth^feanlpur^i;^ asound ofknocking onthedoor,onhearingofwhic||Ap|ri%^^nstableJaiKishanwent to the10Room N0.[5] and ftiunftt^hSie RajPal presentthere who informed Head Constable Jai Kishan that th|person who had been broughtbythem had boltedthefpomffomMideand wasnotopening the door and on which, he,HC Jai Kishan ran to the SHO Inspector K.L.Meena(petitioner ofCrl. M.C.I009/2008)who was sleeping in his room and informed the SHO ofthe same and on this the SHO ran to that room and on hearing the noise Constable Kishan, Malkhana Moharar, and Constable Jitender,D.D. writer came to the spot and started breaking the door and he HC Jai Kishan returned to Crl.M,C,No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Rojnamacha and after 15-20 minutes he returned to the room of S.I. Rang Lai and found that the person who had been brought by them named Rattan Singh was lying dead on the floor and there was a nivad round his neck and he HC Jai Kishan subsequently learnt that Rattan Singh had remained alone in his room and he hanged himselfto death and committed suicide.

20. Without any observations on the merits or demerits ofthe trial, a bare perusal of the statement dated 24.04.1997 of HC Jai Kishan which forms the basis ofthe FIR brings forth that the deceased Rattan Singh had been detained in the IO;Rppm.J^o.[5] i.e.room ofSI Ranglal (Petitioner of Crl.M.C.2O4l7f20O7jJ^^ had'been left alone there without any adequate precautiorir. In the circumstances, the observations ofthe learned ASjtofhe pifect that there was no arrest made ofthe deceased on the recpM nPr the relatives ofthe deceased were informed of his arresf aiid tbafVif^ was SI Rang Lai who interrogated the deceasedjij cannbtrlDefvp^^ and brings forth primafacie thatthe deceased hajl)e||fdl^k% confined/ detained in the police station.In fact even the averments made by SI Rang Lai in the present petition categorically.Jbring^^^ Rattan Singh and Sandeep had been apprehended on a suspicion and that Rattan Singh (since deceased) had been taken to Kachi Colony, Najafgarh by the petitioner SI Rang Lai, Head Constable Braham Dev and Constable RajPaland Constable Ved Prakash butthere wasno recovery effected and that SI Rang Lai returned to the Police Station with Rattan Singh (since deceased)at around 2 a.m.on 24.04.1997 and the petitioner SI RangLaithen leftthePolice Stationfor nightchecking leaving Rattan Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 of45 Singh(deceased)in the custody ofBrahm Dev and Constable Raj Pal and Rattan Singh(since deceased)was taken by Constable Raj Pal to room no.5 which is the office ofthe petitioner SI Rang Lai and Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar Sharma whereas the FIR itself states that SI Rang Lai and the accompanying police personnel Head Constable Braham Dev and Constable Raj Pal had taken Rattan Singh (since deceased)to the 10 Room No.5 and that SI Rang Lai, the petitioner herein was conducting investigation in relation to FIR No.155/97,PS Tilak Nagar under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, I860 is categorically averred in the FIRitself3nd.^,l^^ is apparentthatit was the prima facie responsibihty ofthe';JO/SI;Rang Lai who had taken Rattan Singh (deceased) for infeCTOgation and for conducting investigation and had broughtybirnjbac^ the police station and Vi' placed him in his own room arid that jieipught to have taken care of the custody and wellbeingof;Rdl^j:®n^^ thecircumstances,itis apparent that there is nor.infifthity iip. the, impugned order dated -''TV 06.10.2001 of the learned nor in the order dated 13.04.2007 ofthe learned ASJ observing that a prima facie case qua commission ofthe offence punisliable,uhd^^ 304A/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, I860 against SI Rang Lai is made out in as much as it is also essential to observe that it has been rightly held by the learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2007 that the provisions ofSection 140 ofthe Delhi Police Act, 1978 do not apply in as much asthe.acts alleged againstthe petitioner SIRang Lai do not fall in the ambit ofperformance ofduty ofSI Rang Lai in as much as Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 prescribes a period of Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page 18of45 limitation only for acts concerned under the colour of duty or authority and that in the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner herein were that he along with other aecused had illegally confined Rattan Singh who later on committed suicide which acts thus had no nexus to the duty and thatthus the bar oflimitation prescribed under Section 140 ofthe Delhi Police Act, 1978, which reads to the effect: "140.Bar to suits andprosecutions.- (1)In any case ofalleged offence by a police officer or otherperson, or ofa wrong alleged to have been done by suchpolice officer or othfrperson^ by cmy actdone under colour ofduty or authority orIn excess ofan such duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if.cotninWfd or done was of the character aforesaid, tfe.prdlicuiion or suit shall not be entertained and ifentertainedfsjuiU be dismissed ifit is instituted, more than three moniesafterthe date ofthe act complained of: Provided:that any such prosecution against a Police &jf^oefy,pr^}pth^ person may be entertained by the (^ihti^imsd^ddjpvith the previous sanction ofthe yearfrom the date ofthe offence. ' •' - ' (2)In the case ofan intended suit on account ofsuch a wrong as aforesaid, theperson intendihg{to sue shallgive to the allegedwrongdbefdi&Pks^dmMe month'snotice of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, and if no such notice has been given before the institution of the suit, it shall be.dismissed. (3)Theplaintshallsetforth thatanotice asaforesaidhas been servedon the defendantand the date ofsuch service and shall state what tender ofamends, ifany, has been made by the defendantanda copy ofthesaid notice shall be annexed to theplaintendorsed or accompanied with a Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page19of45 declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof" does not apply.

21. Significantly, through the inquest report under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 conducted into the cause of death of Shri Rattan Singh s/o Shri Ram Chander who died on 24.04.1997 in police custody at the Police Station Tilak Nagar,the brieffacts put forth are to the effect: • "Telephonic information regarding the death of Shri Ratan Singh was received by the then SDM, Shri Prakash Chandra. The iifformation was given by Shri P.N Arora AGP Tilak Nagar West. The SDM got there by 6:00a.m. andsffrtedtoe inquestproceedings. • As reported by thepqUce offfceffi^fff^ police stationRatan Singh w^jsdli^fffdmmittedsuicide at 2:30 a.m. on 24.4.97, ihrodW-ndfS occupied by Shri. RangLai,SIinPS. TilakNagar:, • Ratan Singh was illegally detained in the PS Tilak Nagar. There is nOientry re^qrdirig his arrest in PS TilakNagar records: • ■, W'} ■> • The articles available near were seized and seizure memo was • The body ofthe deceasedwas lyingon thefloor in room no. 5 with a "nivad" rope aroundhis neck. • Thephotograph's oftheMfyfrgm^di^ent angles were taken. The body was eMmmed'dhdfform no.25.35 (1) (B) wasfilledin. As recordedinform no. 25.35 (1) (B). The body was examinedat 6:07 a.m. • Following is the information as recorded in the form no. 25.35 (1) (B): No relatives ofthe deceasedwerepresent at the time of examination. Shri. RangLai, SIand Shri. BramhaDev, HC ofPS, Tilak Nagar identified the body as ofRatan Singh. His eyes and mouth were open but thetongue was notprotruding. Some bruises were seen infront of Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 toe neck only. Loop of "nivad" rope wasaroundfront side of the neck and middle of the head. No blood, liquid including semen, urine or blood clotsseen at or near mouth, ears, eyes andgenitals andanus. The body ofthe deceased was vigorous, the built was thin and was ofheight of5'6". Rumour suggestedthat the deceased had hanged himself. Statements ofthefollowing persons were recorded by the then SDMSh. Prakash Chandra before orderingthe postmortem on the body ofthe deceased. Shri. K.L. Meena,SHOPS TilakNagar. ShriRangLai,Sub-Inspector,PS TilakNagar. Shri Bramha Dev, Head Constable, No. 345/W, PS TilakNagar.,. ShriRajPal, Constable,No.:1127,PS TilakNagar. Shri Krishan Pal, Constable,:,No.', 1489, PS Tilak Nagar.ShriJitenderKumar:Gppstqfle,No. 1130/W,-PS TilakNagar.;r, V > Shri Ved Prakash, Head CSnstable, No. 448/W, PS TilakNagar. ' fii j Shri. Ved Prakash, Constable No. 1876/W, PS Tilak Nagar. -fy, 'f ShriRamesh KMmcfWQ0!^hri Mela Ram,residentof B-108,GaneshNa^qr,MielMy SHO Harinagar was difedtedfta'sSal toe room where Ratan Singh was reported to have hanged himself by thethenSDM., Doctors of Maulmayfzqd Medical- College, Civil Hospital, GTB Hosptiaf New t^elhi and DeenDayal hospitalconstituted a board ofdoctors to conduct the postmortem on the body of Ratan Singh at DeenDayalUpadhayayhospital mortuary. The postmortem was conducted on 25.04.97 at 2:10 p.m. The videography was done and stillphotographs were taken oftoepostmortem. FIR was registered (No. 297/97) ofthis case at Hari NagarPS on 24.04.97 under section 342/304/34Crime team ofCFSL on the request ofSDMarrived and had CrI.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page21of45 taken photographs ofthe site ofincident, measurement ofthe door, impression/scratch which could have been created by some force on the door ofroom no. 5 to asses the possibility of breaking open the doorfrom outside, (it was reported by the police officials that thedeceased bolted himselfin the room in which he was kept and did not open on repeated knockingand bangingwhichforced the police officials to break open the door apprehendingsomething undesirable). A piece of nivadrecovered by the then SDM Shri. Prakash Chandra in the premises of PS Tilak Nagar.This pid:3 resembled the nivad which was used by Ratan Singh for hanging..The piece was sentfor laboratoryforexaminatioh.by GFSL."

22. Furthermore,the analysis oforaland documentary evidence and conclusion and laches on behalf officials pointed out in the inquestreport,reads to the effects ■' "During the course ofinquiry.Tt has been revealed that Shri Ratan Singh along withiShri Sdhaeep S/o Shri Kaptan Singh were arrested byShriiBrdr^^h;I)ev Pleadconstable andRajPal Constable. They were'se^iby ffiempf outer ring road near Ganesh Nagar at morning of23.4.97 in the circumstances causing suspwioh in their mind about being concerned in some cognizable offense or their design to commit such cognizable offense They were brought to thepolice station and were kept in room pdf§jDu0hgfhe whole day additional SHO Shri Sunil Kumar Vasisht, Shri Rang Lai, SI. and Shri Bramha Dev at different points oftime as mentioned in their statements interrogated them. During the course of interrogation Ratan Singh had admitted some thefts of carsduring lastfew months. This information was noted down by the aforesaid mentionedpolice officers. At about 10.30p.m. KL.Meena, SHO was informed about Ratan Singh and his involvement in car thefts. He directed shri Rang Lai, SIto take necessary legal action under the supervision of Shri Sunil Vasisht, ASHO who left the PS about II 30p m Ratan Singh Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&CrI.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page 22of45 was taken to Kachi colony Najafgarh by Rang Lai and was accompanied by H/C Bramha Dev and Ved Prakash and Constables, Rajpal and Ved Prakash. Bramha Dev set Shri Sandeep who was arrested with Ratan Singh wassetfree before proceeding to Najafgarh as reported. Nothing could be recovered at the place mentioned by Ratan Singh where the vehicles lifted were supposed to have been stationed. Rang Lai andother returned to PS along with Ratan Singh at around 2 p.m. on 24.4.97. RangLaileftthePSfor nightchecking leaving Ratan Singh in the custody of Constable Bramha Dev and constable Raj Pal. Bramha Dev then, went to his barrack to sleep leaving RajPalto take care ofRatan Singh. RajPaltook Ratan Singh to room no. 5, which is office ofSh. Rang Lai SI and Ashok Kumar Sharma SL After about half an hour constable RajPal walked outofIhe^ roqm to check ifthe duty officer couldsentsomeoneelsftorsdbktiute him.He had barely walked out ofthe roqm,he^heqrffithe'bolting ofthe roomfrom inside. He knocked theffiqdr djidyqsked to open it. Butthere was no response to his knocking banging ofthe door. SHO K.L. Meenaiwqfsleeping in PSin his room he was informed by duty officer Jai Kishan that somebody has bolted the roomfrom inside,andffiere^j^f^^ ofsomething undesirable. SHO the room and repeated the exercise ofknockipgrjoiffij^gm^fi/ He ordered other pdiicej^si^^lffi'esent at the site to break open the door. It was reported that they used an iron window frame/grill to break open the door. On^opening the door they saw Ratan Singh'himffin^^mffi^0jlffigfd^ the help of "nivad" rope. On toucliing the Body ofthe Ratan Singh SHO, Meenafeltthe warmth ofhis body. He ordered to bring down the body hoping that the person might be alive, they massaged hisfeet and chest but he didn't respondto anyofthese stimuli, he wasdead.SHOinformedthe seniorpolice officials andpolice officers ofpolice station Tilak Nagar.Information wassent toPSHariNagarfor registration ofthe case. The above description is the version ofthe statements ofpolice officials made before the SDMs, of the events and the Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 23of45 circumstances, which lead to the arrest, and the death ofShri Ratan Singh. The Statements of the relatives ofRatan Singh revealed that Ratan Singh was living in Delhi for last 7, Smonths and was doing somejob in some plasticfactory, they also stated that there was never a police case againstRatan Singh in thepast. On analyzing the statements ofperson recorded during the inquest proceedings and the documentaryevidence following points have been highlighted. Asper analysis ofthe witnesses no one hasstated any incident ofphysical assault with Ratan Singh. As per the statement of police officials Sandeep was at the police station till midnight on 23.4.97. He was interrogated two times and in his statement he never stated ifRatan Singh was ever was tortured bypolice officials. He also metDqrq:ffihghffis:ffi^ to whom, he didn't tellanything which mighfrev^dfp^ torture toRatcm Singh bypolice officials. Aspef/theiobse^ on the dead body by the then SDM(RG) there wd&jib ^^ spot on the cloth or Sbody ofthe deceased. The pfiyqie;'driver Ranjeet Singh who drove raiding party to Ndjdffigrh also didn't mention anything abnormalaboutthephysicaljcqgdifign ofRatan Singh. The role ofSHO,Sh^fMff^eem'iiffhe whole episode is not established as he h^'n^Mkn inffic^ed in any interrogation anddetention ofShrfRatan Sipgffi.^ SHO was briefed about the arrest ofRatim^ihgh^qif^fSO p.m. on 23.4.97 when Bramha Dev HC, Ranga Lai SI, and Sunil Vashist ASHO assembled in his roomfor a meeting in connection with a visit ofDCP to PS Tildk MgggrMext.mpy0rtg. The information was given to SHO cfier 18 hdiffs'ofWrest. No one had mentioned the time ofthe arrest ofRatan Singh andSandeep.He directed the sub ordinates to follow the legal procedure. His subordinates either failed to inform hini or concealed the information about the time of Shri Ratan Singh's and Shri Sandeep'sarrestandthe mode oftheir detention. Shri K.L. Meena SHO, PS, Tilak Nagar was not present on 23.4:97 when the accused were brought to police station after the arrest he was athis home and wasawayfor mostofthe time on 23.4.97 as per the DD Register entries. Section 2(O) of Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page24of45 CrPC that "officer in charge ofapolice station"includes, when the officer incharge of the police station is absentfrom the station house or unablefrom illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officerpresent at the station house who is next in rank to such officer and is abqve the rank ofconstable. In statements made byShriRajPalandShriBramhaDev stated that the officer in charge ofpolice station Shri Sunil Vasisht, ASHO PS Tilak Nagar (in the absence ofK.L. Meena, SHO) was informed about thearrest of Ratan Singh and Sandeep. These two Junior police officers havefully complied with the requirement ofsection 56 CrPC, i.e., taking or sending the person arrested before the officer incharge ofPS. It was the duty ofASHO to record the arrest and the information relating the commission of cognizable •offense by Ratan Singh and Sandeep undersection I54ff)fC^Gfirffi cognizable cases). As per the statements ofRaj pal and Bramha Dev and ASHO, the interrogation ofRqtqhfSirigh was done butfailed to record the information in the}prescribed manner. The ASHO has not given any reasgnqble and satisfactory explanation about his notfollowing}thepfpfedure of law. Sunil Vasisht, ASHO, had admitted that he had interrogated Ratan Singh at onepointoftime..> •>; Further hefailed to informme relaiiyes/known person/persons ofthe accused and violdledithf^i^ikion regarding the bail, which amountedto illegalponfipfpiefft undersection 342IPC. Asper the statement ofpolice officer including Shri Rang Lai himself, Ranglal came in the picture ^yhen K.L.MEENA, SHO briefed him at I0)30ffi:mPgnd asj^cffiffii toproceed asper the law in the case ofRatartSirigh. ' Rang Lai SI, had returned after availing casual leave at about 11a.m. on 23.4.97 as entered in DDregister in PS. Asstated by Sunil Vasisht, ASHO who saw Rang LaiSI, interrogating Ratan Singh around noon 23.4.97soon after becamefrom leave. It is matter of investigation whether Rang Lai, SI started investigating the case on his own or was he ordered by ASHO. It implies that Sunil Vashisht had knowledge ofdetention of Ratan Singh but still he denies giving any instruction/order to RangLaiSI. Later in the day around2p.m. on 23.4.97when he Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page 25of45 ->■ met K.L.Meena SHO, he failed to inform about the arrest and detention ofRatan Singh. It is an admittedfact that after returningfrom Najafgarh in the night Ratan Singh's custody was handed over toRajpal Cons, andBrahma Dev Head Cons by RangLai, SISh. Sunil Vashist stated that he left the PS after meeting with SHO at about II p.m. on 23.4.97 with duepermissionfrom SHO. But he didnot recordhis departure inDD register. On 29.4.97 ShriJaiKishahHC, no 320/Whadfiledan affidavit before the then SDM Shri Prakash Chandra stating therein "that while the statement:of deponent was being recorded it could not be. contented categorically that SHO KL.Meena directed the deponent to inform ASHO Shri Sunil Vashist at his residence and called ASHQ to. Police Station on the night intervening on 23.4.97 qhd;24^f^:qnd accordingly deponent phonedat 4.45 a.m. anffiinfofrhedffi^ ofASHO to send him atPS. Accordingly,/ASHOffieacM PSat 5.30 a.m., by that time all senior officers,fe:/i^^ DCP West, Additional DCP Headquarters West,r4^^ffiA^ Nagcir and other ACPs hadreachedthePS. > | U /fl / Filing an affidavit is not d lAgde:. of tendering witness in a criminal inquiry. Further;ffiiAnpfU^ whether this has to be takenin defensecfSfmtSun^ or againsthim about his absence from PSfHeffidi^ PS at 9.55 p.m. on 23.4.97 after patrolling'du^:'^^ he has not offered any reasonfor not recordinghis departure inDD register. It is not clear as why and how Ratan Singh committed suicide as no case was made qgaihsfhim--.anffi wasrecoveredfiom him. Police could not trace ahy vehicle, which alleged to have been liftedby Ratan Singh andhis associates.. CONCLUSION Statements of key witness namely Sandeep S/o Shri Kaptan Singh and Dara Singh s/o Sh. Raj Kumar Ratan Singh's landlordShri Ramesh Kumar and statements ofothers, there is no direct evidence ofphysical abuse against the body of Shri Ratan Singh. As per opinion of Doctors of the board, the injuries mentioned inpostmortem report were not sufficient to cause death and were superficial in nature. Reportfurther says > that 'rather suicide is confirmed'which Ifeel is an assumption rather than afact or certainty.-Statements ofpolice officials, that they had broke open the door also gets supportfrom the CFSL physical Laboratory's report which states that the door wasopened by applyingforcefrom the outside. Asperthepostmortem reportanditsfurther clarification, CFSL Physical laboratory report and circumstances, lam of the opinion thatRatan Singh had died due to hanging butitcannot be ascertained whether it wasasuicide.There are certain lapses on the part ofthe police officials, which Ifefr are indirectly responsiblefor the death ofShriRaian Singh.Followingpoints reveals how casuallythe case ofRatan Singh was handled.

1. Police can arrestaperson without any warrant under section 41,107 to llOarid 151 of CrPC. As the police have not recorded anyIfR^fr^mstffie deceased(Ratan Singh) and Sandeep, iififhoffmmfrfn^ law they were arrestefrlLo seizffkr^mo ofthe Master keys alleged to have(beenfr fS^ff^rom Ratan Singh waseverprepared. v.; \ ^ i -

2. Sh. Ratan Singh ^y^iis \arresfrd at 4.30 am on 23.4.97. Within 24hours^hefrd^f^frredto beproduced before the Magistrate)} made to produce him within the a person is arrestedwithoutwdrfcmtf^sl^^ffrM^en itisregulated by section 56CRPdSv}MI^Mg0t "a police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to,, the provisions contained as to bailf takeyor sendjjHfr,person arrested before a magistrate hcti'mgjiirikdibtton in the case, or before the officer in charge of the police stations. Constable Rajpal and Head Cons Brahma Dev who arrested the Ratan Singh and Sandeep had informed the officer in charge i.e. to ASHO Shri Sunil Vashisht. Section 56 CrPCimplies that ifthepolice does not think fit to take the bail, the arrestedperson has to be taken to the Magistrate.

3. Section 57 CrPC ofsays that a person arrested without warrant notto be detainedfor more than twenty- Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page27of45 (b ( ) fow houfs. The provision of this section is to prevent forced confession andpreventpolice stations being used as Jails. Police officer failing to produce an arrested person before magistrate within 24 hours is guilty of wrongful detention. Keeping a person under restraint whichprevents himfrom going wherever he likes, on the pretext that no actual arrest is made, is illegal and an abuse ofpolice powers: it is infact custody under arrest and violation ofsection 56 and 57. The detention was illegal both ofRattanSingh andSandeep.

4. ASHO Sh. Sunil Vashisht had seen both Rdtan Singh and Sandeep in the room ofSIRanglal asper his own statement but he failed ip givy any direction to initiate any procedural-proceedings. He was the in charge of the Police StationffifHatfime as SHO KL Meena was not at the Policeft0Qn at that time. It is admitted fact that trueyfiffiHcfmd. residence of Ratan Singh wasascertained:MfbhrnlBhave been releasedon bond with or without{sUr^fS per the provision of section 42(2) CrPC whichstaffsfWhen the true name and residence cfsuchpeifonihf^ilHeen ascertained, he shallbereleasedonMsfxfcutih^fiM^ with orwithout sureties, to appear bffiorfd M0tirgteifso required.

5. There is an act ofomfmoHlon the part ofpolice officer in charge ASHO Sunil Vashisht did not inform about the detention ofRatan Singh andffiandeep to SHO KL Meena when hcfdlMh^ time as he was well aware about the detention ofRatan Singh and Sandeep. Again in nightatabout 10.30pm 23.4.97SHO had directed the ASHO to proceed asper the law in the case ofRatan Singh.ButASHO admitted that he hadleft the Police Stationfor his residence. He did notshow his ravanagiin theDD diary.

6. Sandeep was arrested along with Ratan Singh but Sandeep wasdetainedtillmidnightonly.He wasreleased without any bond or surety. By whose order he was releasedIs notknown. This was violation ofsection 59of Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 28of45 CrPC, which states that 'no person who has been arrested by apolice officer shall be discharge except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order ofa Magistrate. '

7. In the PM report some injuries are mentioned, particularly the injuries of the Head. It has to be ascertained how the deceased sustained these injuries and it is matter of investigation how the deceased acquired the piece of nivad while he remained in watchfulcustody ofpolice officialthroughout. The above points indicate lapses on the part of police officials in discharging tlieir duties asper the law which ultimately lead to tUe dffith ofSh. Ratan Singh. It is not clear why Sh. Ratan Sijigh had hanged himselfas no case to show his inyoly^m^ffi any cognizable offence andsubsequentlyfvhi(§0ffi^ffiave arousedfear ofPolice orfeeling 6ff^itffiffi§ti^ that could have driven him to commit suicide I have confined myself to ascertain the.caUs4f^ death as per the documents on record and CifctMfiances, however, it will notbe outofplace tofiieM^Jfi^h^'Case needsfurther investigations on thep6in^fifffififi0apdabove, to look into the reasonsfok/i<wk^Ad V^'^^^^concerned police officers,: clearly prima facie brin^ forth the complicity.,and laxity on behalfof SI Rang Lai (the petitioner oL-^fl;' K|.||.26M/2()07) at the time of confinement of Rattan Singh (deceased) who was confined, without warrant and without any information to the nearest Magistrate after having so confined him coupled with the factum that the arrest and information relating to the commission of cognizable offences by Rattan Singh was notrecorded. Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page29of45

23. The petition filed by SIRangLaiassailingtheimpugned orders dated 06.10.2001 ofthe learned ACMM,Delhi and 13.04.2007 ofthe learned ASJ,Delhiis thus dismissed.

24. On behalf of the petitioner of Crl.M.C.1009/2008, Mr. K.L. Meena,thethen SHO ofPS Tilak Nagar,it wassubmitted thathe had no role whatsoever to play in the commission of any offences punishable under Section 304A/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,and thathe had noteven been charge sheeted and thateven the inquest report under Section 176 ofthe Cr.PC, 1973 ofthe inquest proceedingsconductedbytheSDMexoneratedhim andthatthenotice underSection251 oftheCr.PC,1973;vigq|rderdated06.10.2001 had only been framed against four persdi^^cbarge sheeted and no fresh evidence had been brought on record';and thatthe learned trial Court had invoked the provisions ofSectiop3T[9] ofthe Cr.PC,1973 on the basis ofthesame evidenceulre#(|nthe record withoutany forther developmentwhichorderit^was?|)nyndediscontrarytolaw.

25. The petitionerInspector«:Meenasubmitsthathe wasposted as the SHO of the Police Station Tilak Nagar where a person committed suicide when he:was detainqd;^^e by the other accused police persons without any record of his detention and without informing abouthis detention him,the petitioner,thethen SHO.The petitionerplacedgreatrelianceontheobservationsmadebytheSDM which read to the effect; "The roleoftheSHOShriKLMeena(presentPetitioner) in the whole episode is notestablishedas hete no( indieated in any interrogation and ff Rattan Singh (the deeeased). K. L Meena SHO was Page 30of45 briefed about the arrest ofRatan Singh at 10.30 pm on 23.4.97 when Bramha Dev HC, Rang Lai SI and Sunil Vashisht ASHO (all accused persons) assembled in his roomfor a meeting in connection with a visit ofDCP to PS Tilak Nagar next morning. The information was givento the SHO KL Meena after 18 hours ofarrest. No One had mentioned the time ofthe arrest ofRatan Singh and sandeep. He (K L Meena, the present petitioner) directed the subordinates tofollow legal procedure. His subordinates eitherfailed to inform him or concealed the information about the time of Shri Rattan Singhs (Deceased)andShriSandeep arrestandthe mode oftheir detention."

26. The petitioner submits that vide the. impugned order dated 15.10.2007,there is only a presumption;^^ has been raised by the learned trial Court assuming that the pkitipner was guilty as he was the Station House In-charge and that^ he had manipulated the DD entries and it has been submitted pn.'jheha^ ofthe petitioner that the SDM and the 10 ofthe Cfimei|Br^^^ h had not mentioned anything aboutthe petitioner being iinyQ%^d;j^.._an^^ind ofsuch manipulation. The petitioner further submitsthatonthe-date ofthe illegal detention ofthe deceased,he was athishome andthee^ry ofravangi was also therein in the DD entry registgr^M'tHSffeiSb also in his inquiry report had mentioned that when the SHO was not available at the policestation,thenextpersonbelow him waspresumedtobethehead ofthepolicestation and inthiscase,thethenASHO who washimself an accused and who had interrogated the deceased himselfbefore his suicide was holding the responsibilities ofthe SHO concerned. The petitioner has further submitted thathis being summoned was barred Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 31of45 by time in as much as the offences were not punishable with imprisonmentbeyond a period ofthi'ce years.

27. The petitioner further submits that in as much as he was working asthe SHO atthe relevanttime and in dereliction ofduty,he is alleged to have committed the offence and thus he cannot be prosecuted without a valid sanction from the competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C., 1973 and Section 140 ofDelhi Police Act, 1978 and that under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978, the requisite sanction was to be obtained within a year of the alleged commission ofthe offence and not beyond.The petitioner has further submitted that he was notplaced in Cdlpi^n No.2 ofthe charge sheet and thus could not have been sumihdnd^/^ithout any fresh evidence having been collected. The pethioher h^ further submitted that in terms of verdict of this Coui^ m AMriMh Sen Vs. State(NCT of Delhi)2006(3)JCC2<?57aftei^jcq^i|a^ been taken,a person camiot be arrayed or summoned as ah ddeused before evidence is recorded at trial.

28. Through written submissions and oral submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/reliance,.was^laeefcon the verdict of the HoiTble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State ofPunjab and Ors.(2014)3SCC92videparas57,83-85,92-96,117,which readto the effect: "57. Thus, the application ofthe provisions ofSection 319 CrPC,at the stage ofinquiry is to be understood in its correct perspective. The power under Section 319 CrPC can he exercised only on the basis ofthe evidence adduced before the court during a trial. Sofar as its Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page[3] application during the course ofinquiry is concerned, it remains limited as referred to hereinabove, adding a person as an accused, whose name has been mentioned in Column 2ofthe charge-sheetor any otherperson who might be an accomplice.

83. It is, therefore, not any material that can be utilised, rather it is that material after cognizance is taken by a court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or tryingan offence, that the courtcan utilise or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis ofevidence'adduced before the court, who may be on the basis'ofs^ucf }^ treated to be an accomplice in the. cpmmissi^^ff the offence. The inference thatcan be drdwdjffj^f^terialwhich is not exactly evidence recorded beforefthe court, but is a material collected by theycou^t,/can be utilised to corroborate evidence alreadyrkhp0edfor thepurpose of summoning any other;pffkhnyifthep^^ the accused. This would harmorilise'''yuehi m0^ with the word "evidence" as matirjal^Il^kv^^ supportive in nature to facilitate -il^^fe^filpn of any other accomplice whose compiicitp in the offence may have either been suppressedor escapedthe notice ofthe court. • ''' f' i'.

84. The word "evidenoe'eijeyefcff^ be understood in its wider sense both at the stage of trial and, as discussed earlier, even at the stage ofinquiry, as used under Section 319 CrPC. The court, therefore,should be understood to have the power to proceed against any person after summoning him on the basis ofany such material as brought forth before it. The duty and obligation ofthe court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers cautiously on such material after evidence has been led during trial. Crl.M.C.No,204l/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page33of45

85. In view ofthe discussion made and the conclusion drawn hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid question posed is that apartfrom evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the courtto invoke thepower under Section 319 CrPC. The "evidence" is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial.

92. Thus, in view ofthe abqy^jy^^old.thatpower tmder Section 319 CrPC canfbei'-i^^is^ at the stage of completion ofexamihdtiqnriri-^cfiief and the court does not need to wait till thei:sqid'^Merfce/is tested on crossexaminationfor it is the satisfdctidh'ofthe court which can be gatheredfrom thffmsofs^ recorded by the court, in respect of complicity of sotnevother person(s), not facingthe trialin theofffhff^ Question (iv)—What \isy/tf^^ idegffce.^ of satisfaction required for invokihg ifhyppyvbr^^^^^ Section 319 CrPC?

93. Section 319(1) CrPC empowers the^,court to proceed againstotherpersonswhdappe ofoffence, though not an accused f^reffhe"court. The word "appear" means "clear to the comprehension", or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with "proved". It impartsalesserdegree ofprobabilitythanproof.

94. In Pyare Lai Bhargava v. State ofRajasthan [AIR 1963 SC 1094:(1963) 2 Cri LJ 178], afour-Judge Bench ofthis Court was concerned with the meaning of the word "appear". The Court held that the appropriate meaning ofthe word "appears is seems.Itimportsa lesser degree ofprobability than proof.In Ram Singh v. Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 ^4of45 Ram Niwas [(2009) 14 SCC 25:(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1278], a two-Judge Bench of this Court was again required to examine the importance of the word "appear" as appearing in the section. The Court held thatfor thefulfilment ofthe condition that it appears to the court that a person had committed an offence, the court must satisfy itself about the existence of an exceptional circumstance enabling it to exercise an extraordinaryjurisdiction. What is, therefore, necessary for the court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction ofthe persons sought to be added asthe accused in the case.

95. At the time oftajdng'cpghizqncc^fhe court has to see whether a prima facieJcdse if,^rnp^^ to proceed against the accused. (jhdpr:fyeftiorr%19 CrPC, though the test ofprimafacie case isf^isa^ the degree of satisfaction thatisrequiredisrhMckftricter^ A two-Judge Bench ofthis Courtin Jflcqs'y:fyipt(^Rqjasthan[(2014) 3 SCC 321:(2013) lUStdl^^, held(that on the objective satisfaction:(bfiffw$0^^ person may be "arrested"or "sumMn^f)qs^ji^:^ ofthe case mayrequire,fitqppsqfyfybin^e^^ thatany such person not beings tli&Jdc.cusfdyhas committed an offencefor which sucKperson'coidd be tried together with the already arraignedaccusedpersons.

96. In Rajendra Singh[RafehdrdSirigh'v. State ofU.P., (2007) 7SCC378:(2007)3SCC(Cri)375:AIR 2007 SC2786],the Courtobserved:(SCCp.388,para 16) "16. Be it noted, the court need not be satisfied that he has committed an offence. It need only appear to it that he has committed an offence. In other words,from the evidence it need only appear to it thatsomeone else has committed an offence, to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 ofthe Code. Even then, it has a discretion Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 35of45 rnot to proceed, since the expression used is 'may'and not 'shall'. The legislature apparently wanted to leave that discretion to the trial court so as to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction under this section. The expression 'appears'indicates an application ofmind by the courtto the evidence that hascome before it and then taking a decision to proceed under Section 319 ofthe Code or not."

117. We accordinglysum up our conclusionsasfollows: Questions(i)and(Hi). — What is the stage at which power under Section 319 CrPCcan be exercised?, ■■' ■■ ''f ' and / — Whether the word 'jevBeme" used in Section 319(1) CrPC has been usedjif a} dpmfrehensive sense and includes the evidence cPUectkj^(d^irig investigation or the word ''evidence'',iis limtedMilte.evidence recorded during trial?

117.1. In Dharam W Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306: AIR 2013 SC 3018], the ConstitutionBenchhas already heldthat after committal, cognizance of an offence.can be^tahidhi^^ ciperson not namedas an accusedbut against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of the investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 CrPC and the Sessions Judge need not wait till "evidence" under Section 319 CrPC becomes availablefor summoninganadditionalaccused.

117.2. Section 319 CrPC, significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note ofi.e. (1) inquiry (2) trial. As a trial commences afterframing of charge. Crl.M.C.No.204l/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 P^ge36of45 an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 CrPC, and under Section 398 CrPC are species ofthe inquiry contemplated by Section 319 CrPC. Materials coming before the court in course ofsuch inquiries can be used for corroboration ofthe evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2ofthe chargesheet.

117.3. In view ofthe aboveposition the word "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and notliterally i.e. as evidence broughtduringa trial. Question (ii)—Whether IHb word evidence" used in Section 319(1)CrPCcould dnlybfiean evidence tested by cross-examination or thfcourlSGoplexercise the power under the said provision:even).,oh the basis of the statement made in the exdminqiibfifn-chiefofthe witness concerned? ■: ^ Answer

117.4. Considering thefdbfthdbfiHgbl'Section 319 CrPC a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned toface the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4)CrPCtheproceeding:a^ such person is to commencefrom the'^ge ofiahing ofcognizance, the court need not wait for the evidence against the accusedproposed to be summoned to be tested by crossexamination. Question (iv)—What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPCto arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court is CrI. M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page 37of45 satisfied that the accusedsummoned will in all likelihood be convicted? Answer

117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) CrPC the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as ifhe had been an accused when the court initially took cognizance ofthe offence, the degree ofsatisfaction that will be requiredfor summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC would be the same asforframing a charge [Ed.: The conclusion of law as stated in para 106, p. 138c-d, may be compared: "Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be establishedfrom the evidence led before the comt;:npiffecessarily tested on the anvil ofcross-exammciiion,/itirequires much stronger evidence than mereprobability:gflfffomplicity. The test that has to be applied is pheiwficffff more than prima facie case as exercisedAtffeffrnffiffframing ofcharge, butshort ofsatisfaction to an effmi that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would- leadfo conviction". See also especially in para 10.0 atfp.. T36f-g.]. The difference in the degree of satisfdptioh fdr summoning the original accused and a subsepMenjtffcfusedJs on account ofthe fact that the trial may hb^b'a^ady commenced against the original accused and it is in the course ofsuch trial that materials are disclosed against the,newlysummoned accused. Fresh summonipg^qfan accused will result in delay ofthe trial therefbre-the degree ofsatisfactionfor summoning the accused(original andsubsequent) has to be different. Question (v)—Does the power under Section 319 CrPC exteiTd to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged? Answer CrI. M.C.No.2041/2007cfeCrl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page 38of45 r'- I II

117.6. A person not named in the FIR or aperson though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been dischargedcan be summoned under Section 319 CrPCprovidedfrom the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused alreadyfacing trial. However, insofar as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 CrPC has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh." to contend that vide the impugned order, the learned trial Court had made the petitioner,KL Meena liable simply because he wasthe SHO, Offieer In-eharge and guilty ofvicarious liability, which is unknown to the jurisprudenee of the eriminal law;and that the police, SIT and theSDM had notfound any deficiehGy;ir^||ie'working ofthe SHO but had rather recorded that he, oh bringing down the body from the ceiling fan felt it to be warm and massaged its parts to revive it and that he had notinterrogated the depeafse^^^ rather directed the SI to actasperlaw underthestipej^sion.6f^|ii^dditionalSHO.

29. On behalf ofthe Statd, leamed-'^PP for State relied upon the observations in para 39 ofthe verdict in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab andOrs.(supra)whichreadstb;fhe-effdct:

CrI. M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C;No.1009/2008 Page 39of45 inquiriesanditisfor thisreason thatan inquiry has been given to meansomethingotherthan the actualtrial. to contend that there was no infirmity in the order ofthe learned trial Courtsummoning the petitioner herein.

30. It is essential to observe that as laid down by the Hon hie Supreme Courtin Rajesh &Ors. Vs.State ofHaryana in Crl.Appeal No.813/2019, a yerdict dated 01.05.2019, it has been observed vide paras[7].[8] thereofwhich read to the effect: "7.[8] Considering the law laid down by this Court in the case ofHardeep Singh(suprgfdhdfhe observations and findings referred to and reproduced hereinabove, it emerges that(i) the Co^Pcan ey^rcise the power under Section 319 of the hen'on the basis qf Plie statement made in the examination in-chiefofthe witness concerned and the CburP neh wait till the crossexamination ofsuch a witness! the Court need not waitfor the evidence againstti^mcusedproposed to be summoned to be tes0dfby0e^ and(ii) a person not namedi^ke^MK$)r^Shon though named in the FIR but has o'* a person who has been dischor^ed-^cam ^be summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC, providedfrom the evidence (may be on the basisoftheevidence collected ii^ theform of statement made'm^jpiffBcan^^ of the witness concerned), it appears that such person can be triedalong with the accusedalreadyfacing trial."

31. Undoubtedly,the evidence is yetto be recorded in the matter.It is thus sought to be contended on behalf ofthe petitioner, Sh. K.L. Meenathatthe provisions ofSection 319 ofthe Cr.PC,1973 cannotbe brought into play. The scope and ambit of exercise of power under Section 319 ofthe Cr.PC,1973 in tenns ofthe verdict ofthe Hon'ble Crl,M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page40of45 ^3 Supreme Court in SukhpalSingh Khaira vs. State ofPunjab in CrI. A.No.885/2019 &Joga Singh and Another vs. The State ofPunjab in Crl.A.No.886/2019,as observed vide verdiet dated 10.05.2019 has been referred to be plaeed for the eonstitution of a bench of appropriate strength for considering the substantial questions law formulated vide para27ofthe said verdict,which read to the effect: "27. Afterpursuing the relevantfacts and circumstances, thefollowingsubstantialquestions oflaw ariseforfurther consideration-

I. Whether the trialcourt has thepower underSection 319 ofCrPCforsummoning additionalaccused when the trial with respect to other co-dccused\fias ended and the judgment ofconviction rendered on.the same date before pronouncingthesummoningpfderfff

II. Whether the trial coitrfhas^jh^lf^ under Section

319 ofthe CrPCforsummonifig additional accused when the trial in respect ofceftamipd^ absconding accused (whose presence isC! subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, haying)i)^h:-hifu^ the main trial?, ' '

III. Whatare the guidelines thatdheipompetentcourt must follow while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C?"

32. It is essential to observe th&vidd para 26 ofthe verdict ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Courtin SukhpalSingh Khaira vs.State ofPunjab (supra)it has been categorically observed to the effectthatthe powers under Section 319 ofthe Cr.PC, 1973 being extraordinary in nature, the learned trial Court should be cautious for summoning the accused to avoid complicity and to ensure fair trial and that we must remind ourselves that timely disposal of the matters furthers the interest of Crl. M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page41of45 -Yjustice. It is essential to observe that the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2007 has vide para 24 thereof already adverted to elsewhere hereinabove categorically brought forth that the summoning ofthe petitioner KL Meena presently is not, at this stage, on invocation of Section 319 ofthe Cr.PC,1973 but on the basis of material which the learned trial Court has observed to be sufficient to summon the petitioner KL Meena as an additional accused.

33. On a consideration of the entire available record, without any observations on the merits of. demerits of the case against the petitioner herein or any ofthe:bther accused summoned in.lhe case, it is essential to observe that thoughVundouDieaiy the charge:sheet did not array the petitioner Shri. K.;L. Mecria as an accused and though the report ofthe SDM virtually:exdneraldd him, the factum that the petitioner being the SHO of;the,FS j^afeKagar was responsible for the conduct ofthe affairs aythe:'^ the factum that the petitioner was even aware ofth^j&tentjq^ the Rattan Singh(since deceased)in the Police Station is indicated to be prima facie brought forth through the materialcoUectddby tjiednve^tigating Agency.

34. The petitioner herein undoubtedly in terms of Section 2(o)of the Cr.PC,1973 was the officer in charge ofthe PS Tilak Nagar under whose administrative supervision all proceedings were being conducted atthe police station.

35. The averments in the FIR as well as in the inquest proceedings indicate that at the time when Rattan Singh (since deceased) apparently bolted the 10 Room No.5 from inside, the then SHO KL Crl,M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page42of45 Meena, the petitioner herein was sleeping in his room at the police station when he was informed by the Duty Officer Jai Kishan that somebody had bolted the room from inside and there was an apprehension ofsomething undesirable and he is then stated to have rushed to the room and knocked and banged at the door and ordered the police personnel to break open the door and on opening of the door,they saw Ratan Singh hanging from the ceiling fan with the help ofnivad rope and on touching the body ofthie Ratan Singh, the SHO K.L. Meena, the petitioner herein felt the warmth of his body and ordered to bring down the body hoping that the person might be alive and massaged his feet and chestbut he did not respond to any ofthese stimuli. "

36. Thatthe Magistrate is empowered in terms ofSection 190 ofthe Cr.PC, 1973 to take cognizance of any dffence in terms of Section 190(1)(a)(b)(c) as legislated therein'which includes the issuance of summons to an accused who may be even named in Column No.2 of the charge sheet and not sent yjg as an accused to face trial on the police report and can do so without holding any further inquiry as <• • " H..-, contemplated under Secfionsrl9|)/202 pf|hie?;|;r.P.C. 1973 but on the basis ofthe police report itselfwhich ifit brought forth that there was material sufficient to issue such summons to a person not arrayed as an accused by the police is settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Pal and Ors. vs. State ofHaryana and Another(2014)3SCC306 whereby it has specifically been observed vide paras 33 &35 ofthe said verdictto the effect; Crl.M.C.No.2041/2007&Crl.M.C.No.1009/2008 Page43of45 "33.As far as the first question is concerned, we are unable to accept the submissions made by Mr. Chahar and Mr. Dave that on receipt ofa police report seeing that the case was triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate had no otherfunction, but to commit the case for trial to the Court ofSession, which could only resort to Section 319 ofthe Code to array any other person as accused in the trial. In other words, according to Mr. Dave, there could be no intermediary stage between taking ofcognizance underSection 190(l)(b)andSection 204 of the Code issuing summons to the accused. The effect ofsuch an interpretation would lead to a situation where neither the CommittingMagistrate would have any controlover thepersons named in column 2ofthepolice report nor the Session Judge;-fUPthe Section 319 stage was reached in the triplfFurthermdre\-in the event, the Session Judge ultimately foundermaterial against the persons named in columdJifffJhepolice report, the trial would have to be commenced ifff novo against such persons which would not onlyledffto duplication ofthe trial, butalsoprolong the samey 1,f:.

35. In our view, the Magistrate has a,role to play while committing the case ipflfflCourt ofSession upon taking cognizance on the pplicdwepprtzpuflnitted before him underSection 173(3)Crlj^CJIdff^lederitthe Magistrate disagrees with the police report, he has two choices. He may act on the basis ofa protest petition that may be filed, or he may,whiMdfidgreeingpyitf0iepolice report, issue process andsummon the accused. Thereafter, ifon being satisfied thata case had been made out toproceed against the persons named in column no.2ofthe report, proceed to try the saidpersons or ifhe wassatisfied that a case had been made out which was triable by the Court of Session, he may commit the case to the Court of Session toproceedfurther in the matter."

37. On a perusal thus ofthe observations in para 20 ofthe order of the learned trial Court dated 15.10.2007 already adverted to elsewhere f \ CrI.M.C.No.2041/2007&CrI. M.C.No.1009/2008 Page44of45 ♦ hereinabove, it is apparent that there is no infirmity in the same in summoning the petitioner herein K.L. Meena qua the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304A/342 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

38. Reliance that has been placed on behalfofthe petitioner on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau ofInvestigation (2015)4 SCC 609 to contend that there can be no vicarious liability merely because the petitioner was the officer in charge ofthe police station concerned,does not aid and assist the petitioner presently in as:,ifiuch;;as the petitioner,the officer in-charge ofthe police statioh;m terms',o#iSection 2(o)ofthe Cr.PC, 1973 being the officer, in-charge of>lhe ■pblice station and present at the police station at the time when Ratf^^ Singh (Since deceased) bolted himself within the 10 Rboith'ahd/|iung himself to death, was clearly available at the;''p6iiGe^ ^statibn^ thus necessitates the consideration of the innocence;^'^ei^ petitioner only at the anvil of trial.

39. Thepetition Crl.M.C.1009/2008 is thus dismissed.

40. The records of the learned-triaLCouif;4^ of the Revisional Court be returned forthwith with directions to the learned trial Court to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law. ^ <?>-// ^ ANUMALHOTRA,J. NOVEMBER 18, 2019 CrI. M.C.No.204l/2007&CrI. M.C. No.1009/2008