PUNJAB MASS CREMATION ORDER dated 4th October, 2005
This order flows from our proceedings dated 11.11.2004 and will dispose of two miscellaneous applications filed by the State of Punjab on 11.1.2005 and 12.1.2005. Through these applications, the prayer made is that the District Magistrate, Amritsar be directed not to disburse monetary relief in terms of the order of the Commission dated 11.11.2004 in the following cases:
1. Paramjit Singh (Sl. No. 67 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004);
2. Shinda Singh (Sl. No. 105 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004);
3. Jagdeep Singh (Sl. No. 98 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004); and
4. Desa Singh (Sl. No. 104 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004)
It is the case of the State of Punjab that these four persons were not in the admitted custody of the Punjab Police prior to their death and therefore, their cases do not qualify for inclusion in the list of 109 persons attached to the order dated 11.11.2004.
Notice of the applications was issued to the opposite side and the Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab (CIIP) has filed a response affidavit. According to the affidavit, the assertion of the State of Punjab to the effect that S/s Jagdeep Singh (Sl. No. 98); Desa Singh (Sl. No. 104) and Shinda Singh (Sl. No. 105) were not in the 'admitted' custody of the Punjab Police prior to their death has not been controverted. However, so far as the case of Paramjit Singh (Sl. No. 67) is concerned, the assertion of the State of Punjab to the effect that he was not in the custody of Punjab Police prior to his death, is disputed. It is stated that on the own showing of the Punjab Police, through the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh, Paramjit Singh had been apprehended by the Punjab Police in an injured condition and he died after he had been apprehended: It is, therefore, stated that in the established facts and circumstances, the name of Paramjit Singh was correctly included at Serial No.67 in the list and his next of kin are entitled to receive the compensation in terms of the order dated 11.11.2004. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has reiterated the same submissions.
Since, during the arguments on 9.9.2005, learned counsel for the parties were in agreement that the names of S/s Jagdeep Singh (Sl. No. 98); Desa Singh (Sl. No. 104) and Shinda Singh (Sl. No. 105) did not qualify to be included in the list of 109 persons attached to the order of the Commission dated 11.11.2004, a direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Amritsar not to disburse monetary relief to the next of kin in respect of the said three deceased persons. The controversy at this stage, therefore, only is whether Paramjit Singh (Sl. No. 67) was in the custody of the Punjab Police prior to his death or not.
The State of Punjab, through Shri Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the circumstances under which Paramjit Singh, s/o Jaswant Singh, had died have been given in the affidavit of Shri Dilbag Singh, PPS (then Supdt. of Police (Detective), Majitha) filed in this Commission on 21st May, 2003. He submitted that Paramjit Singh had not been 'arrested' by the Punjab Police, and, therefore, the assertion that he died while in 'custody' of the police was incorrect. In support of his assertion, he referred to the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh as well as the response filed by the State dated 22.10.2004 and argued that the circumstances detailed in the affidavit of Shri Dilbath Singh established that prior to his death Paramjit Singh was not in the custody of Punjab Police.
The circumstances as deposed to by Shri Dilbag Singh, PPS (then Supdt. of Police (Detective), Majitha) in the affidavit deserve a notice at this stage. It is stated:
"that the present case relates to FIR No. 52 dated 23.7.1992 u/s 307/34 IPC, 25/54/59 Arms Act, 5 TADA (P) Act PS Ramdas to the effect that on 23.07.1992 police party laid an ambush at turning point link road village Dujowal. Then at about 9.30 pm three suspected persons were seeing coming on foot from village Dujowal side, who were signaled to stop but instead to stopping they started firing on the police party with intention to kill them. The police party also retaliated the firing in self-defence. The firing between the police party and the terrorist continued with utmost precaution. On search one wounded terrorist was found who disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh s/o Jaswant Singh Jat r/o village Vachhova, who succumbed to his injuries after some time. The other associates of the deceased terrorist managed to escape under the cover of darkness.
One 12 Bore DBBL rifle alognwith 6 empty cartridges of AK-47, a bag containing 1½ Kg. explosive were recovered from the site of encounter."
The response filed by the State of Punjab on 22.10.2004 is also to the similar effect.
The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, as reproduced above, clearly shows that Paramjit Singh was apprehended in an injured condition during the search of the area after an encounter between the suspected terrorists and the police party. According to the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh, an injured Paramjit Singh had disclosed his name together with his parentage and address to the police when the police apprehended him prior to his death. In the affidavit of Shri Dilbag Singh, all that is stated is that the injured "succumbed to his injuries after sometime". This assertion is totally vague. How soon was "after sometime" after the police party apprehended injured Paramjit Singh has not been disclosed? According to the affidavit, dead body of Paramjit Singh was cremated "on 24.7.1992 at cremation ground of Shiv Puri Durgian Mandi, Amritsar". Encounter with the suspected terrorists took place at about 9.30 p.m, but the affidavit does not disclose the time when injured Paramjit Singh was 'found' by the Police party during the search operations. Where was the injured taken from the site is also not stated? The time of death of Paramjit Singh has also not been disclosed nor is it stated as to the 'place' where the death actually took place. Ofcourse, it is stated that the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted in the Medical College, Amritsar on 24.7.1992, but when and from where the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination has not been disclosed. All these factors were in the exclusive knowledge of the Punjab Police only but they have not 'disclosed' the same in their affidavit, for reasons best known to them. The very fact that the deceased, according to the affidavit of Shri Dilbag Singh, disclosed his name, parentage, caste and even the name of his village, indicates that the deceased was alive and in a position to speak after being apprehended by the police. The affidavit also does not disclose whether any effort was made to provide medical aid to an injured person apprehended by the police and if no medical aid was provided the reasons for the same. The affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh conceals more than what it reveals. After the deceased was apprehended by the police party, he was both 'defacto' and 'dejure' in the custody of the police, as his right of free movement was certainly taken away by the Punjab Police. The death of Paramjit Singh, thus, occurred while the custody of the injured Paramjit Singh was with the police party. Whether or not his formal arrest was shown by the police prior to his death would not be of any consequence or relevance when the 'defacto' custody is established.
The arguments on this issue were heard on 9.9.2005 and order was reserved. After 10 days, on 19.9.2005, apparently to "meet" the arguments raised before the Commission and the observations of the Commission, a petition has been filed under the signature of counsel for the State of Punjab with a request to consider certain 'additional information' contained therein while making appropriate orders with regard to Paramjit Singh (Sl.No.67).
The petition filed by the Advocate for the State of Punjab on 19.9.2005 is not supported either by an affidavit or any other material in support of the assertions contained therein. An effort has been made in the application to improve upon the affidavit of Dilbagh Singh and the response filed by the State of Punjab on 22.10.2004. A careful perusal of the petition shows that the sequence of events as narrated therein is almost similar to the one contained in the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh and the response of the State dated 22.10.2004 except for two assertions. In the affidavit filed by Shri Dilbagh Singh, it was stated thus:
When firing ceased, a search of the area was conducted with utmost precaution. On search one wounded terrorist was found who disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh s/o Jaswant Singh Jat r/o village Vachhova, who succumbed to his injuries after some time." (Emphasis supplied)
In the response filed by the State on 22.10.2004, the sequence is given thus:
"When the firing stopped, area was searched and police found one wounded terrorist who disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh, s/o Jawant Singh r/o Village Vachova but he succumbed to his injuries after some time." (Emphasis supplied)
The effort made in the petition dated 19.9.2005 appears to be to explain the vague term "after some time" and the state of health of the injured when apprehended. In this petition it is stated:
After the firing stopped, the area was searched with the help of search lights and it was found that one sikh young man who was hit with the bullet was lying on the ground and was breathing with some difficulty. The SHO who was leading the police party, inquired his name and address and he disclosed that he was Paramjit Singh, son of Jaswant Singh, Jat, resident of Village Vacchoa. The injured person succumbed to his injuries within four/five minutes." (Emphasis supplied)
The petition filed by the counsel for the State of Punjab, unsupported by any other evidence or even an affidavit, for the first time, states that the injured was found lying on the ground and "breathing with some difficulties", and further that "the injured succumbed to his injuries within four/five minutes". These are new statements now sought to be introduced. What is the basis on which these assertions have been made is not at all understandable? Surely, if these were in the knowledge of the Punjab Police, it would have found mention in the affidavit of Dilbagh Singh filed on 23.3.2003 or atleast in the response of the State of Punjab filed on 22.10.2004. It is not there. It appears to be clearly an after-thought, and in any event does not advance the case of the Punjab Police. What is the basis for the counsel for the State of Punjab in the petition to say that the deceased was "breathing with some difficulties" or "he succumbed to his injuries within four/five minutes" is not at all spelt out in the petition. There is no supporting material. Where from did he acquire this knowledge? We do not know. The assertions, therefore, merits notice only to be rejected.
Some other factors mentioned in the petition filed on 19.9.2005 which are requested for being taken into consideration are contained in sub-paras (a) to (c) of para 5, which read thus:
"(a) That the encounter took place at 9.30 p.m. in the area of village Dujowal, P.S. Ramdas and an FIR No.52 was registered on 23.7.1992.
(b) That the nearest hospital where any medical treatment could be provided was at a distance of 10 kilometers from the place of occurrence.
(c) That the village Dujowal is 4 kms away from the border of Pakistan and during the days of terrorism, there used to be curfew in the districts abutting the Pakistan Border for the security reasons."
These assertions are also neither supported by an affidavit nor any other evidence placed on the record. Why were these not disclosed earlier in the affidavit or response is not known? These factors now appear to have been introduced to explain as to why even medical aid could not be provided to the injured. These are also clearly an after-thought. These factors in any case do not show that the deceased was not in the custody of the Punjab Police prior to his death. Various 'new' assertions contained in the petition filed by the counsel for the State of Punjab on 19.9.2005 as noticed above, are not at all relevant for deciding the issue under our consideration. We, therefore, rule them out of consideration.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed above, it is logical to hold that the police party had apprehended an injured Paramjit Singh when he was alive and was in a position to disclose all the details about himself to the Punjab Police. He died after being so apprehended by the Punjab Police "after some time". His death, therefore, occurred when he was in actual custody of the Punjab Police. His case, therefore, clearly falls within the parameters considered by the Commission in its order dated 11.11.2004 and his name was rightly included in the list of 109 'custody cases' attached to that order. The application of the State of Punjab requesting for deletion of his name from the list of 109 persons is accordingly rejected. We hold that the next of kin of Paramjit Singh are entitled to receive the compensation in terms of the order dated 11.11.2004.
The District Magistrate, Amritsar is directed to disburse compensation to the next of kin of deceased Paramjit Singh (mentioned also as Paramdeep Singh in the Response dated 22.10.2004) (Sl. No. 67) in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 11.11.2004. Compliance shall be reported to the Commission within four weeks.
Both the applications filed by the State of Punjab are accordingly disposed of.
***********
1. Paramjit Singh (Sl. No. 67 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004);
2. Shinda Singh (Sl. No. 105 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004);
3. Jagdeep Singh (Sl. No. 98 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004); and
4. Desa Singh (Sl. No. 104 in the list attached to the order dated 11.11.2004)
It is the case of the State of Punjab that these four persons were not in the admitted custody of the Punjab Police prior to their death and therefore, their cases do not qualify for inclusion in the list of 109 persons attached to the order dated 11.11.2004.
Notice of the applications was issued to the opposite side and the Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab (CIIP) has filed a response affidavit. According to the affidavit, the assertion of the State of Punjab to the effect that S/s Jagdeep Singh (Sl. No. 98); Desa Singh (Sl. No. 104) and Shinda Singh (Sl. No. 105) were not in the 'admitted' custody of the Punjab Police prior to their death has not been controverted. However, so far as the case of Paramjit Singh (Sl. No. 67) is concerned, the assertion of the State of Punjab to the effect that he was not in the custody of Punjab Police prior to his death, is disputed. It is stated that on the own showing of the Punjab Police, through the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh, Paramjit Singh had been apprehended by the Punjab Police in an injured condition and he died after he had been apprehended: It is, therefore, stated that in the established facts and circumstances, the name of Paramjit Singh was correctly included at Serial No.67 in the list and his next of kin are entitled to receive the compensation in terms of the order dated 11.11.2004. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal has reiterated the same submissions.
Since, during the arguments on 9.9.2005, learned counsel for the parties were in agreement that the names of S/s Jagdeep Singh (Sl. No. 98); Desa Singh (Sl. No. 104) and Shinda Singh (Sl. No. 105) did not qualify to be included in the list of 109 persons attached to the order of the Commission dated 11.11.2004, a direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Amritsar not to disburse monetary relief to the next of kin in respect of the said three deceased persons. The controversy at this stage, therefore, only is whether Paramjit Singh (Sl. No. 67) was in the custody of the Punjab Police prior to his death or not.
The State of Punjab, through Shri Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the circumstances under which Paramjit Singh, s/o Jaswant Singh, had died have been given in the affidavit of Shri Dilbag Singh, PPS (then Supdt. of Police (Detective), Majitha) filed in this Commission on 21st May, 2003. He submitted that Paramjit Singh had not been 'arrested' by the Punjab Police, and, therefore, the assertion that he died while in 'custody' of the police was incorrect. In support of his assertion, he referred to the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh as well as the response filed by the State dated 22.10.2004 and argued that the circumstances detailed in the affidavit of Shri Dilbath Singh established that prior to his death Paramjit Singh was not in the custody of Punjab Police.
The circumstances as deposed to by Shri Dilbag Singh, PPS (then Supdt. of Police (Detective), Majitha) in the affidavit deserve a notice at this stage. It is stated:
"that the present case relates to FIR No. 52 dated 23.7.1992 u/s 307/34 IPC, 25/54/59 Arms Act, 5 TADA (P) Act PS Ramdas to the effect that on 23.07.1992 police party laid an ambush at turning point link road village Dujowal. Then at about 9.30 pm three suspected persons were seeing coming on foot from village Dujowal side, who were signaled to stop but instead to stopping they started firing on the police party with intention to kill them. The police party also retaliated the firing in self-defence. The firing between the police party and the terrorist continued with utmost precaution. On search one wounded terrorist was found who disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh s/o Jaswant Singh Jat r/o village Vachhova, who succumbed to his injuries after some time. The other associates of the deceased terrorist managed to escape under the cover of darkness.
One 12 Bore DBBL rifle alognwith 6 empty cartridges of AK-47, a bag containing 1½ Kg. explosive were recovered from the site of encounter."
The response filed by the State of Punjab on 22.10.2004 is also to the similar effect.
The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, as reproduced above, clearly shows that Paramjit Singh was apprehended in an injured condition during the search of the area after an encounter between the suspected terrorists and the police party. According to the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh, an injured Paramjit Singh had disclosed his name together with his parentage and address to the police when the police apprehended him prior to his death. In the affidavit of Shri Dilbag Singh, all that is stated is that the injured "succumbed to his injuries after sometime". This assertion is totally vague. How soon was "after sometime" after the police party apprehended injured Paramjit Singh has not been disclosed? According to the affidavit, dead body of Paramjit Singh was cremated "on 24.7.1992 at cremation ground of Shiv Puri Durgian Mandi, Amritsar". Encounter with the suspected terrorists took place at about 9.30 p.m, but the affidavit does not disclose the time when injured Paramjit Singh was 'found' by the Police party during the search operations. Where was the injured taken from the site is also not stated? The time of death of Paramjit Singh has also not been disclosed nor is it stated as to the 'place' where the death actually took place. Ofcourse, it is stated that the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted in the Medical College, Amritsar on 24.7.1992, but when and from where the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination has not been disclosed. All these factors were in the exclusive knowledge of the Punjab Police only but they have not 'disclosed' the same in their affidavit, for reasons best known to them. The very fact that the deceased, according to the affidavit of Shri Dilbag Singh, disclosed his name, parentage, caste and even the name of his village, indicates that the deceased was alive and in a position to speak after being apprehended by the police. The affidavit also does not disclose whether any effort was made to provide medical aid to an injured person apprehended by the police and if no medical aid was provided the reasons for the same. The affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh conceals more than what it reveals. After the deceased was apprehended by the police party, he was both 'defacto' and 'dejure' in the custody of the police, as his right of free movement was certainly taken away by the Punjab Police. The death of Paramjit Singh, thus, occurred while the custody of the injured Paramjit Singh was with the police party. Whether or not his formal arrest was shown by the police prior to his death would not be of any consequence or relevance when the 'defacto' custody is established.
The arguments on this issue were heard on 9.9.2005 and order was reserved. After 10 days, on 19.9.2005, apparently to "meet" the arguments raised before the Commission and the observations of the Commission, a petition has been filed under the signature of counsel for the State of Punjab with a request to consider certain 'additional information' contained therein while making appropriate orders with regard to Paramjit Singh (Sl.No.67).
The petition filed by the Advocate for the State of Punjab on 19.9.2005 is not supported either by an affidavit or any other material in support of the assertions contained therein. An effort has been made in the application to improve upon the affidavit of Dilbagh Singh and the response filed by the State of Punjab on 22.10.2004. A careful perusal of the petition shows that the sequence of events as narrated therein is almost similar to the one contained in the affidavit of Shri Dilbagh Singh and the response of the State dated 22.10.2004 except for two assertions. In the affidavit filed by Shri Dilbagh Singh, it was stated thus:
When firing ceased, a search of the area was conducted with utmost precaution. On search one wounded terrorist was found who disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh s/o Jaswant Singh Jat r/o village Vachhova, who succumbed to his injuries after some time." (Emphasis supplied)
In the response filed by the State on 22.10.2004, the sequence is given thus:
"When the firing stopped, area was searched and police found one wounded terrorist who disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh, s/o Jawant Singh r/o Village Vachova but he succumbed to his injuries after some time." (Emphasis supplied)
The effort made in the petition dated 19.9.2005 appears to be to explain the vague term "after some time" and the state of health of the injured when apprehended. In this petition it is stated:
After the firing stopped, the area was searched with the help of search lights and it was found that one sikh young man who was hit with the bullet was lying on the ground and was breathing with some difficulty. The SHO who was leading the police party, inquired his name and address and he disclosed that he was Paramjit Singh, son of Jaswant Singh, Jat, resident of Village Vacchoa. The injured person succumbed to his injuries within four/five minutes." (Emphasis supplied)
The petition filed by the counsel for the State of Punjab, unsupported by any other evidence or even an affidavit, for the first time, states that the injured was found lying on the ground and "breathing with some difficulties", and further that "the injured succumbed to his injuries within four/five minutes". These are new statements now sought to be introduced. What is the basis on which these assertions have been made is not at all understandable? Surely, if these were in the knowledge of the Punjab Police, it would have found mention in the affidavit of Dilbagh Singh filed on 23.3.2003 or atleast in the response of the State of Punjab filed on 22.10.2004. It is not there. It appears to be clearly an after-thought, and in any event does not advance the case of the Punjab Police. What is the basis for the counsel for the State of Punjab in the petition to say that the deceased was "breathing with some difficulties" or "he succumbed to his injuries within four/five minutes" is not at all spelt out in the petition. There is no supporting material. Where from did he acquire this knowledge? We do not know. The assertions, therefore, merits notice only to be rejected.
Some other factors mentioned in the petition filed on 19.9.2005 which are requested for being taken into consideration are contained in sub-paras (a) to (c) of para 5, which read thus:
"(a) That the encounter took place at 9.30 p.m. in the area of village Dujowal, P.S. Ramdas and an FIR No.52 was registered on 23.7.1992.
(b) That the nearest hospital where any medical treatment could be provided was at a distance of 10 kilometers from the place of occurrence.
(c) That the village Dujowal is 4 kms away from the border of Pakistan and during the days of terrorism, there used to be curfew in the districts abutting the Pakistan Border for the security reasons."
These assertions are also neither supported by an affidavit nor any other evidence placed on the record. Why were these not disclosed earlier in the affidavit or response is not known? These factors now appear to have been introduced to explain as to why even medical aid could not be provided to the injured. These are also clearly an after-thought. These factors in any case do not show that the deceased was not in the custody of the Punjab Police prior to his death. Various 'new' assertions contained in the petition filed by the counsel for the State of Punjab on 19.9.2005 as noticed above, are not at all relevant for deciding the issue under our consideration. We, therefore, rule them out of consideration.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed above, it is logical to hold that the police party had apprehended an injured Paramjit Singh when he was alive and was in a position to disclose all the details about himself to the Punjab Police. He died after being so apprehended by the Punjab Police "after some time". His death, therefore, occurred when he was in actual custody of the Punjab Police. His case, therefore, clearly falls within the parameters considered by the Commission in its order dated 11.11.2004 and his name was rightly included in the list of 109 'custody cases' attached to that order. The application of the State of Punjab requesting for deletion of his name from the list of 109 persons is accordingly rejected. We hold that the next of kin of Paramjit Singh are entitled to receive the compensation in terms of the order dated 11.11.2004.
The District Magistrate, Amritsar is directed to disburse compensation to the next of kin of deceased Paramjit Singh (mentioned also as Paramdeep Singh in the Response dated 22.10.2004) (Sl. No. 67) in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 11.11.2004. Compliance shall be reported to the Commission within four weeks.
Both the applications filed by the State of Punjab are accordingly disposed of.
***********