Ranjit Singh Rana was: murdered in cold blood by the Punjab police and did not die in any encounter. The police version of the encounter stands blasted to shreds in the front page story published in English daily The Tribune of September 2, 1987, under the head “Police Proposes, Magistracy Disposes”. According to the story Ranjit Singh Rana was arrested in Ferozepur around January 20, 1987. In fact his father, S. Kirpal Singh of The therka village met the Deputy Commissioner , Gurdaspur on February 2, 1987, along with Jathedar Amrik Singh of Harchowal and expressed his apprehension about Ranjit Singh’s climination in fake police encounter. The same day, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, sent the following note to the Senior ‘Superintendent of Police:
“Shri Kirpal Singh of Thetherka village accompanied by Jathedar Amrik Singh of Harchowal met me today and represented that his son, Ranjit Singh Rana, has been arrested by Ferozepur district pol ice 1112 days back, After his arrest in Ferozpur, he was taken to Gurdaspur, from where, he has further been taken to police interrogation center, Amritsar, The father of Ranjit Singh was appre hensive that his son may not be involved in police encounter and killed. He stated that his son has been wrongly involved in fabricated and false cases, All care, therefore, should be taken to save his life. TheS.S.P. may take action accordingly”.
The S.S.P. sent the note to the Police Chief, Ribeiro, who wrote to the Financial Commissioner (Home), Mr, RP. Ojha, the following letter:
“A very notorious “terrorist”, Ranjit Singh Rana, was arrested by the police with great difficulty. It appears that his father and others met the D.C. Gurd aspur, who issued the enclosed letter to the S.S.P. Gurdaspur.
“I hope the D.C. does not believe that the police is killing innocent Sikh youth in false en counters, Perhaps when you meet him next you may like to mention this to him”
There is a clear admission in Ribeiro’s letter of Ranjit Singh Rana’s arrest months before he ‘was actually murdered in the so called encounter.
The disclosure of this story has confirmed the findings of Punjab Human Rights Organization released by its Chairman, former Justice Ajit Singh Bainsin which it has been said that 73 Sikh young men. Have a been killed by the in staged encounters.
In fact the story has also brought ‘out widening gulf between the magistracy and the security forces deployed for maintaining law and. ‘order in Punjab.
‘Confidential information relating to two instances which occur red at Ludhiana and Gurdaspur during the past few months indicates that tension between the two wings of the Administration is growing.
‘The incident at Ludhiana, which necessitated the intervention of the Union Home Minister and the Home Secretary, relates to the arrest on April 28 of one Balbir Singh by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Ludhiana bank robbery’ case. He was produced before an Executive Magistrate for police remand but was instead remanded
The S.P., C.BIL, who was investigating the case rang up the then District Magisterate, Mr. KR. Lak “If that was the cooperation he was to get from the magistracy, he would pack up and go to Delhi and inform his bosses about it”. Then he rang up the Union Home Secretary, Mr. C.G. Somiah, who in tum got in touch with the Punjab Governor and the Director General of Police, Mr. LF, Rib eiro. Much later at night, the CBI got a police remand from the Judicial Magisterate,
The following day, Mr. Somiah wrote to the Governor stating that the conduct of Mr. Lakhanpal was “unbecoming” and that he should be transferred immediately. Mr. Lakhanpal in a fivepage letter dated May 7 to the Chief Secretary Mr. P.H. Vaishnay, admitted that the conduct of the Executive Mag isterate was “not exemplary” but said that it Was “not unnatural in the context of the situation in Punjab where the government had not thought it necessary to give any protection to Executive Mag is trates.
Mr. Lakhanpal stated to the Chief Secretary that if the magist rate did not go the whole hog with the police, as was the expectation, they are accused “not only of being no cooperative but also of being conspirators”. Regarding the obligations, he stated that “not only did the police not extend due courtesies to the magistrates but they also systematically violated the provisions of the Police Rules, the Police Act and other laws Boverning the relationship between the police and the district, followed in their breach”: had not made an “issue of only because the Governor would consider it to be my subjective failure rather than an objective reality”.
‘The then Ludhiana D.C. accused the police of having a “swollen head at the cutting edge level” and being “emboldened to go their self-willed ways”. He gave five examples of illegal acts to harass the public in Ludhiana district itself. The first instance relates to how a lady constable picked up a quarrel with a shopkeeper and came back with an SHO and tad him beaten up and charged with having snatched Rs. 1,500 from her. The police had tor Rs, 1,500 which they had in robbed from the shopke when the whole market Be strike.
‘The second instance relates 10a dispute between the gram panchayat and a person belonging to Latala village (police station Deh lon). The SHO) intervened and beat up womenfolk and children and other respectable people. For lowing the orders for a magisterial enquiry, the SHO booked the people of the village under Section 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, ‘The third instance quoted by Mr. Lakhanpal concerns the SHO, Sarabha Nagar, who arrested between 50 and 60 childrenin the age group of 10:16 years while they were playing holi and kept them in police custody for 18 hours. Me. Lakhanpal has stated that when their parents went to the SP (City) telling that the DC had desired that these children should be released it there was no case against them, they were told that the police Was not under the DC, In another instance, police man on the personal staff of the SSP, beat up the members of family, including women, The fifth instance relates to the robbing of passengers disembarking at Ludhiana railway station by the police which, he states, was “quite com mon”, He quotes the case of ro bing of Rs. 70,000 from a passenger which was later returned by the GRP following public outcry. ‘Mr. Lakhanpal stated that absolute and unfettered power to the police had not in any way lessened the killing of people nor were the cases being properly investigate So that they could culminate in conviction. “In case one intercedes on behalf of the public, it is grudged as an interference”.
Mr, Lakhanpal concluded by saying that the District Magistrate had been rendered “totally re dundant” today and the “farce of holding him responsible for law and order should be called to an immediate halt”. “Since, I believe that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who choose to be neutral in the hour of crisis, I have stuck my neck out”.
Police officers who did not want to be identified, however, said that the District Magisterate and the Executive Mamisterate concerned hold have been proceeded against departmentally for the “lapse” as Balbir Singh was a known freedom fighter. He had deserted the army in June, 1984, from Chandimandir cantonment and crossed over to Pakistan with a service weapon, After his arrest, he ‘was not given police remand by the Executive Magisterate despite sophisticated weapons having been recovered from his hideouts. “If a policeman had behaved the way the Executive Magistrate did, he would have been dismissed under Section 311 of the Constitution” they said.
Article extracted from this publication >> September 18, 1987
