NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in Punjab, to pay Rs S lakh to the dependents of an assistant sub-inspector and a constable who had died as a result of shooting from the former’s revolver in Phagwars in December, 1976.
Directing the DSP Ajaib Singh (he was sub-inspector at the time of incident, to deposit the amount within one month with the Registrar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the division bench of Justice P.B.Sawant and Justice RM. Sahai Said, “Out of this amount Rs 3.5 lakh will be paid to the dependents of ASI Gurnam Singh and Rs 1.5 lakh to the dependents of constable Paramjit Singh.
The incident took place on December 16, 1976, on the GT Road in Phagwara, wherein two officers of the Punjab Traffic Police apparently fell out on the authority to check trucks. There was grappling between the two officers which resulted in the sub inspector opening fire from his service revolver, killing the ASi and the constable on the spoil.
The trial court had sentenced Ajaib Singh to life imprisonment. But the High Court sequined him. Against his acquittal, the Punjab State moved the Apex Court.
While dismissing the appeal the judges pointed out that “we shall be failing in our duty if we do not record our serious disapproval of the manner in which the Government not only reinstated but promoted the officer when the appeal by it against his acquittal was pending in this court.”
“In our opinion the Government would have been well advised to adopt the scaled cover procedure, a firmly established and well known practice in service law. Murder by a police officer is provocative. The trial of the officer and conduct of the Government, both, are in public glare. It is not the competency or efficiency of the officer but his conduct and behavior and approach of the Government towards such an officer which is measured in social scale. Such unwarranted actions of the Government shakes the confidence of common man in the system. He loses faith in it when a person who is standing trial in appeal is promoted.”
The judges further observed that “although crime never dies nor there should be any sympathy for the criminal, yet human factors play an important role and reflect advertently or inadvertently in the decision making process.” “In this appeal there is a time lag of more than 18 years from the date of incident and nearly 15 years from the date of acquittal and its hearing. By any standard it is shocking. Further, this has been aggravated by the shocking behavior of the Government. Speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. In some countries like England, days are fixed statutorily for trial of cases. Keeping an accused in custody for a day more than is necessary, is constitutionally impermissible and volatile of human dignity, freedom of life and liberty.”
Article extracted from this publication >> February 3, 1995
