CHANDIGARHGA: three yearlong, judicial inquiry to find out whether arjit Singh, a youth was in the police custody when a warrant officer vis{ted that place or had he been killed in across firing five months before that, has not been able to arrive at any conclusion and has recommended investigation by a specialized agency. The district and sessions judge, Chandigarh Mr, Amar Dutt in his report submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recommended inquiry by a specialized agency to establish the indemnity either ‘of the person who was shown killed and cremated at cremation ground, Amritsar by the police or of the youth who was scene in the police custody by Harjit Singh’s father Mr. Kashmir Singh and the warrant officer. Mr. Kashmir Singh had identified that youth as his son. This case of missing persons has evoked worldwide concern. Among those who have taken up the issue and are pursuing it include the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, and Amnesty International. The National Human Rights Commission has also intervened in the case and it is the only case from Punjab finding a mention in its annual report (199495). The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on a habeas corpus petition had ordered the judicial inquiry in November 1992. The inquiry was initially ‘entrusted to Sessions Judges, Amritsar ‘put in February 1993, was transferred to Chandigarh, It was to be completed within three months.
‘The petitioner, Mr, Kashmir Singh, through his lawyer, Mr. Ranjan Lakhan Pal had submitted that his son, 22yearold Harjit Singh was kidnapped by Mr. Darshan Singh Mann, deputy superintendent of Police and a police party from Bhatia village near Sathi ala college on April 29, 1992. During the inquiry, he admitted having read a news item about killing of ‘one Harjit Singh in encounter on May 12, 1992 but did not believe it and claimed haying scene him in a police van at Kapurthala on May 26 and again on August 9 at Mehta Chowk.
In habeas corpus petition, he claimed that Harjit Singh was detained at Mal ‘Mandi torture center, Amritsar. Subsequently, a warrant officer was appointed who visited Mal Mandi along with Kashmir Singh on October 17 but was not Iet in. The petitioner noticed a youth in a window and told the warrant officer that he was his son.
However, when the warrant officer finally managed to enter the center, the youth had disappeared and a pair of handcuffs was lying in the room. The police, however, informed the court that the youth had been killed in a cross firing on May 12.
The judge said it was evident from the statements of the police officers that the deceased was identified as Harjit Singh at the time of inquest and the postmortem on the basis of his statement during interrogation as also. Of a sub inspector who belonged to the same village as Harjit Singh. The judicial inquiry says while strictly speaking, no legally admissible evidence is available on record to fix the identity of this person, the documents. Should be perused in the light of circumstances that these were prepared ‘at a time when even Mr, Kashmir Singh did not contemplate moving the High Court.
‘The judge pointed out that the fact that Mr. Kashmir Singh remained silent and his assertion about when his son was first picked up have not been, controverted, may well warrant inference that he had got an inkling of fact that in all probability, his son had been killed in a cross firing, But he chose not to move the high court till time became more convenient for moving human rights activists and initiating enquiries on unaccounted disappearance that arc alleged to have been made on account of excesses.
‘The inquiry also said that although the possibility that Mr. Kashmir Singh had tried to mislead the warrant officer cannot be ruled out but respondents did not try to clear the doubt about who was present there and why the warrant officer was not allowed in immediately.
‘The judge said despite the effort of this court, no concrete evidence could be brought out to clear these doubts which require a thorough investigation by a specialized agency.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 3, 1996