Delhi High Court
Dheeraj Singh Rana vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 January, 2014
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.4245/2013 & Crl.M.A.15163/2013
DHEERAJ SINGH RANA ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bankim Kulshreshtha,
Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ACP Suresh Kaushik,
Crime Branch
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 16.01.2014
Impugned order of 13th September, 2013 declines petitioner's
application for summoning the following witnesses in his defence in
Phoolan Devi murder trial case: -
"a) The police official who took copy of FIR /
information of the present case to superior officials on
25.7.2001
b) Sh. Sanjay Bhatia, Addl. DCP cum PIO, Delhi
Police (as on 17.09.2011) along with all documents which
were sent to the Hon'ble Court of Sh. S.C. Rajan, then Ld.
ASJ regarding RTI which are mentioned in application u/s
91 Cr.P.C.
c) The then DCP of New Delhi Range (during 2001 at
the time of murder of Smt. Phoolan Devi) name of DCP
unknown to applicant.
d) Sh. P.K. Jalali, Jt. Secretary (UT), Govt. of India,
CRL.M.C.4245/2013 Page 1
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi (as he
then was on 25.7.2001 and was sent a most urgent letter by
Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range stating that
3 masked assailants fired upon Smt. Phoolan Devi).
e) Sh. Suresh Roy, the Joint Commissioner of Police
of New Delhi Range (as he was then on 25.07.2001) with
letter dated 25.07.2001 which he sent to Sh. P.K. Jalali
informing the above incident of assailants being masked.
f) The Secretary of Lt. Governor, Delhi (as on
25.07.2001) who was sent the correspondent by Sh. Suresh
Roy on 25.07.2001 regarding assailants of Smt. Phoolan
Devi being masked or any competent on his behalf.
g) The then Hon'ble Home Minister Sh. L.K. Advani,
who made statement in the Parliament that assailants
according to FIR were masked or any competent officer
from Parliament who could depose that particular statement
in Parliament related to assailants of Smt. Phoolan Devi,
were masked was through official channels of Delhi Police
to be made a statement in the Parliament (as mentioned in
application u/s 340 and 91 Cr.P.C.
h) The Public Informant Officer of the Predecessor
Court presided by Sh. S.C. Rajan, ASJ, New Delhi where Sh.
Sanjay Bhatia (the Addl. DCP Cum PIO) sent all the
documents to decide the application of RTI on 17.9.2011 as
mentioned in application filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C. filed by the
applicant alongwith all relevant documents.
i) Lok Sabha Secretary or any official deputed by him
with record of Parliament Proceeding since 25.7.2001 to
31.7.2001 which mentions obituary reference by the then
Hon'ble Home Minister stating assailants according to FIR
were masked.
j) Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Gali No.4, 28, Shankar Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, with original copy sent on 19.01.2009 by Sh.
CRL.M.C.4245/2013 Page 2
Kewal Singh PIO/PHQ or Addl. Commissioner of Police
mentioned in application u/s 91 Cr.P.C.
k) Kewal Singh, the Additional Commissioner of
Police who sent copy under RTI of information to above
mentioned Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, R/o Gali No.4, 28, Shankar
Road mentioned in application u/s 91 Cr.P.C.
l) Any competent police official from Police
Headquarters alongwith incident report sent vide letter
no.1533/3/P.Sec.NDR dated 25.07.2001 to Sh. P.K. Jalali,
the then Jt. Secretary, UT, GOI, MHA, New Delhi.
m) Other defence witnesses of presence of applicant
in his native village during incident, if interim bail granted
by Hon'ble court."
Reasoning adopted by trial court to decline petitioner's prayer to
summon the aforesaid witnesses is as under: -
"At the cost of repetition, the superior Police Officers
have already been examined and cross-examined in this
case and the plea in the application is ostensibly to enter
into fishing expedition that is likely to derail the proceedings
and disposal of the case. Moreover the relevant RTI
application and response from the Deputy Secretary,
Parliament House, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi have
on the subject have already been brought on record in the
testimony of DW2 Shekhar Singh recorded in terms of
section 315 of Cr.P.C. which needless to state shall be read
for all the accused persons."
Learned counsel for petitioner-accused contends that earlier
petitioner had filed an application for summoning the official record to
cross-examine the relevant witnesses but was declined vide order of 13 th
August, 2012 observing that petitioner-accused shall have an opportunity
CRL.M.C.4245/2013 Page 3
to prove the relevant documents at the stage of defence evidence. Learned
counsel for petitioner contends that impugned order erroneously refuses
permission to petitioner-accused to summon the afore-referred witnesses
and the deposition of these witnesses is essential to prove that the
assailants were masked.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that the witnesses sought to be summoned to prove incident report of 25 th
July, 2001 (Annexure P-4 colly.) sent by Joint Commissioner of Police to
Joint Secretary (U.T., MHA, Government of India) is an undisputed
document and so, witnesses shown at Sl. No. 'b' to 'g' in paragraph No.7
of the impugned order are not required to be summoned. Likewise, it is
submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
that the information furnished on 19th January, 2009 and 17th September,
2011 (Annexure P-4 colly.) is also not disputed and so, witnesses as
referred to in Clause 'i' to 'l' in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order
are not required to be summoned.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order
and the material on record, I find that since incident report of 25 th July,
2001, RTI information of 19th January, 2009 and 17th September, 2011
(Annexure P-4 colly.) are not in dispute, therefore, the aforesaid
documents are taken to be admissible in evidence and the witness sought
to be examined to prove these three documents are not required to be
summoned. Regarding witnesses in paragraph No.7 (a) and (h) of the
impugned order are concerned, their deposition appears to be essential for
just decision of this case, therefore, petitioner-accused is permitted to
summon the witnesses as shown in paragraph No.7 (a) and (h) of the
CRL.M.C.4245/2013 Page 4
impugned order. Let it be done expeditiously.
To the aforesaid extent, this petition is allowed.
Interim order of 11th November, 2013 stands vacated.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2014
s
CRL.M.C.4245/2013 Page 5
