New Delhi: Citing contradictions between a forensic science laboratory report on the site where gangster Anand Pal Singh was allegedly killed in an encounter in 2017 and the statements of police officers, the special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Jodhpur Wednesday rejected the closure report filed by the CBI on the case.
These contradictions included the police officers claiming that they fired at Anand from the staircase while the onslaught occurred on the roof; the officers claiming that Anand died after falling from the roof; and the recovery of empty shells on the roof, including those from the gun of an officer whose presence in the direct line of fire, or the presence of any officer on the roof, was not mentioned in any statement.
Additionally, the court noted that the CBI, which was tasked with probing the authenticity of the alleged encounter, had “omitted certain facts” in the case. The court had ordered proceedings (including under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)) against Rajasthan police officers who were involved in the alleged encounter.
Anand was shot in Malasar, Churu district, Rajasthan, on the night of 24 June, 2017, leading to widespread protests by the Rajput community in the state against the then government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) Vasundhara Raje.
After the protests turned violent in Singh’s home district (Nagaur), the Raje-led government gave its consent for a CBI probe following which the agency filed three cases in January 2018.
The first of the three FIRs filed by the CBI was based on the original case of the Rajasthan Police’s Special Operations Group (SOG), which was accused of planning the alleged encounter based on inputs about Anand, who was still at large at that time.
On 31 August, 2019, the CBI filed a closure report on this case, exonerating police officers involved in the alleged encounter. These officers included Rahul Barhat, the then Churu superintendent of police (SP); inspector Suryaveer Singh; and Vidya Prakash, the then deputy superintendent of police (DSP) and circle officer of Kuchaman City, among others.
Anand’s wife Raj Kanwar moved the court filing a protest petition against the CBI’s closure report and sought to list herself, the gangster’s brother Rupendra Pal Singh, and two others as witnesses in the case.
Also read: ‘Missing’ bones traced to CBI storehouse after e-mail — the new twists in Sheena Bora murder case
The SOG operation
The case began with the Rajasthan SOG receiving source-based information that Anand was hiding in Sherpura village of Sirsa with a changed identity, which the investigators confirmed with the owner of the house where he was saying. Following this, the SOG deployed a team of officers including Prakash and inspector Singh to wait for the gang members.
The FIR filed by SOG Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) Karan Sharma said that Anand’s brother Rupendra Pal Singh and his aide Devendra Pal Singh came to the house at around 6.30 pm IST on 24 June, 2017.
Rupendra and Devendra led the investigators to Malasar, where Anand was said to be hiding at the house of one Shravan Singh Rathore.
After informing top officials in the SOG, including the then Churu SP Barhat, the SOG team left Sirsa for Churu. At around 10 pm IST, the location was confirmed by Rupendra and Devendra.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Yuvraj Singh noted that Barhat also reached the spot and was leading the operations to apprehend Anand. The raiding party entered the house by 10.30 pm. The then SP claimed that he warned the gangster thrice that there was no way out for him.
However, the SOG team claimed that Barhat was shot at from the roof of Rathore’s house. The court recorded allegations from the FIR which claimed that Barhat and Inspector Singh kept warning Anand to surrender, but he only retaliated by firing and police responded by firing back at him.
The court further noted that two constables — Sohan Singh and Dharampal Singh — were injured because of being shot at during the attack, and inspector Singh also suffered an injury in his hand, leading to strong retaliation by the police.
The court noted that according to the police case, Anand fell from the roof, and Prakash confirmed his identity.
It also observed that the CBI confirmed the sequence of events claimed by Rajasthan police officers, including the fact that Anand was firing indiscriminately at the cops using his AK-47, and that the police shot at him in self defence, leading to the alleged encounter.
‘Omission’ and ‘contradiction’
The court recorded that statements given by Barhat, inspector Singh, head constable Kailash Chand, and constables Dharamveer, Dharmpal, and Sohan on the face of it confirmed only their presence on the staircase from where they claimed they were retaliating to Anand firing at them.
The court further emphasised that no statement from police officers confirmed the presence of Prakash on the staircase, or any police officer reaching the roof of the house till Anand fell from the roof.
However, the court quoted the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) to question the presence of a spent shell casing from Prakash’s gun when he was not even present on the staircase.
The judge noted that the above situation was possible only when Prakash reached the roof before Anand’s death.
Additionally, the judge noted that the CFSL report confirmed the presence of empty shells fired from the weapons of Prakash, Suryaveer, and constable Kailash, but they had given statements about their location being limited to the staircase only.
The judge further questioned the authenticity of constable Sohan’s account, who claimed to have killed Anand in a face-to-face confrontation, while also maintaining that he was hit on his back with a bullet ricocheted from the wall.
The judge noted that there was a clear “contradiction” in the sequence of events narrated by the police officers in their statements. Also, the scene recreated by CFSL cast “reasonable doubt” on the cops’ statements.
“In this context, it is also important to note that the report dated 14.11.2018 prepared by the investigation team of CFSL after inspecting the place of arrest and reconstructing the scene of the incident shows that from photograph no. 62, 137, 138, 139, 140 and 141, it appears prima facie that Anandpal had come right at the mouth of the stairs and he had fired directly at Sohan Singh, which hit his back. In such a situation, there appears to be a contradiction in the statement given by the witness Sohan Singh and the report of reconstruction of the scene of the incident prepared by CFCL as described by Sohan Singh and other policemen and as per the closure report submitted by CBI, reasonable doubt is created in the context of the essential facts of the case,” the judge wrote further in the order.
The court further stressed that Anand had 13 gunshot wounds on his body, and tattooing occurred around seven gunshot wounds, which the judge observed happens only when one is shot within a range of six feet.
The court quoted the statement of Rupendra, which stated that he was used as a shield by police officers to enter the building, and was forced to convince Anand to surrender as Prakash promised him that Anand would not be killed.
Rupendra further alleged in his statement that once Anand chose to surrender, he was pinned down on the floor, and the trio of Prakash, Suryaveer and Kailash Chandra killed him.
“In the humble opinion of the court, as per the reports available on file, the empty shells of weapons of Vidya Prakash, Suryavir Singh and Kailash found on the terrace prima facie support the evidence given by the said witness CW 02 Rupendra. The tattooing on Anand’s body as a result of close range injuries also gives prima facie strength to the arguments presented by the complainant,” the judge observed.
“As per the above, the facts mentioned in the closure report presented by the CBI regarding the material facts of the incident and the contradictions in the statements of various investigation reports and witnesses available on file under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence presented by the complainant party, The facts prima facie show that at the time of the incident, Anandpal Singh had surrendered and he was captured alive by the police force and thereafter he was beaten and shot from close range. It was not possible for a person who had surrendered or had been caught to cause harm to the large number of policemen present at the spot, hence shooting him is not permissible as per law and the nature of the said act prima facie appears to be criminal,” the judge added.
Concluding his order, the judge directed criminal proceedings against police officers Barhat, Vidya Prakash, Suryaveer and Kailash Chandra, and constables Sohan, Dharamveer, and Dharampal under sections 302 (murder), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means) IPC.
(Edited by Radifah Kabir)
Also read: ‘Rekindled hopes’ — family on CBI probe into death of Muslim man forced to chant national anthem