S. Muralidhar, J.

Killings in police encounters affect the credibility of the rule of law and the administration of the criminal justice system."

[PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635]

Introduction

1.1 Eighteen policemen of the Uttarakhand police were sent up for trial consequent upon the killing of 20 year old Ranbir Singh in Dehradun on 3rd July 2009 in an encounter. The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to which the case was entrusted, was that the encounter was fake and that the eighteen policemen conspired to murder him.

1.2 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI-03 ('the trial Court') by a judgment dated 6th June 2014 in Sessions Case No.1/2011 (arising from RC No.6(S)/2009 CBI/SCB/Lucknow) convicted the accused policemen thus:

(i) Accused No.1 (A1) to A16 and A18 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) read with Sections 364 and 302 IPC.

(ii) A1 to A7 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 364 read with Section 120B IPC.

(iii) A17 and A18 were convicted for the offence under Section 218 IPC.

1.3 By the same judgment, A1 to A14 were acquitted for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 302 and Section 364 IPC and Section 218 IPC. Further, A1 to A16 were acquitted of the offence under Section 218 IPC.

1.4 By an order on sentence dated 9th June 2014 the trial Court sentenced the accused as under:

(i) A1 to A16 and A18 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 302/364 IPC.

(ii) A1 to A7 were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.

(iii) A1 to A7 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 364 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.

(iv) Both A17 and A18 were sentenced to simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 218 IPC

1.5. The present appeals question the above judgment and order on sentence of the trial Court.

1.6 In the judgment that follows this Court has confirmed the conviction and consequent sentence awarded to seven of the appellants (who were arrayed as Accused Nos. A-1 to A-7) for the offences under Sections 120 B IPC and Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 120 B IPC. The Court has acquitted the other Appellants of all offences.

The case of the prosecution

2. The President of India was due to visit Dehradun on 3rd July 2009 at around 4 pm. The entire city was, therefore, on high security alert on that day. The Uttarakhand police in Dehradun were patrolling the city since the morning.

3. Gopal Dutt Bhatt (A2), who was a Sub-Inspector (‘SI’) at Police Station (‘PS’) Dalanwala in Dehradun and who, at the relevant time, was attached to the Araghar Outpost, was on his motorcycle doing the rounds of his designated area. From the Araghar Outpost, A2 was proceeding on his motorcycle. Near the Gurudwara on Mohini Road, A2 noticed a boy sitting on a motorcycle which was having a Haryana number plate. Two other boys were standing nearby. A2 purportedly asked the boy sitting on the motorcycle for the papers of the vehicle. There appears to have been an exchange of words. There are several versions as to what happened thereafter. (It may be mentioned here that although Gopal Dutt Bhatt was in the order framing charges referred to as A4 and Neeraj Kumar as A2, in the impugned judgment their numbers have been interchanged. Gopal Dutt Bhatt is mentioned as A2 and Neeraj Kumar as A4. Accordingly, in this judgment they are referred to likewise.)

4. There were several prosecution witnesses (PWs) examined by the CBI as regards the incident near the G