Ex-DGP Sumedh Saini charged with murder after cops turn approvers in extra-judicial killing case
On 21 August, Sumedh Singh Saini, a retired director general of police of Punjab, was charged with murder in a 29-year-old incident of an alleged extra-judicial killing. The murder charge was added to a first-information report, which Palwinder Singh Multani filed at the Mattaur police station in Mohali, on 6 May this year. The FIR against Saini dealt with the abduction and disappearance of Palwinder’s brother, Balwant Singh Multani, in December 1991, and named six other police officials, too. A court of the judicial magistrate first class, in Mohali, approved adding Section 302—punishment for murder—of the Indian Penal Code to the FIR at the behest of a special investigation team constituted by the Mohali Police for the case. Notably, the SIT’s request to the court was based on the statements of two of the accused police personnel—Jagir Singh and Kuldeep Singh, a sub inspector and an assistant sub inspector at the time of the crime—who were allowed to turn approvers in the case by a court of the chief judicial magistrate.
Jagir, Kuldeep and another co-accused, Harsahai Sharma, recorded their statements under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14 August, at the court of the chief judicial magistrate in Mohali. The SIT, via the public prosecutor, had filed an application which asked that the three be pardoned as they were needed as approvers. Their statements provided horrifying details of the torture inflicted upon Balwant in police custody on Saini’s instructions and his death due to the torture. The statements also detailed the subsequent cover up of his death by officials of at least two police stations, who first declared Balwant as an absconder and then a proclaimed offender. As per Jagir, Kuldeep and Sharma, this too was done at Saini’s bidding. According to the SIT’s application, since the alleged crime had taken place inside police premises and was almost three decades old, there was no way to gather evidence apart from the sole eye-witnesses—the police officials present at the time of the alleged crime. On 18 August, Deepika Singh, the chief judicial magistrate, allowed Jagir and Kuldeep to depose as witnesses for the prosecution, but refused Sharma’s plea.
The Caravan has already documented how Saini’s career of 36 years was dotted with allegations of scores of forced disappearances, torture and extra-judicial killings, among other offences. In addition, Saini enjoys the dubious distinction of being singled out by name, for human-rights violations, in a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council in April 2013. My previous reportage traced the entire chronology of Balwant’s disappearance vis-à-vis the police’s narrative, the case fought by his family, and Saini’s attempt to intimidate and torture witnesses. The report had examined how over fifteen years later, the Central Bureau of Investigation was roped into the inquiry of Balwant’s disappearance and filed an FIR against Saini; how the state of Punjab ostensibly came to Saini’s rescue and got the CBI’s investigation quashed on technical grounds; and how the family decided to revive their fight for justice once Saini retired in 2018. It highlighted the systemic cover-up of Balwant’s disappearance, with police complicity at every level.
On 21 August, Rasveen Kaur, the judicial magistrate first class, issued an order which said that Jagir and Kuldeep’s statement “shows that all the accused persons were participant in the inhumane torture and systematic elimination of Balwant Singh Multani in 1991. These approvers are the eye-witness of the torture committed by the accused persons and subsequently events in 1991. Therefore, from the overall perusal of the material on record, this court is of the considered view that Section 302 of IPC is sought to be added in the instant dated May 6, 2020 and needed to be investigated accordingly.”
It should be noted here that on 10 August, the court of the additional district and sessions judge, Rajnish Garg, had ordered that the SIT had to give a three-day notice to Saini before arresting him if Section 302 was added to the FIR. Consequently, Kaur’s order also specified that as per the law, Saini and the other accused “be served with 3 days prior notice before his arrest and are enabled to approach the court.”
On 24 August, a few hours before the three-day period expired, Saini filed an application for anticipatory bail and protection from arrest under the new charge, in the court of district and sessions judge Rajinder Singh Rai. He had already been granted anticipatory bail in the case on 11 May, when the FIR had first been filed. At that time, the court had directed him to join the investigation by appearing before the SIT—headed by Harmandeep Singh Hans, a superintendent of police—within seven days. The court had also put in place stringent conditions while granting bail—Saini was not allowed to step out of his house for any reason barring a medical emergency and summons from the SIT.
On 24 August itself, the public prosecutor opposed Saini’s recent bail plea on the grounds that he had violated the conditions set out in the court order of 11 May on at least three counts. In its application, the prosecutor’s office said Saini was found to be missing from his house on two consecutive days, 21 and 22 August. The application also accused that Saini “tried to stall investigation and create hurdles in the duty of the Investigating Officer” by questioning the “jurisdiction of the Duty Magistrate in this regard.” In addition, the public prosecutor’s application said that Saini tried to intimidate at least two of his co-accused—Jagir and Anokh Singh—in order to “restrain them from disclosing the truth to the Court.” As per the application, once Jagir filed his plea for pardon, Saini’s counsel, HS Dhanoa—who was also the counsel for Jagir and Anokh in the anticipatory bail application—withdrew his services from Jagir and Anokh. The application states that Anokh had initially agreed to turn approver but after Saini’s “threat” he backed out.
Pradeep Singh Virk, the lawyer for the victim’s family, told me that Balwant’s “father and the family had tried their level best to secure his release” when he was picked up by the police on 11 December 1991, “but it was of no avail as Balwant Singh Multani was unlawfully abducted, inhumanly tortured and killed in custody by SSP Sumedh Saini and police personnel under his command.”
Virk shared the statements filed by Jagir and Kuldeep in the court with me. According to their plea for pardon, Sharma, then a sub inspector, was responsible for implicating Balwant in a false case—FIR number 440 of 1991 at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh—for which he fabricated records and manipulated recovery of a pistol. This FIR was used as a pretext to detain Balwant on the night of 11 December 1991. The Chandigarh Police, however, claimed that Balwant had been picked up on 13 December, and in 2007, Dinesh Bhatt, the senior superintendent of police of Chandigarh at the time, had filed an affidavit with the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reiterating this claim.
Jagir’s statement admitted that he was responsible for fabricating records to show that on 18 December 1991, Balwant was taken to the nearby police station of Qadian, and he escaped police custody the next day. Jagir’s statement also says that Balwant was already dead when he created these records. Kuldeep’s statement admits that he was the attesting witness in all these proceedings.
Jagir’s statement is especially gruesome in the details it provided. “In a room SSP Sumedh Singh Saini was sitting on a chair along with Inspector KIP Singh, DSP Baldev Singh Saini, Inspector Prem Malik and Sub Inspector Satbir Singh and all these persons were interrogating Baldev Singh Multani,” Jagir said. “SSP Sumedh Singh Saini instructed to Inspector Prem Malik to shove a wooden danda into the anus of Balwant Singh Multani. After inserting the wooden danda to some extent into the anus, a kick was given to the other side of danda by Inspector Prem Malik.” The statement added, “On the next day i.e. December 14, 1991, I again visited the police station at Sector 17 Chandigarh where I saw that Balwant Singh Multani was lying down, crying in pain. I again came back. After about 2-3 days, I was called to the police station Sector 17 Chandigarh by Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP. There SSP Sumedh Singh Saini informed me that Balwant Singh Multani had died … Inspector Prem Malik, DSP Baldev Singh Saini and Sub Inspector Satbir Singh were put on duty by Sumedh Singh Saini to dispose of the dead body of Balwant Singh Multani.” His statement also mentioned, “I was given the duty of completing the file by hook or by crook by Sumedh Singh Saini.”
Kuldeep’s statement further indicts the police. “On December 18, 1991 a team was prepared by Sumedh Singh Saini and dead body of Balwant Singh Multani was disposed of secretly. SI Jagir Singh was told to prepare team which shall go to Qadian Police Station, Batala to register an FIR and show Balwant Singh Multani as an absconder. On the same day, I along with SI Jagir Singh, SI Anokh Singh and other police officials had gone to Police Station Qadian, Batala where FIR was lodged and Balwant Singh Multani were shown as an absconder.”
Taking cognisance of their statements, the court said, “In view of the entire facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that in case, pardon is granted to accused Jagir Singh and Kuldeep Singh, it would be sufficient to help the investigating agency to collect the evidence against the main accused regarding the alleged offence of illegal abduction of Balwant Singh Multani, his illegal detention, custodial torture leading to death of Balwant Singh Multani, disposal of his dead body.” The court’s order added, “Without the aid of disclosure made by these two accused, it would not be feasible for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of any accused. The refusal to grant the pardon to these accused may render it very difficult, if not impossible to nail the main accused who are actually responsible for commission of heinous crime.”
A day after Saini’s second bail plea, the court of additional district and session judge, Sanjay Agnihotri, granted him interim protection till 27 August. The case will now come up for hearing and arguments in the designated court of additional district and session judge, Rajnish Garg.
Balwant’s family hopes that Saini will soon see justice. More so, as Virk told me that apart from the two co-accused who turned approvers, another witness has come forward. Virk said that a man named Rajesh Raja has been added as a prosecution witness—Raja was in the same lockup as Balwant and is an eyewitness to the brutal torture he endured.