History is likely to turn full circle. So is the hope of every justice-seeking Sikh in the Punjab.  In the Behbal Kalan firing case of 2015, two weeks back, SSP Charanjit Sharma was arrested. Today IG Umranangal has been detained. Will the SIT of the Punjab government be gutsy enough to detain former Director General of Police Sumedh Saini, who is thoroughly indicted by the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission, but who has a ‘good past’ of  ‘saving Punjab’ by killing Sikh youth extra-judicially?

How long will the guilty be able to save themselves? “Bakre ki amma kab tak khair manayegi?’ The attitude of the Punjab government seems to be that they will no longer be able to.  With the arrest of IG Umranangal, the detention of former DGP Sumedh Saini does not seem far away.

Inspector General of Police Paramraj Singh Umranangal, whose name featured as one of the key officers who acted unlawfully in firing at the peaceful demonstrators in Behbal Kalan in 2015, has been arrested in Chandigarh by the Special Investigation Team, set up to follow up on the report of the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission.

“These officers, Inspector General of Police Paramraj Singh Umranangal, DIG Amar Singh Chahal, SSP S. S. Mann, SSP Raghbir Singh and SSP Charanjit Singh Sharma, even cannot put defence that they carried out orders of the DGP or the Government unwillingly. The defence of this nature, about obeying ‘orders’ of superiors, was rejected long ago during Nuremberg trials.”

Justice Ranjit Singh Commission Report

Chief Minister Punjab Captain Amarinder Singh seems to be acting upon his promise to the Bargari Sangarsh Morcha by following up on the recommendations of the Special Investigation Team and arresting senior police personnel who were responsible for police firing at Behbal Kalan and Bargari villages on peaceful demonstrators in 2015.

One of the key recommendations of the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission report, acted upon by the SIT reads, “Number of police officers have been found liable for failing to carry out proper and fair investigations of incidents of sacrilege and in the cases which were registered regarding use of force at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan. Their names have been disclosed in the different parts of the report while dealing with these issues. The Commission would accordingly recommend appropriate action in accordance with law against all such officials.”

Even the Justice Jora Singh Commission, constituted by the Shiromani Akali Dal government had also severely indicted IG Umranangal. The Peoples Commission of Justice Markandey Katju too questioned the role of IG Umranangal.

Paramraj Singh Umranangal was inducted into the police force on compassionate grounds, when his father Sukhdev Singh Umranangal was killed by militants in May 1987. His grandfather Jiwan Singh Umranangal was an Akali politician, a member of the SGPC and a revenue minister in the Punjab cabinet. He was staunchly opposed to the militants and was awarded the Padma Bhushan by the government of India.

P. S. Umranangal, as he is generally known has had cases of human rights violations, drug trafficking and indiscipline against him.

In the Behbal Kalan firing case, former Senior Superintendent of Police Charanjit Sharma was detained a few days back.  It is learnt that he was attempting to flee Punjab in anticipation of his arrest and prosecution in the Behbal Kalan firing case.

Reportedly, IG Umranangal had, on the other hand, petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday last expecting the court to grant it stay from arrest after a string of holidays on Wednesday next, but the police higher-ups got wind of it and detained him today in an early morning swoop.

On the other hand, Superintendent of Police Bikramjit Singh and Assistant Sub-Inspector Pardeep Singh managed to get a stay on their arrest till 21 May, 2019.

Speaking to World Sikh News, Sukhraj Singh, son of Krishan Bhagwan Singh, who was martyred by the police at Behbala Kalan, along with Gurjeet Singh Sarawan, who were peacefully protesting as part of the Sikh congregation against the desecration of Guru Granth Sahib by Sirsa Dera followers in various villages of Faridkot, said, “This is a positive step by the SIT. It will lead to the higher-ups responsible for this heinous killing.”

While the proceedings of the investigation by the SIT are not yet in the public domain, the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission report had made ample references to the role of IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal.  Though the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission had clearly indicted IG Umranangal for his role in Kotkapura, it had not made any conclusive reference about his role at Behbal Kalan. Obviously, the SIT has uncovered more during its investigation resulting in the detention of IG Umranangal.

“This is a positive step by the SIT. It will lead to the higher-ups responsible for this heinous killing.”

Sukhraj Singh, son of Krishan Bhagwan Singh, martyr Behbal Kalan firing

The crux of the observations of the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission has been expressed in the following paragraph of the report:

“If only the police or the DGP had shown some patience, the situation could have been saved. Thus, DGP Sumedh Singh Saini cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for directing the police to get the dharna lifted forcibly. IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal, DIG Amar Singh Chahal, SSP S. S. Mann, SSP Raghbir Singh, SSP Charanjit Singh Sharma must share the blame for executing this avoidable action. They being senior officers ought to have conveyed their assessments to the DGP instead obeying his directions blindly. They were senior enough to suggest a course of action when DGP Saini asked them to use force to lift dharna at Kotkapura. If the civil district administration could suggest for not using force then the police could have also done so. These officers even cannot put up defence that they carried out orders of the DGP or the Government unwillingly. The defence of this nature about obeying ‘orders’ of superior was rejected long ago during Nuremberg trials. Chief Secretary Mr. Sarvesh Kaushal, Secretaries to CM S. K. Sandhu and Mr. Gagandeep Brar have knowingly failed to furnish details known to them with purpose. Chief Secretary ought to have interfered effectively to save the situation.”

Justice Ranjit Singh makes a very important remark, which is unusual and rare in criminal jurisprudence in India. He says, “These officers (IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal, DIG Amar Singh Chahal, SSP S. S. Mann, SSP Raghbir Singh, SSP Charanjit Singh Sharma) even cannot put defence that they carried out orders of the DGP or the Government unwillingly. The defence of this nature, about obeying ‘orders’ of superiors, was rejected long ago during Nuremberg trials.”

This kind of reference and recognition of the role of police and administrative personnel seeking alibi on grounds of “obeying orders” was long overdu

Click the link to read the full text of the  Justice Ranjit Singh Commission Report.  The World Sikh News invites inquisitive readers to read the extracts mentioning the role of IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal, given below:

EXTRACTS from JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH COMMISSION REPORT relating to the role of Paramraj Singh Umranangal (CW-95).

One of the paras of the report says, “It is on record that Shri Paramraj Singh Umranangal (CW-95) was specifically directed by the then DGP, Punjab Shri Sumedh Singh Saini (not examined as he did not choose to appear or to file response despite notice) to reach Kotkapura chowk. Not only CW-95 but the then DGP also issued specific directions for Shri Charanjit Singh Sharma (CW-83) to cut short his leave, which he had obtained to perform Shradh ceremony of his father, to reach Kotkapura. Besides SSPs of districts Mansa, Bhatinda, Ferozepur, Fazilka and the police force from PAP battalion as well as IRB battalions and police force of Commissionerate, Ludhiana were summoned at Kotkapura.”

…..A significant observation by the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission was, “One has not been able to understand as to why the police or the senior police officers were so keen to lift this Dharna which concededly was a peaceful Dharna to protest against a very serious religious issue which had hurt the sentiments of Sikhs in the entire world.  The demand of the public sitting on Dharna could not be termed something which was unreasonable.”

….Sh. Umranangal (CW-95) had been moved to Kotkapura on the direction of DGP Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini (not examined). Even Mr. Charanjit Singh Sharma (CW-83) moved on the orders of DGP conveyed to him through CW-95. The police force from outside the range which was present in plenty could have moved only on the directions of DGP.

…..He has placed on record his charge relinquishing report as IG Intelligence on 14.10.2015 forenoon and his charge taking report in the afternoon on 14.10.2015 and that he was on medical leave from 14.10.2015 to 26.10.2015. In support of this plea, he has relied on his confidential report where all these facts are mentioned showing that he was assessed accordingly for these periods. CW-74 admitted that he was monitoring the movement at the chowk but from intelligence point of view where Divisional Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot had also come and had seen the monitor. The witness states that Sh. Paramraj Singh Umranangal was physically present at the chowk and was seeing the happenings and was personally supervising the entire operation.

….Shri Umranangal (CW-95) in turn has also tried to palm off his responsibility for the action on the ground that he was just asked to be present there and was not in charge of the operation. CW-95, otherwise admitted that he was detailed by DGP Sumedh Singh Saini to proceed to Kotkapura where law and order problem had taken place. This witness had earlier remained as IG Bathinda zone and during his tenure the theft of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji had taken place at village Burj Jawahar Singh Wala. As per CW-95, responsibility to trace the culprits of this crime was that of the then SSP, Faridkot Sh. Charanjit Singh Sharma. This witness had constituted a SIT to investigate the incident. This witness could not show if he had ever sought report about the progress of the case from this SIT. Irony is that this SIT did not meet even once. No wonder police was unable to trace the crime till some real efforts are made now.

….It is in evidence that CW-95 was detailed by the DGP to proceed to Kotkapura which message he had received at about 2.30 pm on 12.10.2015. CW-95 reached Kotkapura in the evening and found Jitender Singh Aulakh (CW-210), the then Commissioner of Police, Amritsar also present there. CW-210, belongs to village Bargari and his father had remained sarpanch of the village. Though CW-95 has claimed that he was sent there to assist Mr. Jitender Jain but situation on ground does not stand in support of this assertion. CW-95 was the most active police officer and everybody is seen coming to him for consultation in the chowk. This can be seen clearly from the CCTV footage which has been received by the Commission. He has also admitted that he had informed DGP Sumedh Singh Saini when the dharna was lifted on the night of 12/13.10.2015. When the protesters again sat on dharna, CW-95 was called back and reached Kotkapura. This time he conveyed the direction of DGP to Charanjit Singh Sharma to reach Kotkapura. He had met ADGP (Law and Order) on 13.10.2015 and admitted to have participated in the press conference along with ADGP (Law and Order) on 14.10.2015. This witness had sought time to produce a recording to show that SSP Mansa was attacked with sword which he did and the same was seen by the Commission. It cannot be clearly seen if SSP Mansa was attacked with sword rather it is seen in the CCTV footage that SSP Mansa is seen hitting a person with danda (stick). The assertion by CW-95 that he was sent to assist CW-74, is belied from what he had said during press briefing on 14.10.2015.

….Very strangely CW-95 has stated that decision to use force at Kotkapura was not his and he was not aware who had taken this decision. He was senior most officer present at the crucial time at the chowk. Not only this, he is constantly seen speaking with someone on telephone throughout the duration of the operation. Senior officers are seen coming to him very frequently and were seen with him before proceeding to arrest Bhai Panth Preet Singh. SSPs are seen approaching CW-95 and after consultation, are seen proceeding to take action. His version that he is not aware as to who had taken decision to use force to get the dharna lifted, thus, lacks credence and cannot be accepted. Since CW-95 was continuously seen talking on the telephone and, thus, it is obvious that the instructions, if any, were being received by him which were being passed on to the officers to act in that particular manner. The witness admits that he had given report to the DGP when chowk was cleared of dharna on the morning of 13.10.2015. It is felt that nothing would have gone wrong, if the police had not taken action to forcibly remove the protesters. There were no reasons to do so.

….In fact the version of Charanjit Singh Sharma (CW-83) would reveal the cat out of the bag. This witness has stated that IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal had shared the instructions received from DGP with the officers that they were to get dharna lifted as he (DGP) was having a fear that there may not be Hindu-Sikh riots in the town which was a Hindu dominated area and Hindus may suffer the consequences. CW-83 further cemented this version that police was acting as per the instructions of Shri Paramraj Singh Umranangal who received instructions from DGP Sumedh Singh Saini. CW-83 went on to state that on the morning of 14.10.2015 decision was taken to arrest the protesters and in case they were not ready for the same, then saints leading the dharna were to be arrested. This will explain the action to catch Bhai Panth Preet Singh. CW-83 has also stated that all these instructions were received either by Shri Paramraj Singh Umranangal or SSP Faridkot. According to him, IG Jitender Jain had virtually no say and was a spectator like others and all instructions were being received by IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal. CW-83 also confirmed that SSP S. S. Mann spoke to Deputy Commissioner and had called him at Kotkapura at middle of night. CW-83 has further stated that Paramraj Singh Umranangal might have spoken to someone when he came with the instructions that the saints were to be arrested. CW-83 was one of the senior officers along with SSP S. S. Mann and SSP, Mansa who had gone ahead to arrest Bhai Panth Preet Singh. He (CW-83) has narrated how the situation turned ugly. It is, thus, clear that the operation at Kotkapura chowk was under the charge of Shri Paramraj Singh Umranangal and he was a conduit between the DGP and the action which was taken to get the dharna lifted.

…The doubt, if any, in this regard can be set at rest from the Press briefing done by Mr. Paramraj Umranangal where he is heard claiming how he had deputed all the senior officers and about happenings at Behbal Kalan. Otherwise the version of CW-83 is required to be examined with cade and caution.

…..Though the senior officers had tried to remain evasive in regard to the instructions which might have been conveyed by DGP but some of the junior officers were more forthright in this regard. One officer who was present at Kotkapura and was ready to speak the truth in confidence while keeping his name secret. On this assurance by the Commission, he has stated that all the officers present there at Kotkapura were not interested in taking any action at Kotkapura chowk and it was only upon the directions from the DGP, which they could over hear, when the officers were talking amongst themselves, that they were forced to take this action to get the dharna lifted by using force.

….The fact that Mr. Paramraj Singh Umranangal was in constant touch with DGP Sumedh Singh Saini would come out clearly from the details of telephone calls between them at the crucial moments on the morning of 14th October, 2015. The details of telephone calls were received in the office of Commission on 01.11.2017 through some anonymous source. On the basis of call details a communication was addressed to Shri Sumedh Singh Saini on 22.11.2015 informing that there were long duration calls between telephone numbers 0172-2778788 (which was installed at the house of Mr. Saini) and 0172-2548888 (installed in the office of Mr. Saini) with mobile number 7508800001 used by Mr. Umranangal. There were long duration calls between mobile number 9780213141 and the mobile number 7508800001. Phone numbers 0172- 2548888 and mobile number 9780213141 were being used by Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini during the relevant time as per the record accessed by the Commission. An opportunity was afforded to Mr. S.S. Saini on 22.11.2017 to file response by 5th December, 2017. It had already been made clear to Mr. Saini that the Commission may draw adverse inference if no response was received from him. Even Mr. Umranangal has been recalled to confront him with call details when he has admitted that he had so spoken to Mr. Saini. He had earlier remained evasive in this regard by stating that he spoke to Mr. Jain and ADGP (Law and Order).

…..Section 114 of Evidence Act provides that Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts in particular case. Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Act provides that the Court may presume that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer if given would be unfavourable to him. Since Mr. Saini has failed to respond to the queries advanced to him, the Commission is well justified in law to draw adverse inference and presume that refusal by Mr. Saini means that answer being given would have been unfavourable to him. The Commission can hold that Mr. Umranangal and Mr. Saini were in constant touch and Mr. Umranangal was acting as per the directions issued to him by Sumedh Singh Saini the then DGP. The details of the call duration are given as under:

…..Call details of Sh. Umranangal with DGP (Sumedh Saini):                   

Sr. No.	Date	Time	Duration	From	To	Type
1.	14.10.2015	4.01.30	73 seconds	7508800001	0172-2778788	Call
2.	14.10.2015	4.09.35	248 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
3.	14.10.2015	4.14.34	110 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
4.	14.10.2015	4.17	97 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
5.	14.10.2015	4.21.50	68 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
6.	14.10.2015	5.03.09	20 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
7.	14.10.2015	5.04.47	286 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
8.	14.10.2015	6.18.02	416 seconds	0172-2548888	7508800001	Call
9.	14.10.2015	6.26.20	120 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
10.	14.10.2015	6.37.26	167 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call
11.	14.10.2015	6.44.12	290 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
12.	14.10.2015	6.51.31	313 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
13.	14.10.2015	6.57.44	127 seconds	7508800001	9780213141	Call
14.	14.10.2015	7.01.35	120 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
15.	14.10.2015	7.06.51	53 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
16.	14.10.2015	7.12.44	84 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
17.	14.10.2015	7.25.5	210 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
18.	14.10.2015	7.32.58	202 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
19.	14.10.2015	7.45.30	91 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
20.	14.10.2015	9.23.14	65 seconds	9780213141	7508800001	Call
21.	14.10.2015	10.54.25	104 seconds	7508800001	0172-2548888	Call
22	14.10.2015	11.39.18	112 seconds	0172-2778788	7508800001	Call

 

….As already noticed, some of witnesses who appeared before the Commission were ready to disclose facts if their names were not revealed. They have confirmed this fact that it was the direction from DGP that police took action to lift dharna by using force.

….The report has the questionnaire sent to Sumedh Saini which has not been responded by him, which includes question of the role assigned by Saini to Paramraj Singh Umaranangal.

….If only the police or the DGP had shown some patience, the situation could have been saved. Thus, DGP Sumedh Singh Saini cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for directing the police to get the dharna lifted forcibly. IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal, DIG Amar Singh Chahal, SSP S. S. Mann, SSP Raghbir Singh, SSP Charanjit Singh Sharma must share the blame for executing this avoidable action. They being senior officers ought to have conveyed their assessments to the DGP instead obeying his directions blindly. They were senior enough to suggest a course of action when DGP Saini asked them to use force to lift dharna at Kotkapura. If the civil district administration could suggest for not using force then the police could have also done so. These officers even cannot put up defence that they carried out orders of the DGP or the Government unwillingly. The defence of this nature about obeying ‘orders’ of superior was rejected long ago during Nuremburg trials. Chief Secretary Mr. Sarvesh Kaushal, Secretaries to CM S. K. Sandhu and Mr. Gagandeep Brar have knowingly failed to furnish details known to them with purpose. Chief Secretary ought to have interfered affectively to save the situation.

…When the versions given before the Commission by the witnesses are examined in the light of the CCTV footage from four cameras at the chowk, it would clearly show that the version given by the protesters is true and correct whereas the police version is padded one and is not at all reliable on the core issues.

….During their examination by the Justice Jora Singh Commission, “Even all the senior police witnesses starting from Paramraj Singh Umranangal CW-95), IG Jitender Jain (CW-74), DIG Amar Singh Chahal, SSP S.S. Mann, DSP Kotkapura have stated before the Commission that no footage of the cameras affixed at the chowk was available.”

…..Police officer like Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, DGP, Punjab, Shri Paramraj Singh Umranangal, IG Police, Shri Amar Singh Chahal the then DIG Ferozepur range, Shri S. S. Mann the then SSP Faridkot, Shri Charanjit Sharma (Retd.) the then SSP Moga, Shri Raghbir Singh, the then SSP Mansa, two gunmen of SSP, Faridkot, who can be identified from the CCTV footage, are held responsible for the action at Kotkapura.

….The responsibility of this incident, therefore, squarely lies with the police. Senior officers like Paramraj Singh Umranangal (CW-95), Amar Singh Chahal (CW-76) and some other officers are seen going up and down consulting each other thus giving clear indication of coming events about impending use of force to lift dharna. They were apparently acting under instructions from DGP/CM. They both have failed to respond and thus have been evasive.

……CW-177, in his affidavit has not only named the police officers who had opened fire which hit him but had disclosed the name of officer who fired at Mr. Krishan Bhagwan (deceased). CW-177 states in his affidavit that SHO Amarjit Singh (CW-21) fired on the asking of Bikramjit Singh which hit deceased Krishan Bhagwan in stomach. This witness has stated that inspector Pardip Singh had opened fire on the direction of Mr. Charanjit Sharma (CW-83) which hit him above his thigh on his left side. As per CW- 177, second bullet was fired by Harjinder Singh DSP on the asking of Paramraj Singh Umranangal which hit him at the same spot. His affidavit was kept in a sealed cover. This witness was recalled when he disclosed that during his earlier statement he could not disclose these names as the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and recorded his statement which was never made by him. He further disclosed that due to threat advanced by the police he could not disclose the complete facts before Justice Katju Commission as well as before Justice Jora Singh Commission when he was threatened and was lured with a promise of permanent job. This witness has, thus, explained his earlier statements where he had not disclosed the names of the persons who had opened fired at him. The witness has tried to justify his present statement in this manner.