1

IN THE COURT OF SH R.S. VIRK, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, GURGAON CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. _________/2011. In the matter of: 1. Parvesh Kataria w/o Krishan Kumar (D), r/o 8 Biswa, House No. 182, Gurgaon Village, Gurgaon. 2. Om Parkash Kataria s/o Ram Parshad, C-45 Old DLF, Gurgaon Versus Unknown Accused ..Complainants

Complaint under Sections 302, 304, 193, 197, 201 & 220 IPC read with Sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 109, 120-B, 177, 191 & 192 IPC which may be required to be in accordance with Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II (as applicable in Haryana State, Reprint Edition 2008 amended upto 31.03.2008) P.S. concerned: Bhondsi The complainants respectfully submit as under:1. That the complainants abovenamed are respectively the wife and brother of late Krishan Kumar s/o Ram Parshad who was allegedly brought dead at about 7 A.M. on 12.01.2010 to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon as a UTP from Bhondsi Jail, Gurgaon, in unexplained circumstances with extensive bruises showing clearly on his body, and also in photographs taken by Constable No. 1088 Shri Kuldeep Singh of P.S. Bhondsi, Gurgaon at about 2 P.M. on 12.01.2010, cause of death not yet established and delay in establishing cause of death is also not explained by any of the authorities concerned even after 16 months time lapse. 2. Excessive delay in viscera report and who is cooking up/ making up the viscera report for last 16 months is not mentioned in inquiry magistrate report or in any of the RTI replies. Failure of Jail Superintendent to timely intimate the inquiry magistrate that whereas case was of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon, and whereas Gurgaon Court Escort should have left deceased at Jail, it was actually Constable No. 3134 Angrej Singh of P.S. City, Gurgaon, who had left deceased in a bad condition at Jail at about 5.35 P.M. on 11.01.2010; reportedly deceased was unwell at 8.30 P.M. but was never medically checked by removing his clothes till after being brought dead to Civil Hospital Gurgaon.

3. Inquiry magistrate report is silent on how such an important witness as Constable No. 3134 Angrej Singh of P.S. City, Gurgaon, was never examined for 14 months till 25.03.2011; neither is their any explanation from inquiry magistrate for not intimating to higher authorities till 02.04.2011 that deceased had been beaten in custody. 4. That the deceased UTP, Krishan Kumar, aforesaid was on bail bond in a case

pending in the Court of Sh Pawan Kumar, JMIC Gurgaon Case No. 335 of 21.04.2008 State v. Krishan, P.S. Sector 5 Gurgaon u/s 324/506 IPC, punishable with maximum 3 years imprisonment, from last date of hearing, 05.08.2009 till next date of hearing, 11.2.2010, but as per RTI Reply of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon dated 04.05.2011 said UTP is claimed to have jumped bail and been absconding since 21.04.2008, and hence Sh Pawan Kumar, JMIC Gurgaon remanded him to 14 days custody on 11.01.2010, as no lawyer appeared and no surety appeared to bail him out. This is completely a cock and bull story of the police. It appears that the Naib Court Jagdish may have been managed to obtain this inexplicable 14 day remand order from Sh Pawan Kumar, JMIC Gurgaon, in blatant violation of Apex Court ruling in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 1994 SCC (4) 260 that necessity of arrest must be established upon the following four principles: (i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims. (ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law. (iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint. (iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again. 5. That a false affidavit, or at the very least, a misleading affidavit dated 26.02.2010 appears to have been filed, behind the back of the complainants, before National Human Rights Commission in NHRC Case File Number: 181/7/5/2010-AD Diary Number 6432 dt 07.02.2010 to get the case dismissed, without taking on record the mandatory affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, who was also issued notice, in view of the plea of an NGO dated 07.02.2010 to Direct the State Government of Haryana to suspend the Superintendent of Bhondsi Jail, Gurgaon to facilitate fair and impartial investigation and further, take appropriate legal action against anyone found to be guilty;.

6. From 10.30 A.M to 5.35 PM on 11.01.2010 the whereabouts and records in terms of Guidelines for Arrest Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 9 in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 are completely and wholly absent. Case was of Sector 5 Gurgaon, which on oral submission accepts through Virender, Constable No. 719 of Sector 5, Gurgaon that he was picked up at 10.30 AM, and jamatalashi was done but no record kept - then there is a hiatus of 7 hours 5 minutes without any record, then Constable No. 3134 Angrej Singh of City P.S. Gurgaon (whereas case is of Sector 5 Gurgaon) deposits deceased at Bhondsi Jail, and is not seen by inquiry magistrate till 25.03.2011 for 14 months!! Neither of these constables have been able to explain any cogent reason why it was so very essential to arrest the deceased and deposit him in jail the police had the power to arrange with the magistrate to let him go at any time if it so wished. S.H.O. Sector 5 P.S. has falsely stated in the RTI reply dt 04.05.2011 sent vide DCP (HQ) Gurgaon letter No. 645-D/RTI dt 06.05.2011, R.L. 2896 dt 10.05.2011 received on 12.05.2011, that deceased Krishan had absconded in the Case 355 of 21.04.2008 from 21.04.2008, onwards till apprehended on 11.01.2010. 7. This is a baseless statement as Sh Pawan Kumar has issued bail bond on 28.07.2008 for Rs 15000/- as per certified record obtained on 28.04.2011. The last order of bail was from 05.08.2009 to next date of hearing fixed for 11.02.2010. The circumstances of how he could have jumped bail before 11.02.2010 and been arrested for bail jumping on 11.01.2010 and sent to jail for 14 days custody by Sh Pawan Kumar JMIC Gurgaon are unexplained from the case file. No court documents were served upon him, only two constables came to his wife and informed her that her husband had jumped bail and was to be in the Court on 11.01.2010. The wife of deceased had left him at the main gate of the Court Complex at about 10 A.M. on 11.01.2010 and went home, thus statement of Constable No. 719 Virender Singh that he took her to advocate Ajit Sheoran at about 10.30 A.M., and that he also took her to Naib Court Jagdish is a cock and bull story. 8. It has also been confirmed that the deceased was never handed over to the Escort Guard in the Court Complex by Constable No. 719 Virender Singh of Sector 5 Police Station as claimed falsely by him. But it has been confirmed that the deceased was handed over to Bhondsi Jail at 5.34 P.M. on 11.01.2010 by Constable No. 3134 Angrej Singh of City P.S. Gurgaon, and therefore he might even have been taken to City P.S. Gurgaon at 10.30 A.M. and all farzi paper work got surreptiously completed in absentia as appears from the jamatalashi fiasco revealed by the admitted fact of recovery by doctors during post mortem of bidi ( a banned item inside any jail) and metallic pendent.

9. The jail doctor has confirmed that no check of deceased was done by removal of clothing, and hence she could not positively confirm that he was not beaten before being brought to jail. The police had not got any medical done after arrest either. The first doctor to thoroughly examine the deceased did so only after he was brought dead to hospital. Clearly the death is unexplained and highly suspicious. He was admittedly arrested on his two feet in good health less than 20 hours before his allegedly unexplained death in custody, cause of death not yet established in 16 months, and admittedly he was brought dead to Civil Hospital Gurgaon 20 hours after his arrest and there was unexplained delay of 26 hours in carrying out of post mortem. 10. All these unexplained facts and delays have been sought to be explained by inquiry magistrate as revealing hand of the Haryana Minister from Gurgaon, Sukhbir Kataria. Be that as it may, there is unexplained and suspicious transfer of inquiry magistrate on 01.04.2011 within 6 days of taking statement on 25.03.2011 of key accused Constable No. 3134 Angrej Singh of City P.S. Gurgaon, alleged unexplained inquiry after said transfer leading to alleged suspension, without waiting for finalization of inquiry, alleged removal of service of inquiry magistrate on grounds of his probationary appointment dt 17.03.2007 allegedly not being confirmed within 3 years of service by 17.03.2010 till April 2011, in apparent violation of Article 311 as held by Apex Court in Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2192. 11. The media has reported the disturbing news that: (1) Prisoners death-needle of suspicion points at politicians, cops, doctors Daily Bhaskar 30.04.2011 (2) Judge for probe by independent agency in Gurgaon custodial death The Tribune 30.04.2011 (3) Judges report pins murder on minister top cops HT Gurgaon 01.05.2011 12. That this custodial death case appears to be a deep rooted conspiracy of silence, allegedly involving Haryana ministers, police, jail staff and doctors, doctors of civil hospital, lawyers/ staff of the courts, doctors of Civil Hospital, Gurgaon and staff of FSL concerned. In such type of a case, in Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors. V. State of M.P. 2005 (9) SCC 631 decided on 16.11.2004 the Apex Court was constrained to hold: Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died.

Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues and the present case is an apt illustration as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned The exaggerated adherence to ignorance about the whole matter

and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities, the factsituation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on the increase, receive encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach at times of the courts as well because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to them if one prisoner dies in the lock-up because there would hardly be any evidence available to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture. The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilized society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognized by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the mal-treatment of detainees/under-trial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in 'Khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence eating the crops, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and the civilization itself would risk the consequence of heading, towards total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually lose faith in the efficacy of the system of judiciary itself, which if it happens will be a sad day, for any one to reckon with..Though Sections 330 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC') make punishable those persons who cause hurt for the purpose of extorting the confession by making the offence punishable with sentence up to 10 years of imprisonment, but the convictions, as experience shows from track

record have been very few compared to the considerable increase of such onslaught because the atrocities within the precincts of the police station are often left without much traces or any ocular or other direct evidence to prove as to who the offenders are. The courts are also required to have a change in their outlook approach, appreciation and attitude, particularly in cases involving custodial crimes and they should exhibit more sensitivity and adopt a realistic rather than a narrow technical approach, while dealing with the cases of custodial crime so that as far as possible within their powers, the truth is found and guilty should not escape so that the victim of the crime has the satisfaction that ultimately the majesty of law has prevailed. 13. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides When any fact is

specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The Apex Court while dealing with this aspect of custodial death has held in K.H. Shekarappa v State of Karnataka 2010 (3) SCR 883: 17. The fact that the deceased and injured were arrested and brought to the Police Station is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the deceased and the injured were brought to the Police Station on their two feet. The testimony of the Medical Officers, who had performed autopsy on the dead bodies of the two deceased, would indicate that both the deceased were brought dead to the hospital. When the deceased, who were brought to the Police Station, were alive and were produced dead before the Medical officer, it is for the appellants to explain as to in which circumstances they had died. The deceased were in the custody of the appellants, who were police officials. During the time when they were in police custody they had expired. Therefore, it was within the special knowledge of the appellants as to how they had expired. In view of the salutary provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it was for the appellants to offer explanation regarding the death of the two deceased. 14. Krishan Kumar was admittedly arrested on his two feet at 10.30 A.M. on 11.01.2010 and less than 20 hours later was brought dead as UTP to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon with extensive bruises on his back. 15. In view of the grave importance attached to custodial deaths documentation of this case has been made widely available on the world wide web as follows:

(1) INQUIRY MAGISTRATE REPORT DT 02.04.2011 IN CUSTODIAL DEATH CASE P.S. BHONDSI DT 11.01.2010: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78244064/Minister-Police-Jailors-Doctors-Involved (2) EMAIL DT 22.04.2011 AND 14.01.2010: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78244963/Viscera-Report-missing (3) PRIVATE COMPLAINT TO P.S. BHONDSI FOR FIR 23.04.2011 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78245141/FIR-No-action-by-police (4) PETITION TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA DT 25.04.2011 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78245257/Petition-to-Supreme-Court (5) COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 18 (1) TO STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION HARYANA DT 04.05.2011 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78752570/Custodial-Death-Gurgaon (6) Comparison Goa Custodial Death Case of 09.01.2011 vis a vis Gurgaon Custodial Death Case of 12.01.2010 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78852742/Gurgaon-vs-Goa (7) CUSTODIAL DEATH State Election Commission Haryana letter

No.SEC/3ME/2011/1146 dt 06.05.2011 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78887998/First-Official-Acknowledgement!! (8) FAQ-INDIA-IF POLICE BEATS U IN CUSTODYKNOW UR LEGAL RIGHTS
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79042320/KNOW-YOUR-RIGHTS---CUSTODY-BEATINGS

(9) Gurgaon Custodial Death Case Evasive RTI Reply Gurgaon Police 06.05.2011 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79373399/Omitted-role-of-PS-City-Gurgaon!! (10) Case JMIC GGN 335 of 21.04.2008 State v. Krishan http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79425591/Sample-handwriting-of-master-forger-of-election(11) 2nd RTI to Commissioner Police Gurgaon 13 May 2011 Signed http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79509535/no-date-of-bail-jumping

16. In Mehboob Batcha v. State rep by Supdt of Police Cr App 1511 of 2003 29.03.2011 the Apex Court held: "15. We are surprised that the accused were not charged under Section 302 IPC ..they should have been charged under that provision and awarded death sentence, as murder by policemen in police custody is in

our opinion in the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death sentence, but surprisingly no charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against any of the accused. We are constrained to say that both the trial Court and High Court have failed in their duty in this connection." 17. The complainants have collected circumstantial evidence of this deep rooted conspiracy, which prima facie points to unexplained custodial death, and in order to obtain evidence of murder in custody and establish acts of omission and commission amounting to offences under Sections 302, 304, 193, 197, 201 & 220 IPC read with Sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 109, 120-B, 177, 191 & 192 IPC which may be required to be in accordance with Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II (as applicable in Haryana State, Reprint Edition 2008 amended upto 31.03.2008) (Copy annexed) (Rules silent on custodial death/ torture), would need the assistance of this Honble Court to examine witnesses and summon documents, some of which are awaited under the RTI Act, 2005. List of first eight witnesses is enclosed. List of documents enclosed is attached alongwith the said documents and special power of attorney is also attached in original. Remaining witnesses would be possible to decide only after examining these eight witnesses and on receipt of some information awaited under RTI Act from Commissioner Police, Gurgaon. PRAYER It is respectfully prayed that deficiencies, if any, in formatting and drafting of this application may kindly be exempted in the interests of justice, and summons be issued for production of the record from the respective witnesses, so as to break the ring of conspiracy so that the actual persons responsible, unknown as of today, may be summoned, tried, found guilty and punished according to law in the interests of justice. In the event that custodial death as alleged is established, costs in the amount of Rs 500 lakhs be imposed on the State of Haryana, which it shall be at liberty to recover jointly and severally from the persons found guilty of committing or abetting any of the offences alleged, such sum to be credited to NGOs which reported this matter to National Human Rights Commission, unknown to complainants till as recently as 01.05.2011, to be utilized to set up a nationwide free to call helpline, free SMS and unlimited webspace to enable upload of videos and photographs of custodial torture from alert citizens anywhere in India. Prayed Accordingly. Place: Gurgaon Date: 17.05.2011 Lt Col (Retd) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi [Attorney of Smt. Parvesh Kataria, w/o of Krishan Kumar (D) & Om Parkash Kataria s/o Ram Parshad] 1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurgaon

LIST OF FIRST EIGHT WITNESSES 1. Sh. Suhas Chakma, Director National Campaign for Prevention of Torture, Asian Centre for Human Rights, C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058. (a) To assist the court in establishing the fact whether or not mandate of Secy Gen NHRC Letter No. 66/SG/NHRC/93 dt 14.12.1993 to all Chief Secretaries on the reporting of custodial deaths within 24 hours by District Magistrates/Superintendents of Police of the concerned District was adhered to in this case. (b) To indicate his willingness or otherwise to assist the court as amicus curiae in view of grave importance and the great difficulties likely to be encountered in establishing the true facts of this case. (c) To indicate ability or inability of National Campaign for Prevention of Torture, Asian Centre for Human Rights to set up a nationwide free to call helpline, free SMS and unlimited webspace to enable upload of videos and photographs of custodial torture from alert citizens anywhere in India and estimated costs thereof. 2. Sh. Pawan Kumar, JMIC Gurgaon in Case No. 335 of 21.04.2008 State v.

Krishan, P.S. Sector 5 Gurgaon u/s 324/506 IPC. (a) To assist the court in establishing circumstances of, and necessity of, arrest of deceased and 14 days remand to Bhondsi Jail on 11.01.2010 in view of four point mandate for necessity of arrest as was held by Apex Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 1994 SCC (4) 260. (b) To assist the court in establishing the alleged role of Naib Court Jagdish in this unexplained arrest case, as per reported statement of Virender, Constable No. 719 of Sector 5, Gurgaon, in magisterial inquiry report dated 02.04.2011. (c) To assist the court in establishing the alleged role, if any, of Advocate Ajit Sheoran in this unexplained arrest case, as per reported statement of Virender, Constable No. 719 of Sector 5, Gurgaon, in magisterial inquiry report dated 02.04.2011.

10

(d) To assist the court in establishing alleged violation of Guideline No. 10 mandated by Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 by the grave omission to consult Advocate Sh R.S. Saini, the advocate on record of the deceased, in this unexplained arrest case, as reported in magisterial inquiry report dated 02.04.2011. 3. Advocate Sh R.S. Saini, the advocate on record of the deceased in Case No.

335 of 21.04.2008 State v. Krishan, P.S. Sector 5 Gurgaon u/s 324/506 IPC. (a) To assist the court in establishing circumstances of, and necessity of, arrest of deceased and 14 days remand to Bhondsi Jail on 11.01.2010 in view of four point mandate for necessity of arrest as was held by Apex Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 1994 SCC (4) 260. (b) To assist the court in establishing alleged violation of Guideline No. 10 mandated by Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 by the grave omission to consult the advocate on record of the deceased, in this unexplained arrest case, as reported in magisterial inquiry report dated 02.04.2011. 4. Virender, Constable No. 719 of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon. (a) To confront the alleged false testimony of Virender, Constable No. 719 of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon before Advocate Ajit Sheoran. (b) To confront before Complainant No.1, the alleged false testimony of Virender, Constable No. 719 of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon, as per his reportedly false statement that he took wife of deceased to Advocate Ajit Sheoran and Naib Court Jagdish. 5. Advocate Ajit Sheoran, named as per reported statement of Virender,

Constable No. 719 of Sector 5, Gurgaon, in magisterial inquiry report dated 02.04.2011. (a) To confront Virender, Constable No. 719 of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon, with his alleged false testimony in the magisterial inquiry report dated 02.04.2011 that he took wife of deceased to Advocate Ajit Sheoran and Naib Court Jagdish.

11

6. Naib Court Jagdish c/o Sh. Pawan Kumar, JMIC Gurgaon in Case No. 335 of 21.04.2008 State v. Krishan, P.S. Sector 5 Gurgaon u/s 324/506 IPC. (a) To assist the court in establishing the alleged role of Naib Court Jagdish in this unexplained arrest case, as per reported statement of Virender, Constable No. 719 of Sector 5, Gurgaon, in magisterial inquiry report dated 02.04.2011. (b) To confront the alleged false testimony of Virender, Constable No. 719 of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon, as per his reportedly false statement that he took wife of deceased to Advocate Ajit Sheoran and Naib Court Jagdish. 7. Sh. Mukesh Rao, Duty/Inquest/ Inquiry Magistrate in alleged custodial death of Krishan Kumar on 12.01.2010. (a) To assist the Court as and when required during testimony by all witnesses who appeared before the inquiry magistrate. (b) To ascertain whether immediate report of additional delay of 19 hours in post mortem in violation of his specific order to carry out post mortem given on the spot at 2 P.M. on 12.01.2010 to doctors of Civil Hospital was made to his higher authority upto High Court, on 12.01.2010; whether any report was made to his higher authority upto High Court about violation of Chairperson NHRC letters dt 10.08.1995 & 27.03.1997 to Chief Ministers of States on the video filming of post-mortem examinations in cases of custodial deaths and for carrying out post mortem at the earliest opportunity for proper assessment of Time since death / the time of death,. (c) To ascertain whether failure of Jail Superintendent to timely intimate the inquiry magistrate that whereas case was of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon, and whereas Gurgaon Court Escort should have left deceased at Jail, it was actually Constable No. 3134 Angrej Singh of P.S. City, Gurgaon, who had left deceased in a bad condition at Jail at about 5.35 P.M. on 11.01.2010, whereas case was of P.S. Sector 5, Gurgaon and whether any periodic report was made to his higher authority upto High Court, about such omission. (d) To ascertain persons responsible for excessive delay of 14 months in the attendance before inquiry magistrate of Constable No. 3134 Angrej Singh of P.S. City, Gurgaon, who was finally examined only on 25.03.2011, and

12

whether any periodic report was made to his higher authority upto High Court of this gross failure. (e) To ascertain whether immediate report of extensive bruises, as observed by him and photographed by Constable No. 1088 Shri Kuldeep Singh of P.S. Bhondsi, Gurgaon at about 2 P.M. on 12.01.2010 was made to his higher authority upto High Court, on 12.01.2010. (f) To identify the photographs and testify as to extent of bruises observed at 2 P.M. on 12.02.2010 on the body of deceased along with Constable No. 1088 Shri Kuldeep Singh of P.S. Bhondsi, Gurgaon. 8. Constable No. 1088 Shri Kuldeep Singh of P.S. Bhondsi, Gurgaon. (a) To identify the photographs and testify as to extent of bruises observed at 2 P.M. on 12.02.2010 on the body of deceased along with Sh. Mukesh Rao, Duty/Inquest/ Inquiry Magistrate in alleged custodial death of Krishan Kumar on 12.01.2010. (b) To provide dated documentary evidence of providing the set of 15 photographs to his superior officer at P.S. Bhondsi on or about 13.01.2010, as required vide CrPC 168 and Rule 14.5 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II (as applicable in Haryana State, Reprint Edition 2008 amended upto 31.03.2008) "14.5 Channel of communication. The usual channel of

communication between enrolled and gazetted officers is through their immediate and intermediate superiors." Place: Gurgaon Date: 17.05.2011 Lt Col (Retd) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi [Attorney of Smt. Parvesh Kataria, w/o of Krishan Kumar (D) & Om Parkash Kataria s/o Ram Parshad] 1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurgaon

(Smt. Parvesh Kataria, w/o of Krishan Kumar (D))

(Om Parkash Kataria s/o Ram Parshad)

13

LIST OF DOCUMENTS (ATTACHED) (1) INQUIRY MAGISTRATE REPORT DT 02.04.2011 IN CUSTODIAL DEATH CASE P.S. BHONDSI DT 11.01.2010 (2) EMAIL DT 22.04.2011 AND 14.01.2010 (3) PRIVATE COMPLAINT TO P.S. BHONDSI FOR FIR 23.04.2011 (4) PETITION TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA DT 25.04.2011 (5) COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 18 (1) TO STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION HARYANA DT 04.05.2011 (6) Comparison Goa Custodial Death Case of 09.01.2011 vis a vis Gurgaon Custodial Death Case of 12.01.2010 (7) CUSTODIAL DEATH State Election No.SEC/3ME/2011/1146 dt 06.05.2011 Commission Haryana letter

(8) FAQ-INDIA-IF POLICE BEATS U IN CUSTODYKNOW UR LEGAL RIGHTS (9) Gurgaon Custodial Death Case Evasive RTI Reply Gurgaon Police 06.05.2011 (10) Case JMIC GGN 335 of 21.04.2008 State v. Krishan (11) 2nd RTI to Commissioner Police Gurgaon 13 May 2011 Signed (12) Custodial Dignity Gujarat High Court (13) Custodial torture and its remedies 31.08.2010 (14) Haryana Human Rights Report 2007 (15) Scope of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: Recent Developments 2009 (16) CrPC 168 & Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II (as applicable in Haryana State, Reprint Edition 2008 amended upto 31.03.2008) (17) Prisoners death-needle of suspicion points at politicians, cops, doctors (Daily Bhaskar 30.04.2011) (18) Judge for probe by independent agency in Gurgaon custodial death (The Tribune 30.04.2011) (19) Judges report pins murder on minister top cops (HT Gurgaon 01.05.2011)

Place: Gurgaon Date: 17.05.2011 Lt Col (Retd) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi [Attorney of Smt. Parvesh Kataria, w/o of Krishan Kumar (D) & Om Parkash Kataria s/o Ram Parshad] 1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurgaon