HANDBOOK OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENTS
VOLUME- I
PROCEDURE FOR ARREST OF A CITIZEN
The Criminal Procedure Code allows the right to be defended by
counsel (Section 303) but that is not a guaranteed right. The
framers of the Constitution have well thought of this right and
by including the prescription in the Constitution have put it
beyond the power of any authority to alter it without the Constitution
being altered. A law which provides differently must necessarily
be obnoxious to the guarantee of the Constitution. There are three
rights and each stands by itself. The first is the right to be
told the reason of the arrest as soon as an arrest is made( Section
50) ,the second is the right to be produced before a Magistrate
within twenty-four hours(Section 57) and the third is the right
to be defended by a lawyer of one’s choice.—Para 28
( STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SHOBHARAM) ( AIR 1966 SUPREME
COURT 1910)
…….
We do not have the slightest hesitation in holding that Sh.Bhim
Singh was not produced before the Executive Magistrate First Class
and was not produced before the Executive Magistrate. Orders of
remand were obtained from the Magistrate and the Sub-Judge on
the applications of the police officers without the production
of Sh.Bhim Singh before them. The manner in which the orders were
obtained i.e. at the residence of the Magistrate after office
hours, indicates the surreptitous nature of the conduct of the
police. The Executive Magistrate and the Sub-Judge do not at all
seem to have been concer4ned that the person whom they were remanding
to custody had not been produced before them. They acted in a
very casual way and we consider it a great pity that they acted
without any sense of responsibility or genuine concern for the
liberty of the subject. We have no doubt that the constitutional
rights of Sh.Bhim were violated with impunity. Since he is now
not in detention,there is no need to make any order to set him
at liberty,but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be.
We direct,the State of Jammu & Kashmir to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-
to Sh.Bhim Singh within two months from today. ---Para 5 (BHIM
SINGH, MLA VS. STATE OF J & K)
( AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 494)
…….
Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution,
whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise.
If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it
is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness
and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself
thereby leading to anarchism. No civilised nation can permit that
to happen.
Cont….
---We therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following
requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention
till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:
1. The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling
the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible
and clear identification and name tags with their designations.
The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation
of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
2. The police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee
shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such
memo shall be attested by atleast one witness, who may be either
a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person
of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be
counter-signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and
date of arrest.
3. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held
in custody in a police station or interrogation center or other
lock-up, shall be entitled to have on friend or relative or other
person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed,
as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being
detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness
of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of
the arrestee.
4. The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee
must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative
of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the
Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station
of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to
12 hours after arrest.
5. The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have
someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put
under arrest or is detained.
6. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention
regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the
name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of
the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials
in whose custody the arrestee is.
7. The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined
at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any
present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection
Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police
officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
8. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by
a trained doctor every 48 hours of his detention in custody by
a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director
Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director
Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and
Districts as well.
Cont…..
9. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred
to above, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record.
10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation,
though not throughout the interrogation.
11. A police control room should be provided at all district
and State Headquarters, where information regarding the arrest
and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated
by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting
the arrest and at the polikce control room it should be displayed
on a conspicuous notice board.
Failure to comply with the requirements herein above mentioned
shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental
action, also render him liable to be punished for Contempt of
Court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted
in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction
over the matter.---Para 36,37) (D.K.BASU VS. STATE OF
WEST BENGAL)( AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 610) …….
Before a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant
or orders from a Magistrate it is necessary to fulfill two pre-requisite
conditions---(1) that the police officer concerned knew that the
offender had a design to commit a cognizable offence, and (2)
that it appeared to such officer that the commission of the cognizable
offence could not be otherwise prevented.---Para 8( MOHAMMAD
ALI VS. SRI RAM SWARUP & ORS.) (AIR 1965 ALLAHABAD 161)
…….
For effective enforcement of the fundamental rights, we issue
the following requirements:
(1) An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if
he so requests to have one friend relative or other person who
is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told
as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he
is being detained.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person when
he is brought to the Police Station of this right.
(3) An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to
who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must
be held to flow from Article 21 And 22(1) and enforced strictly.
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested
person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements
have been complied with.---Para 27,28 ( JOGINDER KUMAR
VS. STATE OF UP & ORS.)
(AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1349)
……..
Cont…..
In order to tackle the question of giving protection of women
and other prisoners in police lock-ups, the Supreme Court gave
the following directions to the State of Maharashtra which have
a guiding force for the Courts across the country:-
(1) We would direct that four or five police lock-ups should
be selected in reasonably good localities where only female suspects
should be kept and they should be guarded by female constables.
Female suspects should not be kept in a police lockup in which
male suspects are detained. The State of Maharashtra has intimated
to us that there are already three cells where female suspects
are kept and are guarded by female constables and has assured
the court that two more cells with similar arrangements will be
provided exclusively for female suspects.
(2) We would further direct that interrogation of females should
be carried out only in the presence of female police officers/constables.
(3) Whenever a person is arrested by the police without warrant,
he must be immediately informed of the grounds of his arrest and
in case every arrest it must immediately be made known to the
arrested person that he is entitled to apply for bail. The Maharashtra
State Board of Legal Aid and Advice will forthwith get a pamphlet
prepared setting out the legal rights of an arrested person and
the State of Maharashtra will bring out sufficient number of printed
copies of the pamphlet in Marathi which is the language of the
people in the State as also in Hindi and English and the copies
of these pamphlets shall be affixed in each cell in every police-lockup
and shall be read out to he arrested person in any of the three
languages which he understands as soon as he is brought to the
police station.
(4) We would direct that in the city of Bombay, a City Sessions
Judge, to be nominated by the Principal Judge of the City Civil
Court, preferably a lady judge, if there is one, shall make surprise
visits to police lockups in the city periodically with a view
to providing the arrested persons an opportunity to air their
grievances and ascertaining what are the conditions in the Police
Stations and whether the requisite facilities are being provided
and the provisions of law are being observed and the directions
given by us are being carried out. ---Para 5 (SHEELA BARSE
VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA)(AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 378)
……..
PROCEDURE FOR ARREST OF A JUDICIAL
OFFICER
A Magistrate, Judge or any other Judicial Officer is liable to
criminal prosecution for an offence like any other citizen by
in view of the paramount necessity of preserving the independence
of judiciary and at the same time ensuring that infractions of
law are properly investigated, we think that the following guidelines
should be followed:-
(a) If a judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence,
it should be done under intimation to the District Judge or the
High Court as the case may be.
(b) If facts and circumstances necessitate, the immediate arrest
of a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary, a technical
or formal arrest may be effected.
(c) The fact of such arrest should be immediately communicated
to the District & Sessions Judge of the concerned District
and the Chief Justice of the High Cour.
(d) The Judicial officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police
station, without the prior order and/or directions of the District
& Sessions Judge of the concerned District, if available.
(e) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial officer,
for communication with his family members, legal advisers and
judicial officers, including the District & Sessions Judge.
(f) No statement of a Judicial officer who is under arrest be
recorded nor any panchnama be drawn up nor any medical tests be
conducted except in the presence of the Legal Adviser of the Judicial
officer concerned or another Judicial officer of equal or higher
rank, if available.
(g) There should be no handcuffing of a Judicial officer. If however,
violent resistance to arrest is offered or there is immenent need
to effect physical arrest in order to avert danger to life and
limb, the person resisting arrest may be overpowered and handcuffed.
In such case, immediate report shall be made to the District &
Sessions Judge concerned and also to the Chief Justice of the
High Court. But the burden would be on the police to establish
the necessity for effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the
Judicial officer and if it be established that the physical arrest
and handcuffing of the Judicial officer was unjustified, the Police
officers causing or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing
would be guilty of misconduct and would also be personally liable
for compensation and/or damages as may be summarily determined
by the High Court.
The above guidelines are not exhaustive but these are minimum
safeguards which must be observed in case of arrest of a judicial
officer. These guidelines should be implemented by the State Government
as well as by the High Courts.
At the same time, in our opinion, no judicial officer should
visit a police station on his own except in connection with his
official and judicial duties and functions.
If it is necessary for a Judicial officer or a Subordinate Judicial
officer to visit the
police station in connection with his official duties, he must
do so with prior intimation of his visit to the District &
Sessions Judge.---Para 55,56 (DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSO.
VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.)(AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 2176)
…….
Conditions for grant of bail---- Where an offence is bailable,
bail has to be granted under Section 496 of Cr.P.C. but if the
offence is not bailable, further considerations arise and the
Court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light
of those further considerations, such as, nature and seriousness
of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence
of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension
of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of public
or the State . (STATE OF PUNJAB VS. CAPT. JAGJIT SINGH)
(AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 253)
…….
The overriding considerations in granting bail which are common
both in the case of S.437(1) and S.439(1) of Cr.P.C. are the nature
and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed;
the position and the status of he accused with reference to the
victim and the witnesses; the liklihood of the accused fleeing
from justice of repeating the offences of jeopardising his own
life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in
the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case
as well as of its investigation. The two paramount considerations
viz..liklihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering
with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the
case in a court of justice.
(GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF DELHI) ( AIR
1978 SUPREME COURT 179)
……..
Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious
a value of our constitutional system recognized under Article
21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable,
not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost
to the individual and the community. To glamorise impressionistic
orders as discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative gamble
decisive of a fumdamental right. After all, personal liberty of
an accused or convict is fundamental suffering lawful eclipse
only in terms of ‘procedure established by law.’ So
deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be
founded on the most serious, considerations relevant to the welfare
objectives of society, specified in the Constitution.(BABU
SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P.) (AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 527)
……..
Release of accused on his own bond with or without sureties---
Order rejecting surety because he or his estate was situated in
different district is discriminatory and illegal. Bearing in mind
the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice,
individual freedom and indigent’s rights, bail covers both
release on one’s own bond, with or without sureties. When
sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on
are dependent on variables. Even so, poor men, young persons,
in firm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should
be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisance—put
whatever reasonable conditions they may.
It was not within the power of the Court to reject a surety because
he or his estate was situated in a different district or State.
There was no law prescribing the geographical discrimination implicit
in asking for sureties from the Court district. So the demand
by the Magistrate, of sureties from his own district, was discriminatory
and illegal. ( MOTI RAM & ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH ) (AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429)
……..
Bail should be granted in appropriate cases, on personal bond
of accused without sureties and without any monetary obligation.
Even under the law as it stands today the courts must abandon
the antiquated concept under which pre-trial release is ordered
only against bail with sureties. That concept is outdated and
experience has shown that it has done more harm than good. The
new insight into the subject of pre-trial release which has been
developed in socially advanced countries and particularly the
United States should now inform the decisions of our courts in
regard to pretrial release. If the Court is satisfied, after taking
into account, on the basis of information placed before it, that
the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to
abscond it can safely release the accused on his personal bond.
To determine whether the accused has his roots in the community
which should deter him from fleeing, the Court should take into
account the following factors concerning the accused:-
1. The length of his residence in the community,
2. His employment status, history and his financial condition,
3. His family ties and relationships,
4. His reputation, character and monetary condition,
5. His prior criminal record including any record or prior release
on recognizance or on bail,
6. The identity of responsible members of the community who would
vouch for his reliability,
7. The nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability
of conviction and the likely sentence in so far these factors
are relevant to the risk, non-appearance, and
8. Any other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the
community or bearing on the risk of wilful failure to appear.
(HUSSAINARA KHATOON & ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR) (AIR
1979 SUPREME COURT 1360)
………
When an undertrial prisoner is produced before a Magistrate and
he has been in detention for 90 days or 60 days, as the case may
be, the Magistrate, must, before making an order of further remand
to judicial custody, point out to the undertrial prisoner that
he is entitled to be released on bail. The State Government must
also provide at its own cost a lawyer to the undertrial prisoner
with a view to enable him to apply for bail in exercise of his
right under proviso(a) to Sub-Section(2) of Section 167 and the
Magistrate must take care to see that the right of the undertrial
prisoner to the assistance of a lawyer provided at State costs
is secured to him.---Para 3 (HUSSAINARA KHATOON VS. STATE
OF BIHAR) (AIR 1979 S.C. 1377 )
……….
Accused released on bail need not be required to appear before
Court until charge-sheet is filed and process is issued by court—Practise
in many Magistrates courts in Bihar requiring accused to appear
before court every fourteen days even though he is on bail, disapproved.
Case triable by Sessions Court—Normally Magistrate should
grant bail binding the accused not only to appear before him but
also to appear before court of session.
(FREE LEGAL AID COMMITTEE, JAMSHEDPUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR)
(AIR 1982 S.C.1463)
………
Accused enlarged on bail by Court cannot be rearrested soon thereafter
without apprising such court especially when no disclosure was
made to that court before it granted bail that investigation for
any other offence was then pending against the accused—Rearrest
illegal.
(UDAY CHAND & ORS. VS. SHEIK MOHD.ABDULLAH,CHIEF MINISTER,
J.& K & ORS.) 1983 SUPREME COURT CASES(Cri) 529
……….
Condition for grant of bail--- Accused required to furnish security
for ruppees one lakh in cash or in fixed deposit in nationalised
bank with two sureties residing in the State for like amount—Condition
amounted to denial of bail itself—Accused required to furnish
bail bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for like amount.---Para
1( KESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE VS. STATE OF BIHAR) (AIR 1985
S.C. 1666 )
……..
Right of accused to bail in default of completion of investigation
within 180 days---
Default in completion of investigation within 180 days—Indefeasible
right in accused to be released on bail—Held, arises from
the time of default and continues till filing of challan but does
not survive thereafter—After filing of challan, grant of
bail would be decided on merits—If application for extension
of time to complete investigation made, both to be considered
together and bail can be granted only on rejection of prayer for
extension of time—If accused applies for bail on expiry
of 180 days or any extended period, he must be released on bail
forthwith but he can be rearrested and committed to custody in
accordance with the provisions of CrPC. (SANJAY DUTT VS
STATE THROUGH C.B.I.) (1994 SUPREME COURT CASES (Cri) 1433 )
………
Accused seeking bail and Police seeking Police remand---Accused
not disclosing that earlier bail application was dismissed and
another application was pending for future date—Accused
granted bail ignoring this fact.---Para 3( K.K. GIRDHAR
VS. M.S. KATHURIA) ( RCR 1988(2) 492-DELHI HC)
……..
Police seeking Police remand and accused seeking bail at the
same time—Court can deal both the matters simultaneously---Separate
notice to police regarding bail application in such a situation
not necessary. Para 3 ( K.K. GIRDHAR VS. M.S. KATHURIA)
( RCR 1988(2) 492-DELHI HC)
……..
If denial of bail to a poor person who in a fit of rage strikes
a person and gets involved in a serious criminal case is justifiable
on the ground that he is likely to subvert the justice by winning
over the witnesses, there is greater justification for denying
bail to persons charged of high corruption as from such elements
there is greater danger of the elimination of evidence against
them with free use of money power.
If even a fraction of what was the vox populi about the magnitude
of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from
the truth, that it was the rampant corruption indulged in with
impunity by highly placed persons that led to the unrest of pre-emergency
days. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively
arrested the progress of our poor society to prosperity, undeniably
it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces
a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to
its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the
higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.(ONKAR
CHAND VS. STATE OF PUNJAB)
(1978 CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL 44 )
………
The above proceedings in the trial Court showed a total callousness
and failure of the system, total lack of accountability and responsibility
in the prosecuting agency or the police and Deputy Inspector General
of Police. We may imagine the future of the criminal trials if
such attitude of the above agencies persist. The prosecuting agency
and the police officers are primarily responsible to see that
the prosecution witnesses are served in time and they are produced
in Court in time to avoid any delay in the trial of a criminal
case. It may require action against the concerned officers who
showed unaccountability towards the proceedings in criminal trials.
Be that as it may, another question before me is what order should
be passed in the present bail application if the Government machinery
has failed to perform its duty ? Can an accused be kept in jail
as an undertrial for an indefinite period. The simple answer is
“no”. The Petitioner is in jail for 35 months or so.
The delay in the trial was not at his fault. If the trial is not
completed within 35 months, then I have been left with no option
but to release the petitioner on bail.---Para 14,15 (
SITA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ) ( 1994(3) Cri. 304 )
……..
Realism is a component of humanism which is the heart of the
legal system. We come across cases where parties have already
suffered 3,4 and in one case over 10 years in prison. These persons
may perhaps be acquitted—difficult to guess. If they are,
the injustice of innocence long in rigorous incarceration inflicted
by the protraction of crucial processes, is an irrevocable injury.
So, a circumstance of some consequence, when considering a motion
for bail, is the period in prison already spent and the prospect
of the appeal being delayed for hearing, having regard to the
suffocating crowd of dockets pressing before the Benches. The
basics being thus illuminated, we have to apply them to the tangled
knot of specifics projected by each case. The delicate light of
the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria
necessitating that course. The corrective instinct of the law
plays upon release orders by strapping on to them protective and
curative conditions. Heavy bail from poor men is obviously wrong.
Poverty is society’s malady and sympathy, not sternness,
is the judicial response.----Para 14, 16 (GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU
& ORS. VS. P.P. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ) (AIR 1978 SUPREME
COURT 429 )
………
In this writ petition it appears that the petitioner was arrested
between the night of 29th and 30th November, 1978 and since then
he has been in detention, although it is alleged by the other
side that there are several serious cases pending against him
and a list was also given but Mr.Bhatt was directed to produce
a single case in which any charge-sheet was submitted against
him and despite sufficient opportunity having being given to him
he has not been able to produce such record. In these circumstances,
therefore, we are left with no alternative but to release the
petitioner from jail custody. We are constrained to observe that
as the liberty of the subject was involved in this case it is
extremely regrettable that the State should act in such a casual
or cavalier manner and was even unable to produce any evidence
or document to show why the petitioner was detained without trial
for a period of about 3 years. (MOHD.SALIM KHAN VS. STATE
OF U.P.) ( AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1096)
……..
CUSTODIAL TORTURE
Police officer subjecting a person to third degree torture---Seeks
benefit of Section 53 Cr.P.C.—Held, not a case where Section
53 could be attracted.
This Court pointed out that the act of beating or the act of confining
was, it is true, alleged to be done at a time when the police
officer was engaged in investigation. But it is not possible to
see what reasonable relationship these acts had with the process
of investigation. Nor can one see how the act of sending away
the injured person had any relation to the process of investigation.
The Court further pointed out that the High Court fell into an
error in thinking that whatever a police officer does to a person
suspected of a crime at a time when the said officer is engaged
in investigating that crime should be held to be done, in the
discharge of his official duties to investigate and would, therefore,
be covered by Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking
this view, this court reversed the finding recorded by the High
Court in this behalf. Applying the said principles to the facts
alleged against the officer in this case, it is difficult to agree
with the High Court that the case falls within the mischief of
Section 53 of the Act.
(S.P.VAITHIANATHAN VS. K.SHANMUGANATHAN) (1994 (4) SUPREME
COURT CASES 569 )
…….
Police atrocities—Use of third degree methods—Punjab,
Haryana and Chandigarh Police
directed to ensure that no third degree methods should be adopted
in the Police Stations, CIA Staff offices, police posts or such
other places where a suspect or criminal can be detained or taken
for the purpose of interrogation---Police further directed to
remove all instruments of torture such as Ghotana, belts, Shikanjas,
chain, voltage regulator or any other instruments of torture.
(DR.VINEETA GUPTA & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB &
ORS.) (JUDICIAL REPORTS, 1998 Cri.Page 559)
………
Complaint of illegal detention and third degree torture and death
of one suspect by Police---Defence of the police officer that
the deceased had died of injuries suffered during the scuffle
with other co-accused---High Court sentenced the police officer
to R.I.for 9 months and fine of Rs.2000/-. Supreme Court on second
appeal confirmed the sentence.(SHAM KANT VS. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA) ( 1992(2) Cri. 943)
Petition challenging the opening of a “history-sheet”
( personal record of criminal under surveillance) of a person
acquitted in a criminal case, by the Police as violative of his
fundamental right ---- Held, Surveillance of a person by the police
is certainly a restriction on the freedom of such person guaranteed
under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India----Police
restrained from carrying on Surveillance of the petitioner.
(KHARAK SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P.) (AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT
1295 )
………
A detenue beaten with kicks and lathis in full public view in
the precincts of Supreme Court by Policemen---Policemen charged
with Contempt of Court---Sentenced to One month’s simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each.
(JASPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P.) (1995 (3) SUPREME COURT
CASES 234 )
………..
Suspects blinded by the police officer whilst in police custody---Held,
if an officer of the State acting in his official capacity threatens
to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty without the
authority of law, can such person not approach the Court for injuncting
the State from acting through such officer in violation of his
fundamental right under Article 21 ? Can the State urge in defence
in such a case that it is not infringing the fundamental right
of the petitioner under Article 21, because the officer who is
threatening to do so is acting outside the law and therefore beyond
the scope of his authority and hence the state is not responsible
for his action ? Would this not make a mockery of Article 21 and
reduce it to nullity, a mere rope of sand, for, on this view,
if the officer is acting according to law there would ex concessionis
be no breach of Article 21 and if he is acting without the authority
of law, the State would be able to contend that it is not responsible
for his action and therefore there is no violation of Article
21.
(KHATRI & ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.) ( AIR
1981 SUPREME COURT 1068 )
………..
CUSTODIAL DEATH
Mysterious abduction and murder of an Advocate Kulwant Singh of
Ropar, his wife and two years old child by Punjab police-----Lawyers
all over went on strike for more than two months---Writ Petition
filed by Lawyers for judicial inquiry dismissed by Pb.& Hy.High
Court---Appeal by Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court----Directions
given for fresh investigation to be conducted by CBI to instil
confidence in Public mind---Proceedings before Additional Sessions
Judge, Ropar stayed.
(PB.& HY.HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATON VS. STATE OF PUNJAB)
RECENT CRIMINAL REPORTS 1994(1) PAGE 205
………
Custodial death of Advocate and his family by Punjab police----CBI
inquiry held Punjab police responsible for the abduction and death
of the Advocate and his family---Police however, prosecuting an
innocent person and made him to admit the offence at cost of his
life---Supreme Court ordered his immediate release and directed
the State of Punjab to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs to him----A compensation
of Rs.10 lacs to be paid by the State to the old parents of deceased
Advocate---Amount of Rs.2 lacs to be recovered from accused Police
officers if convicted for the offence under Section 193, 194,
211, 218, IPC. ( Paras 6 to 9 )( PB.& HY. HIGH COURT
BAR ASSOC. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB) RECENT CRIMINAL REPORTS 1996(3)
773
………
Death of an under-trial in Police custody due to injuries caused
by Police---Violation of fundamental right to life---Courts can
entertain writ petition under Art.32 and 226 of the Constitution
for compensation---State to pay monetary Compensation of Rs.1.5
lacs to the widow of the deceased victim----Defence of Soverign
immunity not available to the police officers.
(SMT. NEELABATI BEHRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA) (AIR 1993 SUPREME
COURT 1960)
……….
A former Naik Subedar attached to Manipur Rifles in Manipur abducted
by Army officers---Whereabouts not known since then----Writ of
Habeas Corpus issued against the Army directing it to produce
the detenue.
(SEBASTIAN M. HONGRAY VS. UOI ) ( AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 571 )
……….
Writ of Habeas Corpus by the mother of two boys who were picked
up by the Army in Imphal and their disappearance since then---
No cogent evidence lead to show that the boys had been released
from custody--- Compensation of Rs.1,25,000 /- directed to be
paid by the Union of India to the parents of the boys.
(SMT.POSTSANGBAM NINGOL THOKCHOM & ANOTHER VS. GEN.OFFICER
COMM. & ORS.) ( AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3534 )
………
Death of 21 people in indiscriminate police firing on a peaceful
meeting in a public place----Police in order to cover their atrocitious
act started a false case against several innocent people including
even some of the people who had been killed in the firing-----PUCL,a
human rights organisation filed a Public Interest Litigation in
Supreme Court seeking a judicial inquiry into the incident, compensation
to the next of the kin of those killed and withdrawl of false
police case----As a working principle and for convenience, directions
given by the Supreme Court that Rs.20,000/- be paid for every
case of death and Rs.5000/- for injured person---- without prejudice
to just claim that may be advanced.
(PUCL VS. STATE OF BIHAR) ( AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 355
)
.......
Custodial death of a detenue due to Police torture---co-accused
Sub-Inspector found guilty of framing incorrect writing and record
with intent to save persons responsible for beating the deceased
and causing his death in Police Station (Section 218) and also
found him guilty of giving false information to shield offenders
from legal punishment(Section 201) ----Sentenced to 2 years rigorous
imprisonment for each of two offences----Policemen who participated
in causing injuries to the victim while in police custody, directly
or indirectly, found guilty of offence under Section 304 Part
II/34 IPC.
(STATE OF M.P. VS. SHYAMSUNDER TRIVEDI & ORS.) (1995(4)
SUPREME COURT CASES 262 )
………..
Seven Sikhs ranging between 14 to 85 age group, picked up from
their home by a Police party of Punjab Police led by a DSP—KPS
Gill, the then DGP admitted in his affidavit that the seven persons
were not required by the Police and that a DSP of Pb.Police had
picked them up because he thought that the brother of said 7 persons
was responsible for the abduction of his own brother, and since
then the whereabouts of the seven persons are not known. Case
under Section 364 IPC registered against the absconding DSP------Supreme
Court while indicted the Punjab police and entrusted the inquiry
to be carreid out by the Director of CBI himself, into the abduction
of the 7 persons and to find out the guilty police officials within
4 weeks.
(INDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB) ( AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT
1949 )
……….
Death of a detenue due to Police torture in Police Custody----Police
built the story that the detenue suffered injuries due to beating
by members of general public---F.I.R. registered under Section
302 IPC against unknown members of public.Hailakandi Bar Association
filed a Public Interest Petition in the Supreme Court for a CBI
probe---Supreme Court directed a CBI inquiry into the incident.
(SECT.HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOC. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.)
(1994 CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL 2197)
……….
Death of a youth in Custody of Enforcement Directorate----CBI
inquiry held the policemen guilty of custodial death---CBI directed
by the Supreme Court to file FIR against the accused and awarded
an interim compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the widow of the deceased
to be paid by the Union of India.In case of filing of a suit for
compensation, the ex-gratia compensation of Rs.2 lacs shall not
be taken into account.
(In Re: DEATH OF SAWINDER SINGH GROVER & ORS. VS.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL) ( 1993(1) RECENT CRIMINAL REPORTS 462)
………..
Custodial death---Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment would fall within inhibition of Article 21,whether it
occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise----Compensation
could be granted in Writ Jurisdiction---Purpose is to apply balm
to the wounds . The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction
is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit
for damages which is lawfully available to the victim with respect
to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries
of the State. The relief to address the wrong for the established
invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen , under public
law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies
and not in derogation of them.
(D.K.BASU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL) (AIR 1997 SUPREME
COURT 610)
........
Suspect dying in police custody owing to injuries caused due to
beating by police---Investigating Officer converting the case
from Sec.302 to Sec.304 IPC within hours of registration of case
even without waiting for post mortem report.---Case further converted
into Section 323/34 IPC during the pendency of Writ Petition and
SLP for transfer of investigation to CBI---Supreme Court directed
a CBI inquiry for proper investitgation.
(KASHMERI DEVI VS. DELHI ADMN.) (AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT
1323)
……….
Death of a 9 year child because of beating and assault by police
officer----State Govt.directed to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation
to the mother of the deceased---State liable for tortious acts
of its employees.State may recover the damages from employeees
if so advised.
(SAHELI VS. COMM. OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.) (AIR 1990
SUPREME COURT 513)
………..
Death of an undertrial prionser in police custody----Suptd. Of
Police sent false affidavit misleading the Supreme Court to cover
up----Police officer held guily of attempt to interfere with cause
of justice---Held guilty of Contempt of Court and Supreme Court
sentenced him to three months Simple Imprisonment. Belated apology
given by Police officer rejected because it was not given in good
faith.
(SECT.HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOC. VS. STATE OF ASSAM) (JT 1996(5)
88)
(1996 (2) RECENT CRIMINAL REPORTS 596)
Home
Home