INVESTIGATION REPORT INTO THE POLICE IN-ACTION IN THE CASE OF
MURDER OF A YOUTH OF PANCHKULA.
CHANDIGARH
15.6.2001
With heavy heart, the Lawyers For Human Rights International,
expresses concern at the murder of Sandeep Kumar(21), son of Karam
Chand, a city resident on May 21, 2001.
The investigation into the murder of Sandeep Kumar, a 21 years
old youth of Chandigarh in Panchkula on May 21, 2001 was conducted
by a team of Lawyers For Human Rights International, consisting
of Tejinder Singh Sudan, District President of the Chandigarh
Unit, Arunjeev Singh Walia and Yogesh Kumar Vinayak.
The deceased Sandeep Kumar, aged around 21 years, was living
with his parents and younger brother at House No.695-B, Sector
46-A, Chandigarh. He was the elder son of Karam Chand and Kaushalya
Devi. He was supervising the construction work of his aunt’s
house at H.No.537, Sector 19, Panchkula. On May 20, 2001 he went
to H.No.537, Sector 19, Panchkula at about 7.30 a.m. But did not
return back. On May 21, 2001, his mother was informed through
telephone by the Panchkula police that the dead body of her son
Sandeep Kumar was found lying on the railway track near Sector
19, Panchkula. Her younger son Rakesh Kumar went to the spot alongwith
one of their neighbour. They found that the dead body of the deceased
bore injuries on the head, face, knees and heels of his feet and
from every angle it was looking like a cold blooded murder. The
broken buttons of his trousers and blood oozing out from his mouth
and other parts were indicative of forcible act with him. But
the police did not take any action on the ground that it was a
suicide. The parents of the deceased suspected the involvement
of one of their relative Chanchal (her sister’s son) into
his murder. It was learnt that the deceased had taken drinks alongwith
Chanchal and one person called Pardhan in House NO.537, Sector
19, Panchkula till 11 p.m. on the ill-fated night, but how and
who killed him is yet to be investigated. But the Panchkula police
closed this case as a suicide and have even failed to register
the F.I.R. of murder. The mother of the deceased is a distressed
lady as her husband had become mentally retarded few years ago
in a road accident and their is no male member to look after the
entire family. She has made many representations to Senior Police
authorities inclduing the Director-General of Police, Haryana
seeking their indulgence in getting the truth behind the cold
blooded murder of her son, Sandeep Kumar. The body strongly recommend
that the Panckula police should register an F.I.R. under Section
302 IPC against the guilty accused after thorough investigation
into the offence.
CHANDIGArh
DATED;15.6.2001 President, Chandigarh Unit
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:
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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…..
20. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest,
referred to above, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for
his record.
21. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation,
though not throughout the interrogation.
22. 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:
(4) 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.
(5) The police officer shall inform the arrested person when
he is brought to the Police Station of this right.
(6) 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:-
(5) 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.
(6) We would further direct that interrogation of females should
be carried out only in the presence of female police officers/constables.
(7) 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.
(8) 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:-
(h) 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.
(i) If facts and circumstances necessitate, the immediate arrest
of a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary, a technical
or formal arrest may be effected.
(j) 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.
(k) 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.
(l) 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.
(m) 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.
(n) 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)
…….
BAIL
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:-
9. The length of his residence in the community,
10. His employment status, history and his financial condition,
11. His family ties and relationships,
12. His reputation, character and monetary condition,
13. His prior criminal record including any record or prior release
on recognizance or on bail,
14. The identity of responsible members of the community who would
vouch for his reliability,
15. 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
16. 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)
……….
DEATH IN POLICE CUSTODY AND POLICE ENCOUNTER –
A CASE FOR JUDICIAL CONCERN
In India where rule of law is inherent in each and every action
and right to life and liberty is prized fundamental right adorning
highest place amongst all important fundamental rights, instances
of torture and using third degree methods upon suspects during
Police custody are a matter of routine these days. Use of excessive
force and exceeding lawful authority by Police many a times causes
Custodial death. If torture of suspects during Police custody
is a serious crime, causing death by beating in Police custody
is even worst crime and a most condemnable act. Indian Criminal
Laws have given extra-ordinary powers to the Police which are
often mis-used or abused by the men in Khaki. The force which
is supposed to protect the life and liberty of the citizen when
behaves inhumanly and become law unto themselves by perpetrating
crime on innocent people, it is bound to encourage lawlessness
and breeds contempt for law. Custodial violence is indeed a matter
of great concern. Thinking of the trauma and fear that a victim
might be suffering in the Police custody, the protection of the
life and liberty of the victim from torture and abuse of power
by the police and other law enforcing officers becomes most urgent
and sacred duty of every law-abiding citizen and every organ of
justice delivery system. Custodial violence including torture,
death in Police custody and staged encounter, strikes a blow at
the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive
should not only be derived from law but also that the same should
be limited by law. In custodial crimes, not only the infliction
of body pain is worrisome, but also the trauma and mental agony
which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station
or lock-up. Whether it is third degree torture or rape in Police
custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond
the purview of law. As per the reports released by National human
Rights Commission, only 188 deaths in Police custody were reported
in 1996-97. In the course of further twelve months, more than
888 people died at the hands of country’s guardians of the
law. Inspite of clear prohibition in law from subjecting any person
with torture, Complaints regarding Custodial torture and deaths
in Police Custody or false Police encounters are ever increasing
in the Supreme Court and different High Courts, besides National
Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions across
the country. During the early eightees’ when the arm of
law was more powerful and every person accused of torture or custodial
death was given maximum punishment, Custodial crime was in the
decline, but during the period 1991 till the begining of the new
millennium, with the law courts started taking a lenient view
against such crimes, awarding compensation to the victims rather
than punishing the guilty and there being no deterrent for the
perpetrators of the custodial crime, incidents of custodial crime
have increased manifold. According to a Statement placed in the
Lok Sabha, in the monsoon session in August, 2000, more than seven
hundred and ninety persons have been killed in Police custody.
Unofficial figures goes upto 1500, which includes people killed
in false encounters, and judicial custody.
The human rights commissions across the country attributes the
increase in this macabre total to the fact that it had issued
repeated instructions that information regarding such tragic occurrences
must not be suppressed. This may be the case, but that still does
not justify the unconscionably high number of extra-judicial killings
that mark law enforcement in India.
In the forgotten corners of dusty police stations, lathi and
roller continue to make harsh contact with flesh and bone. So
secretly is this done, so discreetly, that the democratic nation
which houses these modest citadels of terror can continue to believe
that it is indeed a democracy. Their acts of commission, corruption
and barbaric methods of torture, kidnapping and ransom, fake encounters,
eliminations and custodial deaths etc. put to shame any civilised
society. When corruption and greed intermingle in such a state
of affairs, many of the actions of the men in uniform take the
form of contract killings, extortion etc. This also includes taking
possession of valuables or property, terrorising the public to
discourage possible witnesses etc. all in the name of fighting
the outlaws. When the Policeman transgress the very law he fights
to restore, what follows is, revultion, revenge and further alienation.
State terrorism can never take the place of armed conflict by
certain groups of terrorists in any civilised society. Just one
example would suffice to illustrate how the Police force first
commits the crime and then undertake face saving exercise. On
the night intervening 10-11th August, 2000, a twenty nine year
old RMP doctor of Chandigarh, Amanjeet, was reportedly picked
up by a Police Control Room vehicle and taken to Police Station,
Sector 39,Chandigarh at about 6.P.M. and after few hours he was
declared dead. His parents and wife challenged the Police theory
that, under the influence of liquor, the victim had jumped out
of the moving police vehicle and consequently died, while being
brought back from the hospital to the Police Station. The relatives
of the victim strongly refute this theory. They said that the
injuries on the person of the deceased were not from any fall
from the vehicle and it bore torture signs also . Amanjeet’s
is just one name that figured, perhaps in that infamous list of
about 1200 custodial deaths in India this year. What is at stake
here is the very definition of what constitutes humanity.
It would be a grave folly to seek sovereign immunity by the
Police for their unlawful acts done in the discharge of their
lawful duty. And a graver folly still to grant benefit of doubt
by the Law Courts, for all its excesses, and rumblings of discontent,
the Police like an ordinary criminal consider itself outside the
orbit of law of the land and subvert the very authority of Rule
of Law and perpetrates crime on the innocent people without any
fear of penal action by the Law Courts. Then the situation, which
had cast a dark shadow on the lives of unsuspecting people, changed.
An “avalanche” of Petitions began to be filed in the
courts and Human Rights Commissions. The Law of the land began
to find its grip; it girdled and grilled the rowdy police personnel
who began to be arraigned. The very same instruments of the State
and the institutions which had maintained a sphinx like silence
when the police did what it was expected not to do, including
committing alleged excesses, tortures or killings in “encounters”,
also found their voice and moorings. No doubt that for many acts
committed by men in uniform there cannot be any immunity. These
can not also be condoned. The “guilty” must be punished.
Policemen who committed excesses out of sheer greed to make money,
gather awards, settle scores or teach a lesson to their enemies
must be given maximum punishment, for they not only committed
the crime, but also destroyed the trust and faith of the people
in the uniform. The realisation that they are accountable for
their deeds as much as any other mortal human being would hopefully
make them think twice before doing what has virtually become a
habit with them. The fear of the law should be put in the skulls
of the political bosses as well who have been using the police
to terrorise those not convenient to the ruling clique.
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
stipulates that “No one shall be subjected to torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “
no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.”
The UN General Assembly resolution of December, 1989 on the
principles of effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal,
arbitrary and summary execution says:
“Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary
and summary executions, and shall ensure that any such executions
are recognised as offences under their criminal laws, and are
punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the
seriousness of such offences.
.......... In order to prevent extra-legal, arbitrary and summary
executions, governments shall ensure strict control, including
a clear chain of command over all officials responsible for the
apprehension, arrest, detention, custody and imprisonment as well
as those officials authorised by law to use force or fire arms.
.......... Effective protection through judicial or other means
shall be guaranteed to individuals and groups who are in danger
of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions, including those
who receive death threats.”
Nobody really knows how many people have had to pay with their
life for their innocence and respect for the law. There are many
who have simply vanished without a trace. There are many more
who have died in so-called encounters with the police. In fact,
the latter eventuality was a daily routine in Punjab not too long
ago and the reports about the encounters were chillingly bland
and never-changing: “ The Police was taking a suspect to
such and such place for recovery of arms when it was ambushed
by his heavily armed accomplices. In the ensuing encounter, the
suspect and five of his accomplices were killed. Three AK-47 rifles
and a large cache of ammunition were recovered from them.”
This was probably, the most favourite, perverted and well established
method of dispensing quick justice even on mere suspicion, Article
21 of the Constitution be damned.
Disturbed at the diabolical recurrence of police torture in
the country, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer as he was then was compelled
to say that “ The vulnerability of human rights assumes
a traumatic, torture some poignancy when the violent violation
is perpetrated by the police arm of the State whose function is
to protect the citizen and not to commit gruesome offences against
them as has happened in this case. Police lock-up if reports in
newspapers have a streak of credence, are becoming more and more
awesome cells. This development is disastrous to our human rights
awareness and humanist constitutional order.”
The figures show that most of custodial deaths have been reported
in the States where militancy and insurgent activities are at
its peak. For example, Punjab and Kashmir tops the list of States
where thousands of innocent people branding them as “terrorists”,
have been killed in false police encounters. In Punjab alone,
during the period 1988-95 more than twelve thousand people branding
them as “terrorists” were reportedly killed in Police
encounters. The killings in Kashmir have even gone higher than
this. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Nagaland
are also among the states where a large number of people have
been killed in Police Custody. One interesting thing regarding
custodial death is that in almost every case of custodial death,
the Police comes with the story that the victim committed suicide
by either strangulating himself or consuming poison while in Police
custody. Deaths in indiscriminate Police firing on the mob are
also very common. When a victim dies in Police custody, the first
theory the Police usually gives is that the victim consumed poison
before he could be arrested by the Police. But the Policemen completely
forget that a person is held to be in custody when he is restrained
from moving in any direction, no matter if he is on the road or
on any vehicle or even in his house.
In order to check Police atrocities and use of third degree methods
upon suspects the Punjab & Haryana High in DR.VINEETA GUPTA
& ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. directed the States
of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh 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
was further directed to remove all instruments of torture such
as Ghotana, belts, Shikanjas, chain, voltage regulator or any
other instruments of torture. In the complaint of illegal detention
and third degree torture and death of one suspect by Police and
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)
A detenue Jaspal Singh was beaten with kicks and lathis in full
public view in the precincts of Supreme Court by Policemen. Policemen
were charged with Contempt of Court. The guilty cops were 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 )
In the worst case of human rights violation, where suspects were
blinded by the police officer whilst in police custody, it was
held that 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 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 )
Mysterious abduction and murder of an Advocate Kulwant Singh
of Ropar in Punjab, his wife and two years old child by Punjab
police in 1994 brought to light the worst kind of Police brutality
in Punjab. Lawyers all over Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh went
on strike for more than two months. Writ Petition filed by Lawyers
for judicial inquiry was dismissed by Pb.& Hy.High Court.
On an appeal by Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court by
Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, directions were
given for fresh investigation to be conducted by CBI to instill
confidence in Public mind. 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 was ordered to be paid
by the State to the old parents of deceased Advocate. Amount of
Rs.2 lacs was directed to be recovered from accused Police officers
if convicted for the offence under Section 193, 194, 211, 218,
IPC.
PB.& HY. HIGH COURT BAR ASSOC. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB RECENT
CRIMINAL REPORTS 1996(3) 773
The death of an under-trial in Police custody due to injuries
caused by Police came before the Supreme Court of India alleging
violation of fundamental right to life of deceased. The Supreme
Court for the first time in this case held that the Courts can
entertain writ petition under Art.32 and 226 of the Constitution
for compensation in case of Custodial death and directed the State
to pay monetary Compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs to the widow of the
deceased victim. It also held that the defence of Soverign immunity
was 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 was abducted by
Army officers in 1983 and since then his whereabouts were not
known. A Writ of Habeas Corpus was 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 was filed in the Supreme Court. The Court held that
there was noo cogent evidence which could lead to show that the
boys had been released from custody and held it to be a Custodial
death and a Compensation of Rs.1,25,000 /- was 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 ) A peculiar case of its kind relating
to death of 21 people in indiscriminate police firing on a peaceful
meeting in a public place was filed in the Supreme Court by PUCL,
a human rights organisation in the form of a Public Interest Litigation
seeking a judicial inquiry into the incident, compensation to
the next of the kin of those killed and withdrawl of false police
case. 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. As a working
principle and for convenience, directions were 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
) In a case of 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). The Court
Sentenced him 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, were picked up
from their home by a Police party of Punjab Police led by a DSP
on 29th October,1991. 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. A case under Section 364 IPC was registered
against the absconding DSP. Supreme Court while indicting the
Punjab police, entrusted the inquiry to be carried 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
)
Where a detenue was killed due to Police torture in Police Custody
on 10.3.1993, the Assam 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). In the case of death of Sawinder Singh
Grover, a young person in Custody of Enforcement Directorate.
Supreme Court marked a CBI inquiry. CBI inquiry held the policemen
guilty of custodial death. CBI was 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 and held that 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)
Upholding the judicial precedent of awarding interim compensation
to the victim of Custodial death, the Supreme Court held that
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-and that compensation
could be granted in Writ Jurisdiction as its 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).
Another glaring example of Police highhandedness was witnessed
in the case when a suspect died in police custody owing to injuries
caused due to beating by police and the Investigating Officer
converted 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
in the case. (KASHMERI DEVI VS. DELHI ADMN.) (AIR 1988 SUPREME
COURT 1323). Death of a 9 year child because of beating and assault
by police officer. The Supreme Court directed the State Govt.
to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the mother of the deceased
and held the state liable for tortious acts of its employees and
if so advised, the State may recover the damages from employees.
(SAHELI VS. COMM. OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.) (AIR 1990 SUPREME
COURT 513)
The National Human Rights Commission on 4th Jan. 1999,ordered
the Rajasthan Government to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the next
of kin of the deceased Hussain Teli, who was taken to Police Station
for interrogation in connection with a murder case and during
illegal detention, he was brutally tortured as a result of which
he died in Police Custody. The Commission held that “this
is a case of death on account of torture by the police during
investigatioin and that the body was buried under unusual circumstances
by the police authorities only with a view to cover up their mis-deeds.”
A MERE LIP SERVICE
Lackadaisical functioning of Punjab State Human Rights
Commission irks victims
RELEASED BY : -
LAWYERS FOR SOCIAL REFORMS, CHANDIGARH
Chamber No.119, District Courts, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
Ph:0172-723187 Fax: 0172-747434,
Email: info@lfhri.org
WHAT THE COMMISSION CAN DO
In exercise of its powers under The Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993, the Commission can do all or any of the following things:
37. It can frame its own procedure for rendering effective, speedy
and inexpensive justice to the victims of human rights abuses;
(Sec.10)
38. It can take suo moto notice of any human rights violation
reported by the media or any organisation or individual; (Sec.12)
39. It can hold an independent inquiry into the complaint of violation
of human right only against a public servant (including policeman,
government servant or even Minister) filed by any victim, individual
or organisation on behalf of the victim. (Sec.12)
40. It can even hold an inquiry into the role of public servant
for its negligence in prevention of violation of human rights;
(Sec.12)
41. It can issue summons or warrants against any public servant
for ensuring his/her presence before the Commission in relation
to any complaint received by it against such public servant; (Sec.16)
42. It can inspect any jail or place of detention where any person
is lodged or detained for the purpose of treatment, reformation
or protection; (Sec.12)
43. It can study the living conditions of the prisoners lodged
in jails and suggest remedial measures to improve the condition
of the jail; (Sec.12)
44. It can hold study or review the factors leading to the acts
of terrorism or armed struggle and make suitable recommendation
to prevent further breach of fundamental rights of the citizens;
(Sec.12)
45. It can make recommendations to the State government for the
strict implementation of the International treaties and international
covenants and conventions at every level of administration; (Sec.12)
46. It can undertake and promote research work in the field of
human rights; (Sec.12)
47. It can publish literature, hold functions, start campaigning
in order to spread human rights literacy among public servants
and general public. (Sec.12)
48. It can involve or get involved in the human rights education
and promotion movement initiated by it or any non-governmental
human rights organisation and can encourage non-governmental human
rights activists or organisations by highlighting their work in
particular field; (Sec.12)
49. It can employ any number of persons from the investigation
agency of the Central Government or State Government for conducting
inquiries and investigation on its behalf; (Sec.17)
50. It can provide free legal aid to the victim of human rights
violation at State expense;
51. It can maintain a reasonable distance between the State government
and its functioning;
52. It can dispose of the complaints filed before it in a speedy
manner and without calling the complainants before it on each
and every date of hearing;
53. It can recommend to the State government or authority for
initiating proceedings for prosecution or such other action against
the concerned person or persons or for the payment of such immediate
interim relief to the victim or the members of his family;(Sec.18)
54. It can submit its annual report or special reports on issues
of human rights violation to the State government which in its
opinion is of such urgency or importance that it should not be
deferred till submission of annual report;
WHAT THE COMMISSION CAN’T DO
15. It cannot inquire into any complaint of human rights violation
after expiry of one year from the date of which the act is alleged
to have been committed;(Sec.36(2))
16. It cannot entertain or deal with any complaint of human rights
violation against a private individual; (Sec.12)
17. It cannot pass any order directing the State government or
any particular public servant to do or to desist from doing anything.
It can simply make a recommendation of advisory nature suggesting
to do anything; (Sec.18)
18. It cannot conduct a surprise raid on any jail or place of
detention including Police Station without giving prior intimation
to the State government; (Sec.12)
19. It cannot initiate any contempt proceedings or haul up any
public servant if he fails to respect or comply with its recommendation;
20. It cannot entertain or deal with any complaint whose subject
matter is sub-judice in a criminal or civil court;
21. It cannot utilise the services of any person or organisation
for investigation into any case of human rights violation except
the investigation agency of the Central Government or the State
Government;
WHAT THE COMMISSION DON’T DO
35. It does not summons the concerned public servant against
whom specific allegations of human rights violation are made;
36. It does not provide free legal aid to the indigent and poor
victims of human rights violations to draft the complaint and
plead their case before the Commission;
37. It does not keep follow up action on its recommendations and
fails to ensure strict compliance of its recommendations;
38. It does not approach any court for compliance of its recommendations
nor intervenes in any proceedings where the human rights of the
people have been violated;
39. It does not ensure fairness in the investigation conducted
by its investigation wing. Many a times, it accepts the report
of the investigator for dismissing the complaint, inspite of unimpeachable
evidence available on record to the contrary;
40. It does not hold on the spot inquiry by a member of the Commission
into offences of serious nature like custodial deaths or Police
tortures etc.;
41. It does not believe the statement of the victims even if given
on oath and accepts the Police version of a bare denial of the
complainant’s allegations as gospel truth;
42. It does not doubt the integrity of the investigation wing,
unmindful of the fact that its investigators belong to the agency
against whom serious allegations of human rights violations have
been alleged and every investigation report aims at exonerating
the policemen allegedly involved in the human rights violation;
43. It does not maintain transparency in its functioning. It has
failed to publish its annual report since its constitution in
1997. It has not submitted any special report to the State government
regarding human rights violations in the State. It does not allow
the general public to inspect its judicial record, nor it issues
press statements highlighting its achievements;
44. It does not provide speedy, effective and inexpensive redressal
of grievances of the victims; It gives any number of adjournments
for awaiting report from the State government;
45. It does not provide sufficient material/literature which could
help the victims in drafting the complaints and assisting the
commission in dispensation of justice;
46. It does not encourage or involve any non-governmental human
rights organisation in its activities;
47. It does not conduct surprise check in the jails nor ensure
better living conditions for the prisoners by keeping a follow-up
action on its recommendations;
48. It does not act as a deterrent for the erring public servants
who feel pride in violating the human rights of the poor people;
49. It does not expose those policemen in the media, who have
been repeatedly held guilty of human rights abuses by it;
50. It does not reprimand or indict a particular public servant
of gross violation of human rights and suggest appropriate punishment
for such offence;
51. It does not ensure that the amount of compensation awarded,
(if any) by the Commission to the victim is actually recovered
from the delinquent public servant after he is held guilty of
the offence;
WHAT THE COMMISSION MUST DO
3. It must summon the concerned public servant against whom specific
allegations of human rights violation are made;
4 It must provide free legal aid to the indigent and poor victims
of
human rights violations to draft the complaint and plead their
case
before the Commission;
19. It must keep follow up action on its recommendations and ensure
strict compliance of its recommendations;
20. It must approach the High Court for compliance of its
recommendations and should intervene in any proceeding where
the human rights of the people have been violated;
21. It should ensure fairness in the investigation conducted by
its
investigation wing. It should not accept the report of the
investigator for closing the case, and should fairly consider
the
unimpeachable evidence brought on record to the contrary;
22. It should hold an on-the-spot inquiry by a member of the
Commission into a case of serious nature like custodial death
or
Police torture etc.;
23. It should believe the statement of the victims if given on
oath and
should not accept the Police version of a bare denial as gospel
truth;
24. It should check the integrity of the investigation wing, after
finding
sufficient reasons to doubt its investigation;
25. It must maintain transparency in its functioning. It must
forthwith
publish its annual report and place it before the State assembly
for
a discussion and action taken report on the recommendations of
the Commission. It must allow the general public to inspect its
judicial record, and should highlight its achievements through
press statements and other literature;
26. It should provide speedy, effective and inexpensive redressal
of
grievances of the victims;
25. It should provide sufficient material/literature which could
help the
victims in drafting the complaints and assisting the commission
in
dispensation of justice;
26. It must encourage or involve various non-governmental human
rights organisations in its activities;
27. It must conduct surprise check in the jails to ensure better
living
conditions to the prisoners by keeping a follow-up action on its
recommendations;
28. It should act as a deterrent for the erring public servants
who feel
pride in violating the human rights of the poor people;
29. It should expose those policemen in the media, who have been
repeatedly held guilty of human rights abuses by it;
30. It should reprimand or indict a particular public servant
found guilty
of gross violation of human rights and suggest appropriate
punishment to such offender;
31. It should ensure that the amount of compensation awarded,
(if any)
by the Commission to the victim is actually recovered from the
delinquent public servant after he is held guilty of the offence;
Report of Judicial anarchy in protecting tainted police officers
of Punjab Police
Chandigarh
3.4.2001
In a very surprising but sad judgment in the era of human rights
awareness, Justice K.S.Grewal of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court today granted regular bail to three senior police officers
of Punjab police who are accused in a case of abduction and forced
disappearance of an alleged militant, Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha.
The three police officers are DSP Ramesh Chander(then SHO Police
Station Sohana,Distt.Ropar), DSP Jagtar Singh(then SHO Police
Station Ropar) and S.P. Mohinder Singh Chahal .
Mrs.Kamaljit Kaur, wife of Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha had filed
a Writ Petition in the High Court in 1996, seeking a CBI probe
into the disappearance of her husband in 1993. The High Court
considered the gravity of the allegations made in the petition
and ordered a CBI inquiry in 1998. The CBI had registered a First
Information Report on September 29, 1998, under Sections 364,365,344
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against DIG Sanjeev Gupta, the
then SSP Ropar, DSP Ramesh Chander and DSP Jagtar Singh, the then
SHO of P.S.Sohana and S.P. Mohinder Singh Chahal, Ropar and started
a thorough probe into the allegations levelled in the Petition.
The CBI inquiry revealed that Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha was called
to Police Station Sohana by the then SHO Ramesh Chander to meet
the then SSP Sanjeev Gupta on 18th March, 1993. Sukha alongwith
his friend Jaspal Singh, the Sarpanch of Village Raipur, Distt.Ropar,
had gone to the Police Station Sohana, but only Jaspal Singh returned
back, while Sukhdev Singh was detained in the Police Station Sohana
till March 29, 1993. Thereafter he was shifted to CIA Staff, Ropar
but brought back to Sohana on April 29, 1993 and was kept there
till July 4, 1993. Surjit Singh, younger brother of Sukhdev Singh
used to visit him daily to provide food, clothes etc. However,
Sukhdev Singh was again taken to CIA staff, Ropar after July 4,
1993 by the then SHO Ropar, Jagtar Singh and thereafter his whereabouts
are not known. The CBI after conducting detailed investigation
filed a chargesheet in the Court of Sh. Jaspinder Singh Heyer,
Special CBI Judge, Patiala on February 1, 2001.
The DIG Sanjeev Gupta who is an accused in the case applied
for anticipatory bail in the case and Sh.Birinder Singh, Additional
Sessions Judge, Patiala stayed the arrest of the police officer
till February 19, 2001 which was extended till February 26. On
this date, the Judge while staying the arrest of the officer till
March 4, ordered him to surrender before the Special CBI Judge
and apply for regular bail on February 28. Thereafter the accused
moved a regular bail application before Sh.S.N.Aggarwal, Sessions
Judge, Patiala. The Sessions Judge Patiala granted regular bail
to Sanjeev Gupta on March 2. Similarly SP Mohinder Singh Chahal,
DSPs Jagtar Singh and Ramesh Chander also applied for interim
bail before Sh.Birinder Singh,Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.
The Judge while staying their arrest on March 15, till March 21
directed them to surrender before the Special CBI Court and apply
for regular bail. They did so, but the Special CBI Judge, Mr.
J.S.Heyer dismissed their applications on March 16. They moved
the Sessions Court, Patiala but were declined bail by even that
court on March 21. Aggrieved by that order, the trio had moved
an anticipatory bail application before the Punjab & Haryana
High Court which was allowed by Justice K.S.Grewal vide his order
dated 3rd April, 2001.
In his order, the Judge recorded that “since the incident
is eight years old and the wife of Sukhdev Singh kept silent for
four long years, therefore, there is no possibility of accused
misusing the concession of bail. The evidence is circumstantial
in nature and the police officers have not absconded and there
is no likelihood of their absconding from the process of law.
They are allowed the concession of bail on the condition of furnishing
bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 lac each with one surety of the
like amount and they should deposit their passports with the trial
court forthwith”.
According to Criminal law experts, few strange thing have been
witnessed in this particular case. It’s the only first case
where the anticipatory bail applications of the accused were repeatedly
rejected, but the magistrate or even the Sessions Judge failed
to order their arrest in custody after their so-called surrender.
At the top of it, the High Court overlooked the fact that in the
event of dismissal of their anticipatory or regular bail applications,
the accused should have been in judicial custody in consonance
with the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
But none of the accused undergone even a day’s custody,
inspite of their prayer for bail being declined more than once.
The ground made by the High Court is itself unwarranted. If the
time gap between the incident and the launching of prosecution
is material for considering the concession of bail, then thousands
of poor undertrials under NDPS Act or TADA Act deserves to be
given similar concession. And if delay in approaching the court
seeking justice is also considered an important factor in the
eyes of law, then almost all the police officers facing trial
in the cases of fake encounters, summary executions and forced
disappearances also deserves to be released forthwith, because
the CBI had taken many years before launching prosecution against
the police officers. That’s why not even a single police
officer accused of human rights violations in the militancy period
has been arrested. Human rights activists are at loss to understand
the indifferent approach of the lower and even the Higher judiciary
in the State. Orders like this will certainly have serious repercussions
and give fuel to the fire in the sordid situation being returned
again in the State. Nonetheless it has given wrong signals in
the Police force where policemen will consider themselves even
more powerful and free from the law.
INVESTIGATION REPORT OF CONTINUING POLICE BRUTALITY IN PUNJAB
CHANDIGARH
JUNE 13, 2000
“Punjab Police at your service”. The Catchline of
Punjab Police aimed at projecting the force as most polite and
people friendly is belied on hearing the horrific experience narrated
by the victims of Police brutality in Punjab even today. Instances
of Punjab Policemen acting beyond the pale of law in the name
of “Containing terrorism” does not seem to be a thing
of the past, going by the instances of Police highandedness reported
even today in a most blatant fashion and the Policemen becoming
the Judge, Jury and the Executioner in settling private property
disputes, which is evident from the tale of woes and injuries
present on the body of Shashi Parkash Sharma, a businessman of
Jalandhar.
Shashi Parkash Sharma, a young transporter of Jalandhar was having
litigation over a rented property, No.770,Mota Singh Nagar,Jalandhar,
owned by the wife of a Punjab Superintendent of Police, Mr.Gurcharan
Singh who is currently posted in Assam. Inspite of having Stay
order from the Civil Courts, Shashi Sharma was implicated in a
false case of tresspassing into the said premises by the Police
of P.S.Div.No.6,Jalandhar, in 1998. After he obtained bail, the
police started using unlawful methods and even attacked him in
order to force him to vacate the premises. The matter became worse
in the year 2000 when he and his employees were unlawfully kidnapped
and kept in illegal detention by a Police informer (CAT) turned
Inspector, Mr.Gurmeet Singh alias “Pinky”, Incharge
of CIA Staff, Jalandhar. During this illegal detention, Mr.Sharma
was subjected to third degree torture, given electric shocks on
his private parts and made to lay naked on ice-slabs for hours.
All this was done by Inspector Gurmeet Singh “Pinky”
in the presence of Mrs.Manjit Kaur, the landlady(wife of Gurcharan
Singh, SP, Punjab Police) between 4.2.2000 till 8.2.2000. He was
later thrown on a garbage dumping point in Jalandhar when his
relatives approached Punjab & Haryana High Court and search
warrants were issued against the Police. Even after that he was
constantly harassed and threatened of more serious consequences,
if he did not left the premises of the Superintendent of Police.
He even made several representations to every concerned authorities
and even met Chief Minister, Punjab, and continued suffering the
wrath of Punjab police even after getting assurance from the Chief
Minister. Thereafter his cousin brother Anil Sharma, who had to
give evidence in his favour before the Punjab State Human Rights
Commission, at Chandigarh was kidnapped and threatened with false
implication in criminal cases if he dared to give evidence against
Inspector Gurmeet Singh “Pinky”.
While the inquiry relating to above violation of his human right
is pending in Punjab State Human Rights Commission, he was caught
unaware on 16th May, 2000 at 11 a.m. in the office of Indo-Canadian
Transport Company, Jalandhar where he had gone for business dealing,
when a police party headed by Station House Officer of Division
No.4, S.I.Nirmal Singh and eighteen other policemen picked him
up at gun-point and even arrested his two official gunmen without
informing him about the ground of the arrest. He was taken to
the Police Station where he was told that since he had jumped
bail in a case pending against him, he should furnish fresh bail-bonds
if he wants to get released. In the evening his Uncle gave his
surety and sought his release from the Police custody. But instead
of freeing him and his gunmen, the Policemen handed them over
to the SHO of another Police Station Sadar,Jalandhar who told
them that a case had been registered against them in his police
station and he has to arrest them. He was taken by Inspector Gurmeet
Singh “Pinky” illegally to Police Station Div.No.4
where in the first floor of the Police Station, he was brutally
tortured and was threatened with life if he did not agree to withdraw
all his cases against Gurmeet Singh "Pinky". He was
made naked and given severe beating on each and every sensitive
part of the body. His only offence was that he was not ready to
vacate the tenancy premises under Police pressure and refused
to withdraw court cases against Gurmeet Singh “Pinky”.
Later on when he became un-conscious, he was shifted to the lock-up
and implicated in two false cases at the instance of Gurmeet Singh
Pinky. Even one case has been filed against Shashi Sharma by the
SP in Guwahati (Assam) using his influence over local police.
This was not the end of his suffering. His cousin brother Anil
Sharma was also subjected to similar treatment. He was picked
up from a hospital in Jalandhar where his sister was struggling
for her life in an accidental burn case. He was taken to Police
Station Division Sadar and booked in the same case with Shashi
Sharma. He was also badly tortured and was even forcibly made
to consume poison as a result of which he became ill and even
collapsed in the Court room and sensing his serious condition,
he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar and had to be given
emergency medical treatment. He is still struggling for his life
in the jail hospital in Central Jail, Jalandhar. Even the gunmen
of Shashi Sharma were not spared. The two gunmen were also arrested,
their arms and ammunition snatched and put behind the bars for
no fault of theirs. They were simply performing their duty of
protecting Shashi Sharma as per the orders of Punjab State Human
Rights Commission, but the Punjab Police of Jalandhar even did
not care to spare their men and implicated the two gunmen also,
in false cases with Shashi Sharma.
The moot question that remains to be answered is, if such treatment
is given by Punjab Police today, to a highly resourceful person
like Mr.Shashi Sharma, what good an ordinary citizen could expect
from these “butchers” in Khaki ? Importantly enough,
isn’t this behavior of the Police that forces a peace loving
citizen to take to gun rather than adopting the path of law that
“takes its own course”, as the cliched phrase goes.
Its’ high time, that the rulers of the times and the concerned
authorities in the Punjab Police must sternly deal with Police
officers like Gurmeet Singh “Pinky”, if they want
to restore normalcy in the State, otherwise, the most probable
prediction that Punjab would again be ruled by the gun and not
the law, will become a reality.
DISMAL STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA
Even after more than five decades since India became a State
party to the fundamental document of Protection and Promotion
of human rights viz.. Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted
and proclaimed by the member states of the General Assembly of
the United Nations on December 10,1948, what we see everyday is
the rape and murder of human rights of its subjects by the State.
The fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in the Constitution
has ostensibly remained a utopian idea and having regard to the
changing social realities and emerging trends in the nature of
crime and violence, transparency and accountability of the organs
of the State have gone on a long holiday. We have forgotten that
our character is the result of our conduct.
The highest duty of a ruler is to protect his subjects; the
ruler who enjoys the rewards of his position is bound to that
duty. The fundamental right to life and liberty is the paramount
essential to human dignity and human happiness. Only the rule
of Law could bring good governance in our country and it becomes
the onerous responsibility of the government to strive for upholding
rule of Law. The three tier Criminal justice system--- Law making
process by the Parliament, investigative and enforcement process
by the Police and implementation of the law by the judiciary,
is an integral part of the country with good governance. But awfully
all the organs have failed to come up to the expectations of the
people and have become a means of self-interest rather than the
common good of the people. Nobody seems to be interested to admit
that “tyranny is the rule of one seeking his own interest.
Oligarchy seeks the interests of the rich, democracy seeks the
interests of the poor.” The result of this apathy is that
the crime against humanity is today screaming to unforeseen heights.
Citizens deprived of their basic human rights suffer irresistible
pain and suffering, particularly in the context of political unrest
and violence in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, Andhra Pradesh,
Bihar and Nagaland. The Government of India has come under heavy
fire of accusations and allegations of gross violations of human
rights of its citizens from all quarters and it was made known
that violence can never be extinguished by violence nor private
crime be put to sleep by State crime. This forced the rulers to
take steps for repairing its dented image. The Protection of Human
Rights Act,1993 was enacted for securing the Protection of human
rights of the citizens of India. But as the wise saying goes,
that the country which has too many laws has too little justice,
India has painfully became one of the most vulnerable countries
where human rights violations are the highest. This act alike
other laws of the country have failed to stop the Communal riots,
massacre of lower class people by feudal lords, indiscriminate
killings and setting fire of people belonging to minority communities,
mass genocide of particular religious community and killing thousands
of civilians in the name of war.
Every day, media reports about killing of terrorists, security
men and people belonging to particular community in different
parts of the country worries every human being. Undoubtedly, the
killer of a human life can never get respect in a civilized society.
But everyday Criminal elements wearing the mask of Politicians
and Policemen are rewarded by the people. Is it that we have lost
our sense of thinking or our yardstick for good or bad has changed
?
HIGH COURT JUDGES FACE ACTION
CHANDIGARH
July 4, 2002
In a chain of events, unprecedented in the Indian judiciary,
the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court withdrew
work from three sitting judges of the High Court on July 1, 2002.
The judges from whom work was withdrawn were Mr. Amarbir S. Gill,
Mr.M.L.Singhal and Mr.Mehtab Singh Gill. Justice Mehtab Singh
Gill was a practicing lawyer of Punjab & Haryana High Court
before being elevated to the bench last year. Mr.M.L.Singhal was
a Sessions Judge in Punjab and was promoted to the bench of Punjab
& Haryana High Court two years ago. The ground for this historic
decision is equally shocking.
On March 27, 2002, Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, the Chairman of
Punjab Public Service Commission was caught red-handed by the
Vigilance Bureau, Punjab at his residence in Chandigarh, while
accepting a gratification of Rupees five lacs from Bhupjit Singh,
an excise Inspector for his selection to the PCS(Executive Branch).
Later on, huge sum of money worth Rupees forty million, was recovered
from his bank lockers besides immoveable and moveable properties
worth hundred million rupees. Very soon few of his touts also
landed in the net and their interrogation created a furore in
the State. Not only Senior politicians like the former Chief Minister,
Parkash Singh Badal and his cabinet colleagues were found involved
in the scam, but also many Judges, Senior Police Officers and
IAS officers’ figured in the list of persons which got favors
by “sifarish” or for “price” through Ravinder
Pal Singh Sidhu. The scam that shook the entire country and commonly
known as “multi-crore job-for-cash scam” brought to
light unprecedented revelations that incompetent persons got selections
in higher positions by adopting unfair means whereas thousands
of competent and deserving persons lost the chance for lack of
sufficient money to pay. It also came to light that most of the
appointments during the tenure of the tainted Chairman were made
on consideration other than merit.
It was the first scam unearthed by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab
in which every coming day many interesting and disgusting facts
were disclosed. Two touts of Sidhu, Randhir Singh Dheera and Jagman
Singh in their confessional statements recorded during their interrogation
narrated the modus operandi of Sidhu in getting the “price”
from the candidates for selecting them after passing in the written
examinations. When these disclosures were made against the bureaucracy
or politicians, nobody objected to it and took it with interest.
But the day when the names of many sitting or retired High Court
judges or Sessions Judges figured in the media for having obtained
favors from Sidhu for the appointment of their kith and kin or
known persons to the PCS (Judicial Service), undercurrents started
running in the higher judicial echelons. The names repeatedly
figuring in the confessional statements of both Jagman Singh and
Dheera were, Justice Amarbir S. Gill for getting his mediocre
daughter Amol Gill top the PCS (Judicial Examination) and then
selected to PCS (Judicial Services), Justice M.L.Singhal for getting
his daughter Sapna Singhal selected to allied services, Justice
R.S.Mongia for recommending the name of one Balbinder Kumar for
selection to the PCS (Judicial) after taking bribe from him, Justice
N.C.Khicchi (retired), Justice Amarjit Chaudhary(retired), Justice
J.S.Sidhu(retired), Justice Mehtab S.Gill, Dhyan Singh, former
Additional Sessions Judge (retired) for recommending certain candidates
for selection to PCS (Judicial Services0. After learning that
their names are being published by the media with severe allegations
of mis-conduct and breach of oath, almost all the tainted judges
in their separate statements to the media denied having sought
any favors by putting “sifarish” or getting any bribe
for recommending the name of any candidates to Sidhu. Most of
them surprisingly denied having known Sidhu or Jagman Singh or
Dheera, notwithstanding the fact that the photographs of their
kin along with Sidhu were published in the media. Both Justice
Amarbir Gill and Justice M.L.Singhal said that their daughters
got selections solely on “merit”. Justice J.S.Sidhu,
whose son is a Sub-Judge in Punjab also gave the same defense.
Justice Amarjit Chaudhary, Justice N.C.Khicchi, Justice R.S.Mongia(all
retired) denied that they ever knew Sidhu or any of his touts
and that they never recommended anybody’s name to him. One
day their denials came in the newspapers, another day, the vigilance
bureau produced the question papers of Amol Gill, the daughter
of Justice Amarbir Gill which establish that she actually secured
75 marks in English paper but were increased to 127 and in one
of the question in the Criminal law paper, she actually obtained
30 marks but it were changed to 36. These revelations belied the
defense of Justice Amarbir S. Gill that his daughter topped the
PCS (Judicial Examination) on “merit”.
When the tainted judges felt the heat of the disclosures made
by the touts of Sidhu in which their names prominently appeared,
a petition came to be filed from Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu that
the selective disclosures made by the touts that are being released
by the Vigilance Bureau in the case is creating an atmosphere
of bias and prejudice against him and it should be stopped and
criminal case may be registered against the Vigilance Bureau.
Mr.Justice K.S.Garewal, while hearing the said petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. passed an extra-ordinary ex-parte interim
order on May 3, 2002 which reads,
“ It is in the interest of fair and impartial investigation
and trial that the respondents are completely prohibited from
disclosing the contents of statements of witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure or the contents of statements
/confessions, if any, recorded of the accused in the case diaries
and the contents of the case diaries themselves recorded under
Section 172 of the Code. This prohibition shall remain in force
until the investigating officer files the final report under Section
173 of the Code.”
This blanket ban on the disclosures in the extra-ordinary scam
by the High Court was hated by not only the media, but also by
the lawyer community in the State. Different Bar Associations
passed resolutions seeking the ouster of tainted judges or appropriate
action in the matter. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar
Association in its extra-ordinary general house meeting held on
May 6, 2002, spoke openly against the mis-conduct of the judges
and condemned the said interim order and resolved to launch a
stir if the names of the judges involved in the scam are not made
public and strict action is not taken against those found guilty
after an independent probe and the order of Justice K.S.Garewal
is not set-aside and all local judges are not transferred out
of state. Hari Jai Singh, the Chief Editor of The Tribune in his
front page editorial titled, “ No My lord” severely
criticized the blanket ban imposed upon the disclosures or confessions
in the PPSC scam. He wrote, “What has prompted the honorable
judge to come out with the order is baffling. Looking at the importance
of information flow, the order does not stand the test of logic.
It does not involve any point of law. Nor can it be justified
on grounds of natural justice. Transparency and public accountability
are the very essence of democracy. Why should, My Lord, the judiciary
have to be afraid of transparency or the truth being brought out
in full public view and under media watch ? Let us not forget
the fact that only after the bank lockers were opened in the presence
of the print and electronic media that the nation suddenly woke
up to the skeletons in the cupboard of the PPSC Chairman.”
Agitated over this order of Justice K.S.Garewal, one social organisation,
Common Cause Forum, filed a Public Interest Litigation in the
High Court seeking directions to the Vigilance Bureau to make
public all information given by the accused or witnesses in the
PPSC scam on May 8, 2002. The said petition was clubbed together
with the petition of Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu in which the interim
order was passed. The Division Bench of the High Court on May
31, 2002 set-aside the interim order of Justice K.S.Garewal and
dismissed the petition of Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu and held that
“there was no valid reason for imposing any restriction,
much less a ban, on the publication of news items and reports
on the progress of investigation being conducted by various agencies
of the Punjab Government into what is being described as the Punjab
Public Service Commission recruitment scam.”
Thereafter the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court
took cudgels to set his house in order and asked the Additional
Director General of Intelligence, Mr.A.P.Bhatnagar to assist him
and give evidence of the involvement of High Court judges who
had sought favors from Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu. After a detailed
inquiry and a finding some substance in the allegations of High
Court judges getting their wards selected to the PCS (Judicial)
through “sifarish” from Sidhu, Mr.A.B.Saharaya, the
Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court ordered on July
1, 2002 to withdraw work from three sitting High Court judges,
namely Mr. Justice Amarbir S.Gill, Mr.Justice M.L.Singhal and
Mr. Justice Mehtab Singh Gill till further orders.
The lawyer fraternity all over welcomed the decision of the Chief
Justice of the High Court and said that strict action should be
taken against the tainted judges, if found guilty of breach of
privilege of the office and using “sifarish” for getting
their kin selected into PCS(Judicial) or allied services.
This is not the end of the matter. The names of many more sitting
and retired High Court judges might have figured in the PPSC scam,
but for unconvincing reasons, the whole team of Vigilance Bureau
and Intelligence wing of Punjab who had unearthed the whole scam
was shifted and efforts are being made to divert the investigation
and to cover up the wrongs done by many more influential persons
and even congress politicians and judges etc.
IMMUNITY TO THE PUNJAB POLICE ?
Many human rights activists across the region have taken strong
exception to the demand of Punjab police officials accused of
human rights abuses, for withdrawal of criminal cases registered
against them and threat of returning their gallantry awards to
the government, raised in a meeting on July 18,2001. It has given
rise to many questions which needs to be urgently addressed in
the context of this unpleasant controversy.
Violation of human rights of the citizens by the police force
is no doubt more heinous, because it shatters the faith and trust
of the people reposed in the force which is supposed to protect
their rights. No law or rule permits us to condone the acts of
barbarities committed by Punjab police since 1984 till today.
It would be great folly to remain oblivious of the fact that when
their was political failure in Punjab, shockingly, the Punjab
police enjoyed unbridled powers and many times acted outside the
orbit of law. Rather they considered themselves to be the law
and accountable to none. There was no law and order. The state
was ruled by the jungle law. Policemen felt proud in killing innocent
people in the name of “combating terrorism” or “protecting
national security”. Rather they considered themselves to
be the law and accountable to none. Lawyers taking up the petitions
of fake encounter and police excesses felt embarrassed when the
courts held them responsible for protecting the criminals. During
this ongoing struggle against State repression, the lawyers lost
five of its colleagues who were done to death by Punjab Police
along with their families. In most of the militancy affected period,
the judiciary was sent on a long holiday by the very protectors
of law and they did what they like. On many occasions the courts
even became oblivious at the tale of police excesses and failed
to deliver justice. When the state terrorism and judicial inaction
crossed all limits, the Supreme Court was made to feel about the
gross abuse of human rights by the state police and the it started
ordering CBI inquiries and trial of police officials who were
accused of killing innocent people in staged encounter, forced
disappearance and eliminating people to settle their personal
score in the name of fighting terrorism.
Even today, the attitude of the courts has not changed while
dealing with the cases of human rights violations. Undue leniency
is being shown to the police officials accused of human rights
violations and bail is granted to every policemen accused of most
heinous crime in the annals of mankind. That’s why not even
a single police officer facing trial in cases of human rights
violations in the militancy period has been arrested. Human rights
activists are at loss to understand the indifferent approach of
the judiciary in the State towards cases of human rights violations.
This situation if continued anymore may bring serious repercussions
and may give wrong signals to the Police force who consider themselves
even more powerful and free from bounds of the law and would result
in the total loss of faith in the judicial system by the families
of the killed persons bringing the system to be ineffective.
The efforts of the human rights lawyers in highlighting cases
of police excesses showed results and soon, hundreds of policemen
who did what they liked and committed gross human rights violations,
were brought to the dock and punished for committing heinous crimes
on innocent people. At present more than twenty senior or junior
level policemen are undergoing sentence in different jails for
committing murder, rape or other heinous crimes and more than
two hundred policemen are facing trial for various human rights
violations committed by them in the past. In this scenario, the
tainted police officials started taking the matter of judicial
activism seriously and launched a planned and massive campaign
to malign the judiciary and human rights activists. It accused
the judiciary of playing into the hands of so-called human rights
activists and overlooking their sacrifice and risk they took while
fighting an army of terrorists. Mr.K.P.S Gill, Mr. P.C.Dogra the
former Police chiefs and now Mr. Sarabjeet Singh has claimed immunity
for their men who are accused of human rights violations, but
in this campaign they are using the same terror tactics of threatening
to return their gallantry awards in case their demand is not met.
It needs pointing notice that such an action would not only rake
up many buried stories regarding the selection process and policy
of rewarding policemen with monetary awards, out of turn promotions
and other secret benefits which, certainly may not be in good
taste.
No body claims that those brave policemen who sacrificed their
lives and put their lives to great risk in fighting terrorism
should not be protected for what they did in good faith. But what
about those police officers who killed innocent people for plundering
their wealth and forcibly possessing their properties on the one
hand and bagged cash reward and out of turn promotion for killing
innocent people. The suicide of Ajit Singh Sandhu, the former
SSP of Taran Taran is a glaring case of a police officer becoming
a man-eater and falling to his conscience, when he could not bear
the burden of gross excesses committed by him, was forced to end
his life in a most tragic manner. He threw himself before a running
train on May 23,1997. It may not escape our mind that the case
of seeking immunity by the police officers who committed some
excesses in obeying the orders of their seniors, could have become
stronger, if they had disclosed the names and the said orders
of their superiors who directed them to commit excesses. But hiding
a most important part of the genesis of the State terrorism and
seeking condonation on a totally illogical and illegal argument
is unacceptable.
Be it as it may, we put a good case in favor of the accused
police officers facing trials for human rights offences, and suggest
that the case of a police officer who confesses to have committed
murder, staged encounter or other heinous crimes on the orders
of their superior officers and discloses the names of the victims
whom they killed and the officers who made them to do the offence,
and paying compensation to the next of the kin of the victims,
should be considered with leniency while awarding sentence by
the courts. Otherwise, no civilized and democratic society would
tolerate any leniency to a criminal in uniform who not only committed
crime against an individual but also a crime against the whole
civilization.
The Lawyers For Human Rights International have taken strong exception
to the demand of Punjab police officials accused of human rights
abuses, for withdrawal of criminal cases registered against them
and threat of returning their gallantry awards to the government,
raised in a meeting of tainted police officers of Punjab police
on July 18,2001. It has given rise to many questions which needs
to be urgently addressed in the context of this unpleasant controversy.
Violation of human rights of the citizens by the police force
is no doubt more heinous, because it shatters the faith and trust
of the people reposed in the force which is supposed to protect
their rights. No law or rule permits us to condone the acts of
barbarities committed by Punjab police since 1984 till today.
It would be great folly to remain oblivious of the fact that when
their was political failure in Punjab, shockingly, the Punjab
police enjoyed unbridled powers and many times acted outside the
orbit of law. Rather they considered themselves to be the law
and accountable to none. There was no law and order. The state
was ruled by the jungle law. Policemen felt proud in killing innocent
people in the name of “combating terrorism” or “protecting
national security”. Lawyers taking up the petitions of fake
encounter and police excesses felt embarrassed when the courts
held them responsible for protecting the criminals. During this
ongoing struggle against State repression, the lawyers lost five
of its colleagues who were done to death by Punjab Police along
with their families. When the state terrorism and judicial inaction
crossed all limits, the Supreme Court was made to feel about the
gross abuse of human rights by the state police and the it started
ordering CBI inquiries and trial of police officials who were
accused of killing innocent people in staged encounter, forced
disappearance and eliminating people to settle their personal
score in the name of fighting terrorism. The efforts of the human
rights lawyers in highlighting cases of police excesses showed
results and soon, hundreds of policemen who did what they liked
and committed gross human rights violations, were brought to the
dock and punished for committing heinous crimes on innocent people.
At present more than twenty senior or junior level policemen are
undergoing sentence in different jails for committing murder,
rape or other heinous crimes and more than two hundred policemen
are facing trial for various human rights violations committed
by them in the past. These guilty police officials have now claimed
immunity for them, but in this campaign they are using the same
terror tactics as was used by them in the past, by threatening
to return their gallantry awards in case their demand is not met.
We strongly deprecate this decision and warn them that it would
amount to an illegal act and breach of Police forces (Restrictions
of Rights) Act,1966. It is an act in desperation and would also
be seen as another unlawful act of a most undisciplined force.
It needs pointing notice that such an action would rake up many
buried stories regarding the selection process and policy of rewarding
policemen with monetary awards, out of turn promotions and other
secret benefits which, certainly may not be in the larger interest
of Punjab police.
No body claims that those brave policemen who sacrificed their
lives and put their lives to great risk in fighting terrorism
should not be protected for what they did in good faith. But what
about those police officers who killed innocent people for plundering
their wealth and forcibly possessing their properties on the one
hand and bagged cash reward and out of turn promotion for killing
innocent people. It may not escape our mind that the case of seeking
immunity by the police officers who committed some excesses in
obeying the orders of their seniors, could have become stronger,
if they had disclosed the names and the said orders of their superiors
who directed them to commit excesses. But hiding a most important
part of the genesis of the State terrorism and seeking condonation
on a totally illogical and illegal argument is unacceptable.
Be it as it may, we put a good case in favor of the accused
police officers facing trials for human rights offences, and suggest
that the case of a police officer who confesses to have committed
murder, staged encounter or other heinous crimes on the orders
of their superior officers and discloses the names of the victims
whom they killed and the officers who made them to do the offence,
and paying compensation to the next of the kin of the victims,
should be considered with leniency while awarding sentence by
the courts. Otherwise, no civilized and democratic society would
tolerate any leniency to a criminal in uniform who not only committed
crime against an individual but also a crime against the whole
civilization.
Chandigarh January 13, 2003
INTRODUCTION
The northern region is in the grip of acute cold winter. Every
day is more chilling than the other. The chilling icy winds and
foggy nights with temperature going as low as 8 degrees, forces
everybody to remain indoor. Pity for those who do not have roof.
These sufferers of the poor weather conditions, lives in the slums
around Chandigarh and adjoining towns. More than fifty thousand
migrants from different parts of the country live in more than
a dozen colonies in and around Chandigarh. For the last more than
ten years, they are living in small jhuggis(small temporary hutments
made of bamboo and plastic bags) built with the permissive action
of the government. They have acquired ration cards(Public distribution
registration card), and their names entered in the electoral list
of Chandigarh for the last many years. But all the people living
in these slums are the have-nots’ in the society who have
been deprived of basic minimum facilities of housing, water, sanitation,
education and equality in employment.
During the last few days, newspapers of the city were reporting
about the causalities of cold wave in the northern region. Our
organisation received information from official source that the
condition of people living in slums in Chandigarh is very serious.
Having great concern at the pain and suffering of these poor people,
the organisation decided to study the causes and extent of their
pathetic condition and to give some help to the needy persons
to save them from cold wave. An investigation team of LAWYERS
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL led by its President, Amar Singh
Chahal, Arunjeev Singh Walia, Press Secretary and Tejinder Singh
Sudan, Chandigarh Unit President, visited few slums in Chandigarh
on Sunday, January 12, 2003 and met hundreds of affected persons
and prepared a detailed report.
FACTS
Firstly the team went through Kumhar Colony in Sector 25, Chandigarh
and saw that more than a hundred families originally belonging
to Uttar Pradesh or Bihar were living under inhuman conditions.
With heaps of waste and dirty water stagnating in the entire area,
small children with little or no clothes on their body were seen
playing nearby and few women were washing clothes near a water
outlet which was flowing continuously due to missing tap and water
lying scattered all over. There were few temporary jhuggis made
up of wooden sticks covered with polythene sheets. These jhuggis
are open from both sides and cold winds pass through it conveniently.
There is no temporary lavatory or any arrangement for sanitation
in the entire area.
Then the team went further to Janta Colony, Sector 25, Chandigarh.
In this colony, there are around two hundred jhuggis where people
from Madras, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are living. Few Punjabi speaking
people were also seen by the team. Here also the situation was
no better than the Kumhar Colony. While talking to the residents,
the team was informed that one young man hailing from Madras and
living with his family here for the last many years had died on
December 15, 2002. The team went to the jhuggi of the deceased
and met his widow. Chillanama, a 22 years old widow of Raippan(30).
She told that on December 10,2002, the enforcement staff of Municipal
Corporation, Chandigarh demolished about hundred jhuggis in the
colony in which one of the jhuggi was theirs. Due to cold weather
and for lack of proper medical treatment, Raippan breathed his
last on December 15, 2002 under unnatural circumstances. But neither
the police conducted the post-mortem examination, nor the administration
took pain in knowing the well being of the deceased’s family.
Raippan is survived by his young wife and two minor sons and one
daughter. He was working as a helper with the maintenance wing
of Engineering department, Chandigarh Administration on daily
basis. Ironically, the Supervisory Officer, Gurnam Singh of Maintenance
wing of Engineering Department of Chandigarh Administration has
failed to give employment to his widow. The people also told that
the enforcement staff of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh along
with policemen uses to come occasionally and threatening them
with displacement.
Interestingly, there are more than five hundred earmarked plots
to be allotted to the needy persons, but lying incomplete for
the last two years, turning a blind eye to the inhuman and pathetic
condition of the poor people living nearby.
FINDINGS
The action of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in not taking
care of the people living in slums and providing adequate facilities
for fighting intensive cold wave is an abdication of duty by the
officers concerned and amounts to violation of right to housing
of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. Depriving the residents of the slums with basic minimum
conditions like roof, drinking water, proper arrangement for sanitation,
medical facilities and free education to the have-nots’
in the society, casts a slur on the face of the people of Chandigarh
who behave indifferently to the poor people living in their city.
Since in sanitary conditions are prevailing in the slums, there
is every likelihood of outbreak of some epidemic. Further the
large number of unemployed youth living in the slums could be
easily driven to crime by unscrupulous elements which would be
detrimental to the safety and security of the people of the city.
RECOMMENDATIONS
After studying the actual living conditions of the poor people
living in the slums around Chandigarh, the team is very much disappointed
at the inhuman conditions prevailing there. It feels that lot
of work is to be done to save valuable human lives and makes the
following interim recommendations to the administration which
should be followed within a specified time, failing which our
organisation shall be constrained to raise the issue in a Public
Interest Litigation to be filed in the Punjab & Haryana High
Court at Chandigarh:
1. The widow of Raippan(deceased) should be give employment in
the place of her husband so that she may fulfill her obligations
towards her small children;
2. The site lying unattended for the construction of more than
five hundred houses for the slum dwellers should be immediately
completed and allotted to the needy persons;
the slums should be given employment or provided with self employment
avenues enabling them to earn their livelihood with dignity. It
would enable the police to control the crime rate in the city.
4. Proper arrangement for sanitation and drinking water should
be made in all colonies situated within the periphery of Union
Territory of Chandigarh;
5. People living in slums should be given adequate wood and blankets
enabling them to save them from the intense cold wave;
6. Strict action should be taken against the enforcement staff
or policemen who threaten or misbehave with the poor slum dwellers;
7. Right to equality and equal protection of law to these have-nots’
in the society, should be ensured by he Chandigarh Administration
in every matter.
IS IT JUDICIAL NEGLIGENCE ?
Chandigarh
January 27, 2003
In a case of theft against two teenaged sisters, Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandigarh ordered bail in the sum of Rs.2000/- each
with one surety in the like amount, on January 27, 2003.
Nisha(8) and Nagita(7) are two sisters who have come to Chandigarh
with their mother Sibli,wife of Haroomaan. The family hails from
Indore(Madhya Pradesh) and has come to Chandigarh two weeks ago.
They earn their livelihood by begging in front of marriage palaces
and religious places. They spend their night in the railway platform
in Railway Station,Chandigarh.
Nisha and Nagita were arrested by a police party of Police Station,
Sector 26, Chandigarh allegedly from outside a marriage palace
on January 26, 2003, when they allegedly stole Rs.30,000/- from
some guest. Nothing was recovered from their possession. They
were taken to the police station and booked under section 379
and 511 of Indian Penal Code. No information was given to their
mother,Sibli till the next day when people from Nari Niketan tried
to find out the whereabouts of the mother from the railway station
platform.
Both the girls dressed in skirt without any pullover or warm
clothes on their person, were produced in the court of Mr.C.L.Mohal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, who remanded them to judicial custody
till February 6, 2003 and sent to Nari Niketan under police guard.
As per Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act,1986, a juvenile
court shall order the release of the juvenile on bail with or
without surety, but the duo were denied this relief. Although,
as per the court record, Legal Aid Counsel was present to represent
them, but in fact, no Legal Aid Counsel was physically present
in the court at that time, nor the two girls recognize any counsel
who represented them. Had there been any legal aid counsel to
represent them, their bail application could have been filed then
and there and they could have been set free by the court. Further,
the two juveniles were produced in open court and not in a separate
room, which is in breach of section 27(2) of the Juvenile Justice
Act,1986,which reads as under:
“A magistrate empowered to exercise the powers of a Board,
a juvenile court shall while holding any inquiry regarding a juvenile
under this act, as far as practicable, sit in a building or room
different from that in which the ordinary sittings of civil and
criminal courts are held.”
Later in the day, a team of lady lawyers of LAWYERS FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL, namely, Ms.Manisha Singh and Harpreet Kaur
provided free legal aid to the mother of the two juveniles and
filed a bail application on their behalf stating that earlier
in the day when they were produced, they were denied free legal
aid and now they pray for release on bail. It was also stated
therein that the juveniles and their mother hails from Madhya
Pradesh and they are unable to arrange any surety, so they may
be released on furnishing personal bonds. But while allowing the
said application, the court ordered the juveniles to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2000/- each with
one surety in the like amount and turned down the request of the
defense counsel that the juveniles may be released on personal
bonds.
Judgments where juveniles have been ordered to be released on
personal bond:
1.Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar-AIR 1979 SC 1360
2.Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378
Arunjeev Singh Walia
Justice eludes the victims
Chandigarh
March 21,2002
Punjab State Human Rights Commission has dismissed a complaint
filed by Satnam Singh, a resident of Ropar district who had alleged
in a complaint to the Commission that he was picked up by the
police from Ropar on June 8, 1998 and was kept in illegal custody
till June 11, 1998. In the copy of the judgment received today,
the division bench of the Commission comprising Mr.Justice J.S.Sekhon
and Mr.T.S.Cheema members, has held that the complainant has failed
to substantiate his allegations of illegal detention and torture,
as the inquiry conducted by the investigator of the Commission
has held it to be an act to defend him in the trial court. In
the complaint, Satnam Singh had alleged that he was subjected
to inhuman third degree torture by the police from 8.6.1998 till
11.6.1998 and no information was given to his mother who had been
running from pillar to post in search of her son. He further stated
that he was falsely booked along with seven other persons in the
infamous case known as “Burail jail blow up conspiracy case”
by the Chandigarh police on 11 June, 1998 in which he is still
undergoing trial. He had sought an independent inquiry into his
illegal detention and torture, besides payment of compensation
for the irreparable injuries suffered by him.
The Commission has dismissed another complaint of four other
persons who had a similar grievance in respect of the same case.
Arunjeev Singh Walia
POLICE EXCESSES ON A HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER IN CHANDIGARH
Chandigarh
January 16,2003
Policing the police has always been a hot issue in the civil
society. Indian State of Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh
has remained the hotbed of police excesses in the past as well.
With the latest incident of thrashing and criminal intimidation
of a human rights lawyer by a police officer of Chandigarh police
yesterday, the issue has once again arouse resentment among the
general public.
A human rights lawyer, Arunjeev Singh Walia, practicing in Punjab
& Haryana High Court was assaulted and intimidated during
three hour wrongful confinement by Dilsher Singh Chandel, a Sub-Inspector
of Chandigarh Police, on January 15, 2003. According to the victim-lawyer,
he was going back to his house on his scooter at about 5.30 p.m.
and as he was passing through the road dividing Sector 23-24,
Chandigarh, he saw many policemen surrounding a young girl with
a black color Ford Icon car and the girl was crying for help.
He stopped his scooter and went to help the girl. On being asked
about the reason for her harassment, the girl, Radhika Bhalla
of Sector 38, Chandigarh told the lawyer that the policemen had
been chasing her car from a long distance and in spite of showing
all the documents including her valid driving license, the policemen
were not letting her go and was using abusive language. When the
lawyer gave his introduction to the policeman that he was a human
rights lawyer and asked him the reason for harassing the girl
without any lady constable present, the head of the police party,
Sub-Inspector Dilsher Singh Chandel, posted in Police Station,
Sector 39, Chandigarh became furious. He asked the lawyer to mind
his own business and leave the place. The lawyer insisted that
the lone girl should be allowed to go after completing the necessary
formalities, if any. The lawyer then gave a visiting card of his
organisation, Lawyers for Human Rights International, to the girl
and offered free legal aid to fight her case. He also advised
the girl to write on the challan slip in her own hand that no
lady police officer was present when she was booked by the policemen.
On hearing this, Sub-Inspector Dilsher Singh Chandel became angry
and without any provocation started beating the lawyer and abused
him in public. He then dragged him into the police vehicle and
asked his subordinates to take him to police post Sector 24, Chandigarh
and he himself drove the lawyer’s scooter to the police
post. On reaching the police post, the above named police officer
again thrashed the lawyer without any provocation. He threatened
that he will book the lawyer in a false case to assault a policeman
and obstructing him from discharging his duty. Immediately after
receiving the information of abduction of Mr.Walia from some passer
by, a team of lawyer-members of LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL
led by Tejinder Singh Sudan, Chandigarh Unit President, reached
the police post and on seeing them, the erring cop fled from the
scene after making a false complaint against the lawyer that the
lawyer has attacked him and tore off his uniform and obstructed
in discharge of his duty. As the team of lawyers came to the police
post, the In charge of the police post, Assistant Sub-Inspector
Neeraj Sarna, who was a witness to the unlawful act of the policeman
made the lawyer put his turban on and made him sit in another
room. Then the President of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
Bar Association and other senior lawyers of the High Court including
Amar Singh Chahal and Navkiran Singh, President and General Secretary,
respectively, of Lawyers For Human Rights International came there
and called senior police officers and the medical examination
of Mr.Walia was got done from General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh.
After three hours of detention, the lawyer was finally let off
after he submitted a written complaint against the erring policeman.
All the major newspapers of the region highlighted this incident
the next day and the District Bar Association, Chandigarh passed
a resolution to condemn the wrongful action of the policeman and
decided to abstain from work for the day. A deputation comprising
of the President and members of the District Bar Association,Chandigarh
also submitted a memorandum to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Chandigarh demanding the registration of a criminal case of assault,
criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement against the guilty
cop and his immediate suspension. But in spite of assuring the
delegation that strict action shall be taken against the cop who
was prima facie found guilty of assault on the lawyer, no action
has been taken by the police administration, except transferring
the cop to another police station in the city and ordering the
initiation of departmental inquiry against him. As per the police
sources, a daily diary report has been registered against the
cop for assault and criminal intimidation upon the lawyer(Sections
323/506 Indian Penal Code).
This incident has once again established the fact that even today
a policeman considers himself to be above the law and fears nobody.
If an experienced lawyer having a good reputation for human rights
activities like Mr.Arunjeev Singh Walia can be given such inhuman
treatment by the policeman for helping a lady in distress, and
the erring cop is not punished for his wrongdoing, no common man
would ever think of helping others in such a situation. This will
undoubtedly lead to anarchy and civil society will loose its basic
principle, Rule of Law. Then there will be jungle raj and eye
for an eye and blood for blood would be the order of the day.
LAWYER AMONG EIGHT ACQUITTED IN JAIL BREAK CASE
Chandigarh
January 14, 2003
Chandigarh Police received a major set back today when Balbir
Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh acquitted eight out
of ten accused in the infamous “jail break up conspiracy
case” which culminated in the makeshift court room in Model
Jail Burail.
Pronouncing the order in the jam packed courtroom in the jail
premises, the court acquitted Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh
Tara, Baljit Singh Khalsa, Jaswant Singh, Jaspal Singh Dhillon,
a human rights activist, Daljit Singh Rajput, a local lawyer,
Sitla Prasad Mishra, then Assistant Jail Superintendent and Constable
Jaswinder Singh, of all charges but convicted two accused Balwinder
Singh a resident of village Dekwala, Distt.Fatehgarh Sahib and
Satnam Singh, resident of village Salempur, Distt.Ropar under
Sections 419,468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code for furnishing wrong
name to the jail authorities during interview with the prisoners.
The sentence would be imposed upon them on January 15. Both were
however acquitted under Sections 3,4,5 of Explosives Act and 120-B
of Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution had examined 38 witnesses while the defense led
24 witnesses. The case dates back to 11 June, 1998 when the then
Senior Superintendent of Police, C.S.R.Reddy had claimed to unearth
a conspiracy to blow up Burail Jail to facilitate the escape of
two dreaded terrorists, Jagtar Singh “Hawara” and
Jagtar Singh “Tara” who were facing trial in the case
of assassination of former Chief Minister, Beant Singh. In a press
conference on June 11, 1998, he had disclosed that the police
have arrested Satnam Singh from outside Burail Jail on that day,
while he was carrying one Kilogram of powerful explosive PETN
in the form of Ladoos(Sweets) which was to be used for blowing
up the jail premises. It was disclosed by the police that many
persons including human rights activists are involved in the conspiracy
which will be unearthed soon. Later on Baljit Singh Khalsa of
Chandigarh, Jaspal Singh Dhillon, a human rights activist, Daljit
Singh Rajput, a city based lawyer, Sitla Prasad Mishra, Assistant
Jail Superintendent and Constable Jaswinder Singh, then posted
in the jail premises were arrested by the police. Jaswant Singh
and Balwinder Singh were brought from Kharar and all were tried
for the offences under Sections 420,468,471, 120-B of I.P.C. and
3,4 and 5 of Explosives Act for conspiring to blow up the Model
Jail, Chandigarh.
This case was taken up by Lawyers for Human Rights International
on pro bono basis because from the very beginning, this case appeared
to a frame up. Amar Singh Chahal, President, Lawyers for Human
Rights International provided free legal aid to all the accused.
This case has become interesting in the light of the fact that
the prosecution failed to produce before the court the explosive
substance which was to be used for blowing up the jail, in spite
of many opportunities granted to it. Further an enquiry was also
conducted into the whole matter by the then S.S.P. Asad Farookhi
who also found serious contradictions in the statements of policemen
recorded by him. The statement of SI Balkar Singh of Chandigarh
Police and other policemen proved that Satnam Singh was arrested
from outside the Model Jail on June 8 and not on June 11 as alleged
in the challan.
Amar Singh Chahal and Arunjeev Singh Walia, counsel for the accused
stated that the accused were innocent and the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case. According to them, it was
the duty of the prosecution to produce the case property before
the court and failure to produce the alleged explosive substance
is a serious lapse for which the accused deserves to be acquitted.
Further their own witnesses had stated before the court that Satnam
Singh was arrested on June 8 and not on June 11 as alleged by
the prosecution.
While reacting to the judgment, the counsel added that with the
whole story of conspiracy to blow up jail have failed the judicial
scrutiny, and proved that it was yet another frame up to rope
in innocent persons in a concocted case. The Chandigarh Administration
should take a serious view of the matter and hold a detailed inquiry
as to who is responsible for framing up the case and implicating
ten innocent persons who have suffered irreparable loss by facing
the trial for five years. The guilty police officials should be
prosecuted and dismissed from service. The persons found innocent
by the court should be compensated for the agony and trauma suffered
by them for five years.
Criminal experts have described the judgment as the true description
of police excesses in this rotten criminal justice system where
a lower rank untrained policeman cooks up a story and ropes in
innocent persons and ultimately that story falls to the ground
when tested to judicial scrutiny. It is not only an abuse of the
process of law but also a blatant violation of fundamental rights
of the under trials who are not paid any compensation on being
acquitted due to the negligence of the prosecution.
I will throw some light on the latest Prevention of Terrorism
Act, 2002(POTA) which was promulgated throughout India on March
28, 2002.
I am reminded of a wise saying that “ A country, where
there are too many laws, has too little justice”. It aptly
fits for India. You would be surprised to know that in spite of
Two hundred and fifty laws of civil and criminal nature, our country
is ridden with menace like terrorism, communalism, corruption,
racism, so on and so forth. To me, the effect of any law depends
upon the will, determination and honesty of the law enforcing
authorities and the faith of the whole nation in them. Every law
if implemented with the object of ‘public welfare’
can prove effective. But after 54 years of our independence, I
don’t feel any hesitation to say that no law has been able
to do any good to our society. Be it the Constitution of India,
in which, Part III corporate a lengthy list of fundamental freedoms
available to every citizen, or The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
Indian Penal Code or even The Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993, it is a matter of common knowledge that the violators have
not been punished and the victims have not been given justice.
This brings us to hold that the enactment of the law simply cannot
solve the problem. Firstly, the law must aim at providing preventive
rather than punitive justice. Then there should be a disciplined
and honest enforcement agency of the State for its effective implementation.
An independent and autonomous judiciary with impartial and justice
loving judges is equally essential. Sadly, all the three basic
ingredients of the law are missing in India.
Having said this, now I come to discuss few provisions of the
POTA and its comparison with the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities(Prevention)
Act,1987, commonly known as TADA.
The POTA in its present form demonstrate imprecise deficiencies
and other features which make this law draconian and an instrument
of oppression at the hands of the establishment. Firstly, the
definition of ‘terrorist act’ has been extended so
as to cover many classes of persons. In Sub-Section (6) of Section
3 of the act, any person, who knowingly holds any property obtained
from commission of a terrorist act or acquired through the terrorist
funds, is liable for life imprisonment or with fine of Rupees
ten lakh or with both. The word, ‘property’ includes
bank account and even assets whether corporeal or incorporeal,
tangible or intangible and deeds and instruments showing title
or interest in such property or assets. Interestingly, this clause
was not even mentioned in the TADA which was held to be draconian.
For deciding as to which property comes under above definition,
the investigating officer, not below the rank of Superintendent
of Police has been fully vested with the power. If he has reason
to believe that the said property or even amount lying in a bank
account or shares etc. have been obtained from funds of terrorist
organisation or from any terrorist act, he can book such person
in occupation of such property under POTA and the punishment would
be life imprisonment or fine of Rs.10 lac.
Further, this act applies not only to Indians living in India
or outside India, but also to the citizens of other countries,
no matter whether the offence has been committed in India or elsewhere
and whether such act is a ‘terrorist act’ according
to the law of that country or not. This gives ground to the argument
that a person, committing an ordinary criminal act in his country
which does not fall under the ‘terrorist act’ in that
country, can be termed as a ‘terrorist’ and punished
in accordance with the provisions of POTA.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FUNCTION OF OCTOBER, 27,2001
27.10.2001
A function was organised by Lawyers For Human Rights International
in association with Human Rights Law Network, Mumbai on October,
27, 2001 at Govt. Museum & Art Gallery, Sector 10, Chandigarh
where Mr. Justice Zakeria Mohammad Yacoob, Judge, the Constitutional
Court of South Africa and his wife, Ms.Anu Yacoob, delivered Lecture
on development of human rights law in South Africa in the context
of Apartheid and the activities of Truth & Reconciliation
Commission of South Africa. Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh, Retired
Judge of Supreme Court of India was the Chief Guest. Besides him,
Ms. Deepika D’souza, Executive Director, Human Rights Law
Network from Mumbai, Mr. Balwant Singh Dhillon, Senior Vice-President,
Mr. Arunjeev Singh Walia, General Secretary, Lawyers For Human
Rights International, Mr.Hardial Singh Hudal, President of the
District Bar Association, Chandigarh sat on the dais. The function
began at 11 a.m., half an hour later than the scheduled time,
with Mr. Rajvinder Bains of Lawyers For Human Rights International
giving the brief programme of the function and he gave the microphone
to Mr. Arunjeev Singh Walia, General Secretary who delivered the
Welcome address. After that Deepika D’souza spoke something
about her organisation, Human Rights Law Network and also introduced
Mr.Justice Zack Yacoob to the audience. By this time, there were
more than a hundred audiences, including lawyers, social activists
and Judges. After Deepika, Ms.Anu Yacoob spoke about the background
of freedom struggle of South Africa and the role of Justice Zack
Yacoob in that movement. After that Mr. Justice Zack Yacoob spoke
on the development of human rights law in South Africa in the
context of Constitutional framework of the South Africa and the
working of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. After his
wonderful speech made extempore by him for at least one hour,
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh, Retired Judge of Supreme Court of India
spoke on the human rights situation in India. After him, Dr.Mehar
Mamick spoke for 10 minutes on the plight of farmers in Punjab
due to economic backwardness and indifferent attitude of the State
government.
Text of the Lecture of Arunjeev Singh Walia, General Secretary,
Lawyers For Human Rights International
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Zack Mohammad Yacoob, Mrs. Anu Yacoob,
the Chief Guest of the day, Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh, Deepika
D’souza, distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I welcome you all to this function, on behalf of Lawyers For
Human Rights International and Human Rights Law Network. Today,
we feel honored to have amongst us two foreign dignitaries, Justice
Zack Mohammad Yacoob and his wife Anu Yacoob. Justice Zack is
the sitting judge of The Constitutional Court of South Africa
and is a champion of Human Rights movement. We had the privilege
to meet them for the first time in the National Conference on
Human Rights held last year in Maharashtra. His extra-ordinary
sharp vision and clear ideology in Human Rights issues has influenced
us deeply. After hearing him, I am sure you would agree with me.
To sum and Substance, he is indeed the man of his words. Ms. Anu
Yacoob, his wife is equally a kind and loving lady. Both of them
are from Indian Origin but belong to one religion called humanity.
May I take the opportunity to say few words about our organisation,
Lawyers For Human Rights International. Our Organisation is the
only non-governmental Human Rights Organisation of Lawyers, which
is in existence for over a decade and actively engaged in the
promotion and protection of Human Rights in Punjab, Haryana and
Chandigarh. We endeavor to stamp out torture in Police Custody
and also render free legal aid to the poor and indigent persons.
We conduct investigations into the cases of human rights violations
and we also undertake research and study on overall Human Rights
situation in the region. Operating from Chandigarh we have a team
of committed lawyers at the district level as well who are expert
in different fields and they provide free legal aid to the needy
persons in their respective districts. By now we have investigated
into many cases of Custodial deaths and other human rights abuses
and filed a dozen of petitions in Public Interest in the High
Court and Supreme Court of India and achieved desired results.
I express my regrets on behalf of my President, Amar Singh Chahal
for his absence today. He has gone to address a joint meeting
of European Parliament later today on the Human Rights Situation
in India.
The purpose of today’s function is to make the visiting
Judge feel the actual situation of human rights in Punjab. And
I cannot hesitate to say that the claim of the Indian Government
and State of Punjab in the context of Human Rights situation is
far from reality and truth must be disclosed.
The State of Punjab as we all know has suffered colossal loss
in the past on account of unlimited violence for over a decade.
The Punjab problem which was a political problem was treated as
Law and Order problem and the basic human right to life and liberty
of the people were transgressed with impunity by the State agencies.
It would be difficult to say exactly, but thousands of innocent
people lost their lives in the turmoil which rocked the State
during the period 1984-1996. There is no denial of the fact that
even today, the situation is the same, although the number of
incidents of human rights violations has come down. Earlier there
were a thousand Custodial deaths, today, the number goes into
hundreds. But numbers cannot justify the change in the situation.
After studying and investigating into the Punjab problem for over
a decade, we have come to the conclusion that there was a total
failure of the administrative machinery and even the judiciary
in the State, which turned the situation worse. Even today, the
Punjab Police have unlimited power and they follow no law and
do whatever they like. Police Stations have become torture cells
and the Policemen “man-eater”. Since 1997 till August
2001, more than a hundred people have lost their lives due to
Police torture and even more have suffered false implications,
inhuman torture and other human rights violations at the hands
of Punjab Police. Going to a Police Station is an ordeal. With
more than One million policemen including 4 Director-Generals,
18 Additional Director Generals, 26 Inspector Generals, 42 Deputy
Inspector Generals,250 Senior Superintendents of Police and Deputy
Superintendent of Police, 70,000 constables and 20,000 Special
Police Officers, Rape, inhuman torture and illegal detentions
in Police Station are a common occurrence in Punjab. Shamefully,
the State administration in spite of having complete knowledge
of the situation is turning a blind eye to the woes of the victims
and even provides funds and free legal aid to the policemen who
are facing charges of human rights violations. The investigating
agencies including the Central Bureau of Investigation and the
Judiciary too adopt a lenient attitude in favor of the guilty
policemen. Judges grant bail to the policemen accused of Custodial
death, fake encounter and other serious human rights violations
quite frequently, while thousands of innocent people are languishing
in jails for petty offences. Many policemen have even secured
acquittals from the courts on the serious charge like fake encounter,
custodial death and even rape. The higher judiciary has consistently
failed to ensure that proper investigations and fair trial are
held to bring the uniformed criminal to justice.
Human Rights activists here are seen with suspicion. Five of
our brother lawyers engaged in fighting human rights abuses, paid
the price with their life few years ago. We also live in tremendous
pressure and intimidation, but we are determined to fight injustice
at any cost.
The state sponsored Punjab State Human Rights Commission has
proved every bit as cruel as monster. What to say of rendering
justice to the victims, the Commission even bars the old and ill
persons from using its lift for going to fourth floor. It spends
more than thirty million rupees annually and decides only 250
complaints a year and that too against the victims. I am at loss
to understand whether the Commission is interested in justice
or camouflaging the truth.
Sir, I am saying these things because we feel that you, as a
champion of human rights, will plead our case before the International
community and give evidence of our plight. Understanding your
constraints while in the chair, I am sure you would try every
bit to highlight the plight of the people of Punjab before the
World.
In the end, I once again welcome the visiting delegation on behalf
of my team and invite them to come again and stay with us for
more time and guide us in our struggle for the promotion and protection
of Human Rights in India.
LIST OF TAINTED POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN CASES
OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN PUNJAB
S.No. Name of Officer Rank Case involved In Status
1. K.P.S. Gill the then D.G.P. Molestation of a lady I.A.S. Officer
Convict- On Probation
2. Daljit Singh Bhullar A.D.G.P. Triple murder Convict-Life imprisonment
3. Sumedh Singh Saini D.I.G. Abduction & disappearance Undertrial-
On bail
4. Sanjeev Gupta D.I.G. Fake encounter Undertrial- On bail
5. Ajit Singh Sandhu S.S.P. Abduction & murders Deceased
6. Jasminder Singh S.S.P. Abduction Undertrial- On bail
7. S.K.Singh S.S.P. Fake encounter Convict-Life imprisonment-
On bail
8. Narinder Pal Singh S.S.P. Fake encounter Undertrial- On bail
9. Harinder Singh Chahal S.S.P. Assault & Criminal Intimidation
Not arrested – Retired
10. Raj Kishan Bedi S.S.P. Fake encounter No Case
11. A.P. Pandey then S.S.P. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
12. Mohammad Mustafa S.S.P. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
13. Mohammad Izhar Alam S.S.P. Abduction & Forced disappearance
No Case
14. Dinkar Gupta then A.S.P Fake Encounter No Case
15. Anant Ram Sharma, then S.P. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
16. Mohinder Singh Chahal S.P. Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
17. Madanjit Singh S.P. Fake encounters Undertrial- On bail
18. Ajaib Singh S.P. Fake encounters Undertrial- On bail
19. Khubi Ram S.P. Fake encounter Undertrial- On bail
20. S.P.S.Garcha S.P. Abduction & forced disappearance No
Case
21. Sukhminder Singh Sandhu S.P. Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
22. Sukhdev S.Chinna then S.P. Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
23. Kuldip Singh then S.P. Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
24. S.S.Sandhu then S.P. Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
25. Sukhdev S.Chahal S.P. Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
26. Vivek Mishra S.P. Abduction Undertrial- On bail
27. S.P.S. Basra S.P. Abduction & murder Undertrial- On bail
28. Kewal Kumar S.P. Abduction & disappearance Undertrial-
On bail
29. Mahinder Singh S.P. Corruption, forgery & cri.Inti. Not
arrested- In service
30. Harchand Singh S.P. Abduction & forced disappearance No
Case
31. Paramraj Singh then S.P. Fake encounter No Case
32. Harbans Singh then S.P Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
33. Joginder Singh Kutial then D.S.P Fake encounters No Case
34. Harnek Singh then D.S.P Abduction & Forced disappearance
No Case
35. Manmohan Singh then D.S.P Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
36. Joginder Singh Kahlon D.S.P Illegal detention & torture
Not arrested- In service
37. Surinder Singh D.S.P Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
38. Jaspal Singh D.S.P Abduction & murder Undertrial- On bail
39. Ashok Kumar D.S.P Abduction & murder Undertrial- On bail
40. Ramesh Chander D.S.P Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
41. Jagtar Singh D.S.P Abduction & murder Undertrial- On bail
42. Surjit Singh Garewal D.S.P Fake encounter Undertrial- On bail
43. Baldev Singh Sekhon D.S.P Fake encounter of 7 persons Convict-Life
imprisonment
44. Gurdeep Singh Pannu D.S.P Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
45. Gurmail Singh D.S.P Rape & murder Undertrial- On bail
46. Chaman Lal D.S.P Abduction & murder Undertrial- On bail
47. Balkar Singh then D.S.P Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
48. Ashok Puri then D.S.P Rape Undertrial-On bail
49. Gurdip Singh then D.S.P Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
50. Gurcharan Singh then D.S.P Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
51. Gurnam Singh Mehra D.S.P Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
52. Amrik Singh then INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
53. Balkar Singh then S.H.O Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
54. Baldev Raj then INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
55. Bhupinder Singh then S.H.O Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
56. Bakhshish Singh then S.H.O Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
57. Bhupinder Singh Bhullar INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
58. Joginder Singh INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
59. Budh Singh INSPECTOR Theft & intimidation Undertrial-
On bail
60. Gurmeet Singh Pinky INSPECTOR Murder Undertrial- in custody
61. Jagdeep Singh INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
62. Sita Ram then SUB-INSPECTOR Fake encounter Convict-Life imprisonment
63. Jaspal Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
64. Satnam Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
65. Malwinder S.Malhi SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Convict-Life
imprisonment
66. Jasbir Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
67. Raspal Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
68. Harpreet Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
69. Sardool Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
70. Narinder S.Malhi SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
71. Pritam Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
72. Naginder Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
73. Malook Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
74. Balbir Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction Undertrial- On bail
75. Arvinderbir Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
76. Gulzar Chand SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Convict-Life
imprisonment
77. Rajinder S.Sohal SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
78. Tarlochan Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & Atrocities on
ST Undertrial- On bail
79. Gurmail Singh SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
80. Bhola Singh then SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
81. Nirmal Singh then A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
82. Surinder Pal Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder
Undertrial- On bail
83. Darshan Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
84. Kanwaljit Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
85. Paramjit Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
86. Kashmira Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
87. Karamjit Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
88. Daljit Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
89. Jagbir Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
90. Tara Chand A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
91. Massa Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
92. Harminder Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
93. Gurvinder Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Illegal detention & torture
Undertrial- On bail
94. Surinder Thakur A.SUB-INSPECTOR Smuggling of Narcotics Undertrial-
On bail
95. Shashi Atwal A.SUB-INSPECTOR Smuggling of Narcotics Undertrial-
On bail
96. Nachhatar Pal Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder
Undertrial- On bail
97. Balwinder Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
98. Bhupinder Singh then A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced
disappearance No Case
99. Hardeep Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Rape & murder Undertrial-
On bail
100Gurcharan Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Rape & murder Undertrial-
On bail
101Surinder Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Corruption Undertrial- On bail
102Naib Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
103Teja Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
104Bhavkhandan Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
105Balbir Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
106Bachan Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
107Ajit Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
108Amarjit Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
109Pritpal Singh HEAD CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
110Sukhjeevan Singh HEAD CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
111Ram Dayal HEAD CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
112Iqbal Khan HEAD CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
113Balwinder Singh HEAD CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
114Balwant Singh Majitha HEAD CONSTABLE Fake encounter Undertrial-
On bail
115Karamjit Singh HEAD CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
116Tarlok Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
117Nirmal Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
118Amarjit Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial-
On bail
119Major Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
120Ganda Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
121Dalbir Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
122Pritam Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
123Jaspal Singh CONSTABLE Dereliction in duty Undertrial- On bail
124Balkar Singh CONSTABLE Dereliction in duty Undertrial- On bail
125Thakur Singh CONSTABLE Rioting & Criminal Intimi. Undertrial-
On bail
126Ravinder Singh CONSTABLE Roting & Criminal Intimi. Undertrial-
On bail
127Surjit Singh CONSTABLE Rioting & Criminal Intimi. Undertrial-
On bail
128Gurcharan Singh CONSTABLE Abduction & murder Convict-Life
imprisonment
129Davinder Singh S.P.O Abduction & murder Convict-Life imprisonment
130Abdul Afiz Nasse S.P.O Abduction & murder Undertrial- On
bail
131Amrik Singh then CONSTABLE Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
132Avtar Singh then CONSTABLE Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
133Baldev Singh then S.P.O Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
134Bharpur Singh then INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
135Balwinder Singh then INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
136BirAtma Ram then S.H.O. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
137Dharam Singh Saini S.H.O. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
138Darshan Singh S.H.O. Abduction & forced disappearance No
Case
139Dilbagh Singh A.SUB-INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
140Didar Singh INSPECTOR Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
141Gurnam Singh then S.H.O. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
142Gurnam Singh then A.SUB-INSPECTOR Fake encounter No Case
143Gurmail Singh INSPECTOR Fake encounter No Case
144Gurcharan Singh S.H.O. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
145Gurcharan Singh S.H.O. Abduction & forced disappearance
No Case
LIST OF POLICE OFFICERS REVERTED TO THEIR ORIGINAL RANK
AFTER HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED AUGUST 20, 2001
1. Kuldeep Singh, SP to DSP
2. Mohinder Singh, SP to DSP
3. Dilbagh Singh, SP to DSP
4. Jaskirat Singh, SP to DSP
5. Gurdeep Singh, SP to DsP
6. Gurnam Singh, SP to DSP
7. Balbir Singh Khera , SP to DSP
8. Gurmit Singh Chauhan, SP to DSP
9. Surinderjit Singh Mand, SP to DSP
10. Pargat Singh Powar,SP to DSP
11. Kamaljit Singh Dhillon, SP to DSP
12. Raghbir Singh Chahal, SP to DSP
13. Narinder Pal Singh, SP to DSP
14. Ramandeep Singh, SP to DSP
15. Satish Malhotra, DSP to ASI
16. Balwinder Pal DSP to Inspector
17. Rajinder Singh, DSP to Sub-Inspector
18. Rajinder Singh(Dasuya) DSP to Inspector
19. Ajaib Singh,DSP to Sub-Inspector
20. Baldev Singh, DSP to Inspector
21. Sant Singh, DSP to Sub-Inspector
22. Rachpal Singh, DSP to Inspector
23. Gurcharan Singh, DSP to Inspector
24. Joginder Singh, DSP to Sub-Inspector
25. Meharban Singh, DSP to Inspector
26. Ravinder Singh, DSP to Sub-Inspector
27. Jaspal Singh, DSP to Inspector
28. Malook Singh, DSP to Inspector
29. Suman Kumar, DSP to Inspector
30. Dhrampal Chabbra DSP to Inspector
31. MakhanSingh, DSP to Inspector
32. Ramandeep Singh, DSP to Inspector
33. Mohinder Singh, DSP to Inspector
34. Kashmir Singh, DSP to Inspector
35. Baldev Singh, DSP to Sub-Inspector
36. Baginde Rana, DSP to Inspector
37. Ram Millan, DSP to Inspector
38. Baljit Singh, DSP to Inspector
39. Surinder Singh Saini, DSP to Inspector
40. Ajaib Singh, DSP to Inspector
41. Harbhajan Singh, DSP to Inspector
42. Gurdial Ram, DSP to Inspector
43. Ashok Kumar, DSP to Inspector
44. Baldev Singh, DSP to Sub-Inspector
45. Vikram Chand, Inspector to Assistant Sub-Inspector
46. Jaswant Kaur, Inspector to Sub-Inspector
47. Baldev Singh, Inspector to Head Constable
48. Ramesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector to ASI
49. Swaran Singh, Sub-Inspector to ASI
50. Jasbir Singh, Sub-Inspector to ASI
51. Surjit Singh, Sub-Inspector to ASI
52. Dilbagh Singh, Sub-Inspector to ASI
53. Darshan Singh, Sub-Inspector to ASI
Source: Indian Express, Chandigarh August 31, 2001
DEATH IN POLICE CUSTODY AND POLICE ENCOUNTER –
A CASE FOR JUDICIAL CONCERN
In India where rule of law is inherent in each and every action
and right to life and liberty is prized fundamental right adorning
highest place amongst all important fundamental rights, instances
of torture and using third degree methods upon suspects during
Police custody are a matter of routine these days. Use of excessive
force and exceeding lawful authority by Police many a times causes
Custodial death. If torture of suspects during Police custody
is a serious crime, causing death by beating in Police custody
is even worst crime and a most condemnable act. Indian Criminal
Laws have given extra-ordinary powers to the Police which are
often mis-used or abused by the men in Khaki. The force which
is supposed to protect the life and liberty of the citizen when
behaves inhumanly and become law unto themselves by perpetrating
crime on innocent people, it is bound to encourage lawlessness
and breeds contempt for law. Custodial violence is indeed a matter
of great concern. Thinking of the trauma and fear that a victim
might be suffering in the Police custody, the protection of the
life and liberty of the victim from torture and abuse of power
by the police and other law enforcing officers becomes most urgent
and sacred duty of every law-abiding citizen and every organ of
justice delivery system. Custodial violence including torture,
death in Police custody and staged encounter, strikes a blow at
the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive
should not only be derived from law but also that the same should
be limited by law. In custodial crimes, not only the infliction
of body pain is worrisome, but also the trauma and mental agony
which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station
or lock-up. Whether it is third degree torture or rape in Police
custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond
the purview of law. As per the reports released by National human
Rights Commission, only 188 deaths in Police custody were reported
in 1996-97. In the course of further twelve months, more than
888 people died at the hands of country’s guardians of the
law. Inspite of clear prohibition in law from subjecting any person
with torture, Complaints regarding Custodial torture and deaths
in Police Custody or false Police encounters are ever increasing
in the Supreme Court and different High Courts, besides National
Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions across
the country. During the early eightees’ when the arm of
law was more powerful and every person accused of torture or custodial
death was given maximum punishment, Custodial crime was in the
decline, but during the period 1991 till the begining of the new
millennium, with the law courts started taking a lenient view
against such crimes, awarding compensation to the victims rather
than punishing the guilty and there being no deterrent for the
perpetrators of the custodial crime, incidents of custodial crime
have increased manifold. According to a Statement placed in the
Lok Sabha, in the monsoon session in August, 2000, more than seven
hundred and ninety persons have been killed in Police custody.
Unofficial figures goes upto 1500, which includes people killed
in false encounters, and judicial custody.
The human rights commissions across the country attributes the
increase in this macabre total to the fact that it had issued
repeated instructions that information regarding such tragic occurrences
must not be suppressed. This may be the case, but that still does
not justify the unconscionably high number of extra-judicial killings
that mark law enforcement in India.
In the forgotten corners of dusty police stations, lathi and
roller continue to make harsh contact with flesh and bone. So
secretly is this done, so discreetly, that the democratic nation
which houses these modest citadels of terror can continue to believe
that it is indeed a democracy. Their acts of commission, corruption
and barbaric methods of torture, kidnapping and ransom, fake encounters,
eliminations and custodial deaths etc. put to shame any civilised
society. When corruption and greed intermingle in such a state
of affairs, many of the actions of the men in uniform take the
form of contract killings, extortion etc. This also includes taking
possession of valuables or property, terrorising the public to
discourage possible witnesses etc. all in the name of fighting
the outlaws. When the Policeman transgress the very law he fights
to restore, what follows is, revultion, revenge and further alienation.
State terrorism can never take the place of armed conflict by
certain groups of terrorists in any civilised society. Just one
example would suffice to illustrate how the Police force first
commits the crime and then undertake face saving exercise. On
the night intervening 10-11th August, 2000, a twenty nine year
old RMP doctor of Chandigarh, Amanjeet, was reportedly picked
up by a Police Control Room vehicle and taken to Police Station,
Sector 39,Chandigarh at about 6.P.M. and after few hours he was
declared dead. His parents and wife challenged the Police theory
that, under the influence of liquor, the victim had jumped out
of the moving police vehicle and consequently died, while being
brought back from the hospital to the Police Station. The relatives
of the victim strongly refute this theory. They said that the
injuries on the person of the deceased were not from any fall
from the vehicle and it bore torture signs also . Amanjeet’s
is just one name that figured, perhaps in that infamous list of
about 1200 custodial deaths in India this year. What is at stake
here is the very definition of what constitutes humanity.
It would be a grave folly to seek sovereign immunity by the
Police for their unlawful acts done in the discharge of their
lawful duty. And a graver folly still to grant benefit of doubt
by the Law Courts, for all its excesses, and rumblings of discontent,
the Police like an ordinary criminal consider itself outside the
orbit of law of the land and subvert the very authority of Rule
of Law and perpetrates crime on the innocent people without any
fear of penal action by the Law Courts. Then the situation, which
had cast a dark shadow on the lives of unsuspecting people, changed.
An “avalanche” of Petitions began to be filed in the
courts and Human Rights Commissions. The Law of the land began
to find its grip; it girdled and grilled the rowdy police personnel
who began to be arraigned. The very same instruments of the State
and the institutions which had maintained a sphinx like silence
when the police did what it was expected not to do, including
committing alleged excesses, tortures or killings in “encounters”,
also found their voice and moorings. No doubt that for many acts
committed by men in uniform there cannot be any immunity. These
can not also be condoned. The “guilty” must be punished.
Policemen who committed excesses out of sheer greed to make money,
gather awards, settle scores or teach a lesson to their enemies
must be given maximum punishment, for they not only committed
the crime, but also destroyed the trust and faith of the people
in the uniform. The realisation that they are accountable for
their deeds as much as any other mortal human being would hopefully
make them think twice before doing what has virtually become a
habit with them. The fear of the law should be put in the skulls
of the political bosses as well who have been using the police
to terrorise those not convenient to the ruling clique.
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
stipulates that “No one shall be subjected to torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “
no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.”
The UN General Assembly resolution of December, 1989 on the
principles of effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal,
arbitrary and summary execution says:
“Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary
and summary executions, and shall ensure that any such executions
are recognised as offences under their criminal laws, and are
punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the
seriousness of such offences.
.......... In order to prevent extra-legal, arbitrary and summary
executions, governments shall ensure strict control, including
a clear chain of command over all officials responsible for the
apprehension, arrest, detention, custody and imprisonment as well
as those officials authorised by law to use force or fire arms.
.......... Effective protection through judicial or other means
shall be guaranteed to individuals and groups who are in danger
of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions, including those
who receive death threats.”
Nobody really knows how many people have had to pay with their
life for their innocence and respect for the law. There are many
who have simply vanished without a trace. There are many more
who have died in so-called encounters with the police. In fact,
the latter eventuality was a daily routine in Punjab not too long
ago and the reports about the encounters were chillingly bland
and never-changing: “ The Police was taking a suspect to
such and such place for recovery of arms when it was ambushed
by his heavily armed accomplices. In the ensuing encounter, the
suspect and five of his accomplices were killed. Three AK-47 rifles
and a large cache of ammunition were recovered from them.”
This was probably, the most favourite, perverted and well established
method of dispensing quick justice even on mere suspicion, Article
21 of the Constitution be damned.
Disturbed at the diabolical recurrence of police torture in
the country, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer as he was then was compelled
to say that “ The vulnerability of human rights assumes
a traumatic, torture some poignancy when the violent violation
is perpetrated by the police arm of the State whose function is
to protect the citizen and not to commit gruesome offences against
them as has happened in this case. Police lock-up if reports in
newspapers have a streak of credence, are becoming more and more
awesome cells. This development is disastrous to our human rights
awareness and humanist constitutional order.”
The figures show that most of custodial deaths have been reported
in the States where militancy and insurgent activities are at
its peak. For example, Punjab and Kashmir tops the list of States
where thousands of innocent people branding them as “terrorists”,
have been killed in false police encounters. In Punjab alone,
during the period 1988-95 more than twelve thousand people branding
them as “terrorists” were reportedly killed in Police
encounters. The killings in Kashmir have even gone higher than
this. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Nagaland
are also among the states where a large number of people have
been killed in Police Custody. One interesting thing regarding
custodial death is that in almost every case of custodial death,
the Police comes with the story that the victim committed suicide
by either strangulating himself or consuming poison while in Police
custody. Deaths in indiscriminate Police firing on the mob are
also very common. When a victim dies in Police custody, the first
theory the Police usually gives is that the victim consumed poison
before he could be arrested by the Police. But the Policemen completely
forget that a person is held to be in custody when he is restrained
from moving in any direction, no matter if he is on the road or
on any vehicle or even in his house.
In order to check Police atrocities and use of third degree methods
upon suspects the Punjab & Haryana High in DR.VINEETA GUPTA
& ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. directed the States
of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh 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
was further directed to remove all instruments of torture such
as Ghotana, belts, Shikanjas, chain, voltage regulator or any
other instruments of torture. In the complaint of illegal detention
and third degree torture and death of one suspect by Police and
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)
A detenue Jaspal Singh was beaten with kicks and lathis in full
public view in the precincts of Supreme Court by Policemen. Policemen
were charged with Contempt of Court. The guilty cops were 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 )
In the worst case of human rights violation, where suspects were
blinded by the police officer whilst in police custody, it was
held that 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 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 )
Mysterious abduction and murder of an Advocate Kulwant Singh
of Ropar in Punjab, his wife and two years old child by Punjab
police in 1994 brought to light the worst kind of Police brutality
in Punjab. Lawyers all over Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh went
on strike for more than two months. Writ Petition filed by Lawyers
for judicial inquiry was dismissed by Pb.& Hy.High Court.
On an appeal by Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court by
Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, directions were
given for fresh investigation to be conducted by CBI to instill
confidence in Public mind. 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 was ordered to be paid
by the State to the old parents of deceased Advocate. Amount of
Rs.2 lacs was directed to be recovered from accused Police officers
if convicted for the offence under Section 193, 194, 211, 218,
IPC.
PB.& HY. HIGH COURT BAR ASSOC. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB RECENT
CRIMINAL REPORTS 1996(3) 773
The death of an under-trial in Police custody due to injuries
caused by Police came before the Supreme Court of India alleging
violation of fundamental right to life of deceased. The Supreme
Court for the first time in this case held that the Courts can
entertain writ petition under Art.32 and 226 of the Constitution
for compensation in case of Custodial death and directed the State
to pay monetary Compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs to the widow of the
deceased victim. It also held that the defence of Soverign immunity
was 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 was abducted by
Army officers in 1983 and since then his whereabouts were not
known. A Writ of Habeas Corpus was 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 was filed in the Supreme Court. The Court held that
there was noo cogent evidence which could lead to show that the
boys had been released from custody and held it to be a Custodial
death and a Compensation of Rs.1,25,000 /- was 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 ) A peculiar case of its kind relating
to death of 21 people in indiscriminate police firing on a peaceful
meeting in a public place was filed in the Supreme Court by PUCL,
a human rights organisation in the form of a Public Interest Litigation
seeking a judicial inquiry into the incident, compensation to
the next of the kin of those killed and withdrawl of false police
case. 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. As a working
principle and for convenience, directions were 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
) In a case of 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). The Court
Sentenced him 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, were picked up
from their home by a Police party of Punjab Police led by a DSP
on 29th October,1991. 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. A case under Section 364 IPC was registered
against the absconding DSP. Supreme Court while indicting the
Punjab police, entrusted the inquiry to be carried 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
)
Where a detenue was killed due to Police torture in Police Custody
on 10.3.1993, the Assam 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). In the case of death of Sawinder Singh
Grover, a young person in Custody of Enforcement Directorate.
Supreme Court marked a CBI inquiry. CBI inquiry held the policemen
guilty of custodial death. CBI was 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 and held that 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)
Upholding the judicial precedent of awarding interim compensation
to the victim of Custodial death, the Supreme Court held that
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-and that compensation
could be granted in Writ Jurisdiction as its 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).
Another glaring example of Police highhandedness was witnessed
in the case when a suspect died in police custody owing to injuries
caused due to beating by police and the Investigating Officer
converted 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
in the case. (KASHMERI DEVI VS. DELHI ADMN.) (AIR 1988 SUPREME
COURT 1323). Death of a 9 year child because of beating and assault
by police officer. The Supreme Court directed the State Govt.
to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the mother of the deceased
and held the state liable for tortious acts of its employees and
if so advised, the State may recover the damages from employees.
(SAHELI VS. COMM. OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.) (AIR 1990 SUPREME
COURT 513)
The National Human Rights Commission on 4th Jan. 1999,ordered
the Rajasthan Government to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the next
of kin of the deceased Hussain Teli, who was taken to Police Station
for interrogation in connection with a murder case and during
illegal detention, he was brutally tortured as a result of which
he died in Police Custody. The Commission held that “this
is a case of death on account of torture by the police during
investigatioin and that the body was buried under unusual circumstances
by the police authorities only with a view to cover up their mis-deeds.”
Home
HOME 
TOP