Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court discussed the deplorable practice of custodial violence. 
• The judgment was delivered by Justice AS Anand and MK Mukherjee. 

Facts 

• On 13th October 1981, Respondent No. 4, Rajaram (Head Constable) and Respondent No. 5, Ganninuddin (Constable) bought the victim (Nathu Banjara) for interrogation as a suspect in the police station. 
• As per the case of the prosecution at the police station Respondent No. 1, Shyam Sunder Tiwari (Sub inspector), Respondent No. 3, Ram Naresh Shukla (Head Constable) and Respondent No. 4 and 5 gave a beating to the victim in order to extort confession. 
• As a result of the above beatings Nathu died in the police custody at the police station Rampura. 
• His body was treated as an ‘unclaimed body’. 
• The residents of the village staged protest including some members of the Bar of Rampur. 
• As a result of protests and the written report signed by the residents of Rampur enquiry and post- mortem was conducted. 
• The Respondents were charged as follows under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• At the trial the First Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the respondents of all the charges. 
• The High Court of Madhya Pradesh on appeal maintained the acquittal of Respondents 2 to 7. 
  • However, the acquittal of Respondent No. 1 under Sections 218 , 201 and 342 of IPC was set aside and the Respondent no.1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years each of the two counts under Section 218 and Section 201 of IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 of IPC.    
• The Respondent No. 1 filed a special leave petition challenging the conviction and the sentence but the same was dismissed. 
• The appeal present before the Court was by way of special leave filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh questioning the acquittal of Respondent No. 1 for offences under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 147 IPC and acquittal of Respondent No. 2 to 7 for offences with which they are charged.  

Issue Involved 

• Whether the acquittal of the accused persons should be overturned?  

Observations 

• The Court held that from the evidence of Dr Mehta (PW 7) it is established that the death of Nathu Ram was homicidal and not natural. 
• The Court observed that it was a conclusive finding that the victim had remained in the police custody from the time he was brought till the evening. 
• The Court held that it is conclusively proved from the record that the Respondent No. 1 and others had fabricated the evidences. 
• Further, the presence of Respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 at the police station is also established along with their participation in removal of dead body to the hospital with a view to screen the offender. 
• The prosecution was able to produce several eye witnesses who deposed that they had seen the body of the deceased being taken out of the police station and put in the jeep. 
• The Court observed the following with regard to Respondent No. 2: 
  • No clinching evidence is there on record to establish the presence of  Respondent No 2 on the spot. 
  • However, the Court observed that the High Court ignored the ground realities whereby it would be very difficult in cases of custodial death that direct ocular evidence would be available. 
  • The Court held that it is highly likely that the colleagues of the Respondent No. 2 inspired by the ties of brotherhood refused to give evidence. 
• Ground Realities Cannot be gnored 
  • The Court held that the High Court and the Trial Court insisted on proof beyond reasonable doubt ignoring the ground realities. 
  • In such a situation too much insistence on the above rule results in miscarriage of justice. 
• The Malady of Torture in the Police Custody 
  • Torture in police custody flouts the most basic human rights available to the citizen of the country and is an affront to human dignity. 
  • Unless there are no strict measures taken by the criminal justice system against this malady it will keep plaguing civilization. 
  • The Courts must therefore deal with such matters with great sensitivity otherwise the common man may lose faith in the judiciary. 
• Report of National Police Commission 
  • The 4^th Report of the Commission observed that the act of torture in police custody is the most dehumanizing practice that a person can encounter. 
  • Although there are provisions like Section 330 and Section 331 of IPC that make those police officers punishable that extort confession and the punishment for the same is also harsh (upto 10 years of imprisonment), but the conviction for the same cannot be established as there is dearth of direct or other ocular evidence. 
  • Owing to the above the Law Commission in it’s 113th Report recommended amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA): 
    • the Court may presume that the injury was caused by the police officer having the custody of that person during that period unless, the police officer proves to the contrary 
    • The onus to prove the contrary must be discharged by the concerned police official. 
  •  However, the above recommendation has gone unnoticed.  
• The Court held that from the documentary and ocular evidence it can be held that Respondent No. 1 and 3 to 5 had participated in causing injuries to the victim. 
  • Even if it is not possible say that they intended to cause death it can be certainly said that they had knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death. 
  • Thus, the Court held that their offence falls under Section 304 Part II/ 34 of IPC. 
• Thus, the Court convicted the Respondents as follows: 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment as it talks about the most dehumanizing practice of custodial torture. 
• The Court has in this case lamented the practice of custodial violence.