Can Conviction Stand When Co-Accused Are Acquitted? Gujarat High Court Clarifies In Custodial Death - 2025-09-01

Can Conviction Stand When Co-Accused Are Acquitted? Gujarat High Court Clarifies In Custodial Death

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in a significant ruling delivered by Justice Gita Gopi, has upheld the conviction of a Police Sub-Inspector for the custodial death of an individual in 1989. The case, which spans over three decades, serves as a grim reminder of the protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the legal consequences for those entrusted with maintaining law and order.

A Fatal Inquiry in Savarkundla

On October 27, 1989, Kanudo @ Bhoplo Vallabhbhana Waghri was taken into custody by officials at the Savarkundla Town Police Station in connection with an alleged theft. Within hours, the young man was declared dead. Subsequent medical examinations revealed severe injuries across his body, ultimately attributed to shock and hemorrhage. While seven police personnel were initially accused, only one, the then-Police Sub-Inspector Bhavsing Chhaganbhai Bilval, was convicted by the trial court in 2000.

Following the appellant's death during the pendency of the appeal, his legal heirs sought to challenge the conviction, arguing that if the co-accused were acquitted, the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) was legally unsustainable due to the principle of parity.

The Legal Battle Over Constructive Liability

The appellant's counsel argued that there was no evidence to attribute specific injuries to the PSI and that the trial court's decision to convict only one officer, while acquitting six others, violated the core requirements of joint liability under Section 34 IPC . Conversely, the State argued that custodial death is a "dehumanizing" crime, and the appellant, by his own admission in his Section 313 statement, had exercised control over the victim throughout the interrogation.

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of the victim’s family and the driver of the police vehicle. The Court noted that the presence of police officers in the vicinity of the crime, coupled with the nature of the injuries, pointed towards a collective, if tacit, facilitation of the torture.

Key Observations from the Bench

Justice Gita Gopi highlighted the grave responsibility of police officers, noting:

• "Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law."
• "The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected."
• "The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes in a civilised society... and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society."
• "The onus to prove the contrary must be discharged by the police official concerned [in cases of custodial injury]."

Establishing Accountability

In dismissing the appeal, the High Court reaffirmed that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically invalidate a conviction under Section 34 IPC if the appellate court, upon re-evaluating the evidence, finds that the accused shared a common intention. The Court clarified that the trial court's order for compensation of ₹25,000 to the victim's heirs remained valid, and invoked Section 70 of the IPC to mandate the recovery of fines from the deceased appellant’s estate, underscoring that death does not discharge property from criminal liability.

This judgment reinforces the principle that police personnel cannot hide behind the veil of silence or departmental brotherhood. The ruling serves as a stern warning: where custodial torture is concerned, the courts will adopt a realistic and sensitive approach to ensure the majesty of the law prevails, regardless of the time elapsed since the offence.