Back
Dismisses Custodial Torture Plea Citing Lack of Against Police Officers
Introduction
The has dismissed a that alleged , custodial assault, and by police officers, ruling that such serious charges cannot be acted upon based solely on . Justice Madhu Jain, presiding over the case, underscored that while no individual—whether witness or accused—should suffer torture in police custody, the court requires before directing action or awarding compensation.
Case Background
The petitioners, Akash and another individual, claimed they were subjected to by two officers from Police Station Jyoti Nagar in connection with a theft investigation. According to the petitioners, they were initially detained for about six hours on , and allegedly forced to pay ₹25,000 to secure their release. They further alleged that on , they were called back to the police station, pressured to confess, and one of them was physically assaulted. Following a PCR call made by a relative, the petitioners were taken to GTB Hospital, where the medical report of petitioner no. 2 noted tenderness and swelling.
Notably, this is not the first instance of custodial torture allegations at PS Jyoti Nagar; a previous case involved an FIR against a former SHO and a death during the North-East Delhi riots, which was later transferred to the .
Arguments Presented
The petitioners' counsel argued that his clients were called as witnesses under , not as accused, and that the medical evidence supported their claim of assault. He relied on the 's
guidelines, which prohibit custodial torture.
In response, the State submitted that the petitioners were actually suspects, not witnesses, pointing to a handwritten complaint where the complainant expressed suspicion against them. The State also contended that the PCR call was made after the petitioners had left the police station and a crowd had gathered, thus not corroborating an in-custody assault.
Legal Analysis
Justice Jain observed that the core issue was not whether the petitioners were witnesses or accused, but whether the record established custodial assault. The MLC of petitioner no. 2 recorded injuries, but the history was self-reported and did not identify the police officers responsible. No MLC for petitioner no. 1 was filed, despite the claim that both were assaulted. The PCR call record itself was not placed before the court, and there was no independent evidence of the alleged .
The court emphasized that a finding of cannot be returned on the basis of alone. While the D.K. Basu safeguards are binding, the court cannot direct departmental action or compensation without material that directly links the officers to the alleged misconduct.
Key Observations
“A finding of against individual police officials, followed by directions for departmental action and payment of compensation, cannot be returned merely on the basis of .”
“No person, whether a witness or an accused, can be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while in police custody.”
“The MLC constitutes showing that petitioner no. 2 was examined and certain injuries were noticed. However, the history recorded therein is based upon the account given by petitioner no. 2 and does not identify the person who allegedly caused the injuries.”
Court's Decision
The court dismissed the , holding that on the material currently on record, it was unable to conclude that the police officers subjected the petitioners to or custodial torture. Consequently, no relief, including compensation or departmental proceedings, was granted. The ruling reinforces the principle that while allegations of are taken seriously, they must be supported by credible, corroborative evidence before the court intervenes.
