Back
1996(4) Supreme 130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and Suhas C.Sen, J.
The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association -Appellant
versus
State of Assam and Anr. -Respondents
Suo Motu Contempt
IN
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 209 of 1993
Decided on 9-5-1996
Held : It is true that the CBI Report has not recommended any criminal proceeding against him. But the allegation against A.K. Sinha Cashyap is that he suppressed true facts from the Court and gave a false report to mislead the Court as to what was the real cause of the death of Nural Haque. It has been stated by A.K. Sinha Cashyap that he had no personal knowledge of the sequence of events from apprehension to the death of Nurul Haque. He had returned from leave and had resumed duty only in the afternoon on 16th March, 1993 when Nurul Haque had already died. This explanation on the face of it is not acceptable. As a responsible police officer it was his duty to make proper investigation and give a report to this Court. Assuming within the time frame of 48 hours he could not prepare a report properly, he should have stated that in his report. He could have even prayed for longer time for furnishing a report. But the allegation against him is that he deliberately gave a false report. In the affidavit filed by him he had ample opportunity to make good the lapses made in the report and bring the true facts to the notice of the Court which he did not do. The affidavit filed by A.K. Sinha Cashyap in this Court is dated 26th November, 1993 pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 29th October, 1993. As a responsible police officer it was his duty to bring to the notice of the Court the police brutality that had taken place and the false documentation that was prepared by the various police personnel to suppress the truth and to give a misleading picture. The glaring inconsistencies in the affidavit filed by him have been pointed out in the report of the CBI, particulars of which have been set out hereinabove. A.K. Sinha Cashyap has not dealt with those particulars. He has only stated that that was not the final report of the CBI. The final report does not contain anything to the contrary to what has been stated in the report submitted to this Court. In our view, A.K. Sinha Cashyap, the contemner, has committed gross contempt of court by trying to mislead the Court as to the cause of death of Nurul Haque. He has also tried to cover up the excesses committed by the police which brought about the death of Nurul Haque by narrating untrue facts and giving false particulars. (Para 20)
We, therefore, hold that A.K. Sinha Cashyap is guilty of contempt of this Court. The belated apology given by A.K. Sinha Cashyap cannot be accepted because it has not been given in good faith. He has tendered this apology only after his report was found out to be misleading and his affidavit was found to be false. He had unnecessarily highlighted in his report that Nurul Haque was a dacoit for which there was no clear evidence. (Para 21)
Further held that the contemner deliberately forwarded an inaccurate report with a view to misleading this Court and thereby interfered with the due course of justice by attempting to obstruct this Court from reaching a correct conclusion. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot accept his apology and hereby reject it. We hold him guilty of contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having regard to the gravity of the case, we sentence the contemner A.K. Sinha Cashyap to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months. (Para 25)
JUDGMENT
Sen, J.-This case arises out of a notice issued to A.K. Sinha Cashyap, Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi to show cause why he should not be held guilty of Contempt of Court. The allegation against the contemner is that a shocking case of police brutality leading to the death of an undertrial prisoner was sought to be covered up by him by an untrue and misleading report sent to this Court followed by a false affidavit.
2. The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association, forwarded to this Court a copy of the resolution passed by the Association at an emergent meeting held on 16th March, 1993 condemning the brutal assault leading to the death of an undertrial prisoner Nurul Haque.
3. Having regard to the serious nature of the complaint, this Court by an order dated 20th August, 1993 decided to treat the copy of the resolution forwarded by the Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association as Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Director General of Police, State of Assam, was directed to inquire into the matter and send a detailed report in regard to the events leading to the death of Nurul Haque. Pursuant to the said order, the Director General of Police forwarded his report under letter No.C-150/91/107 dated 13th September, 1993. In the letter it was stated that the Director General of Police got the matter investigated by the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, who prepared a report which was forwarded to this Court along with a medical certificate dated 10th March, 1993 and particulars of medical examination of Nurul Haque done on 11th March, 1993. In the report prepared by the Superintendent of Police, it was specifically stated, "Nural Haque neither died in police lock-up nor in police custody. He died while in judicial custody as UTP (undertrial prisoner). He was not tortured during the period of police custody."
4. To say the least, the report was not satisfactory. The inconsistency in the statement of facts made in the report was pointed out in the Order of this Court dated 24th January, 1994. It was noted in the Order that the report of the Superintendent of Police that "the P.M. Report did not indicate any external injury over the dead body" was factually incorrect and misleading. The Superintendent of Police, A.K Sinha Cashyap, was asked to explain the same by affidavit and he stated the word not had inadvertently appeared for which he tendered apology. This explanation was also found to be unsatisfactory. It was pointed out that deletion of not will leave the sentence grammatically incorrect. The senior police officers were reminded to show extracare while forwarding their comments to this Court and not to mechanically forward the information collected by their subordinates. The Court had called for the report of the Director General of Police because the Court reposed confidence in the objectivity of a person holding such a high office. It was further noted in the Order that another disturbing feature of the case was that the police had registered the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against unknown members of the public. The story given out by the police that the members of the public had beaten Nurul Haque before he was apprehended by the police was not borne out by the reaction of the public and also the Bar Association which had taken up the cause of Nurul Haque. Neither the report of medical examination done on 12th March, 1993 nor the laboratory report on the viscera had been forwarded. Having regard to the facts and especially to the fact that the deceased had suffered a fracture, the possibility of the injuries having been caused by the police could not be ruled out altogether. It was ordered :-
"Since the local police at the highest level have taken a stand that the assault on the deceased was by members of the public and not the police after the apprehension of the deceased, it is futile to expect an independent and wholly objective investigation by the State Police. Even otherwis
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
