2003(6) Supreme 748
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan -Appellant
versus
Vasant Raghunath Dhoble & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 1996
Decided on 8-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, S.M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta, Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, Advocates.
For the Respondents : V.S. Kotwal, Shekhar Naphde, Sr. Advocates, Unni Krishnan, Rishi Agarwal, Advocate for E.C. Agrawala, Advocate Arun Pednekar and Ravindra Keshavrao, Adsure, Advocates.
Penal Code of India, 1860,Sections 330 and331 - sConstitution of India, Articles 20(3), 21 and 22 - Compensation for Custodial death - The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted peril because guardians of law destroy the human rights by custodial violence and torture and invariably resulting in death- Though Sections 330 and 331 make punishable those persons who cause hurt for the purpose of extorting the confession by making the offence punishable with sentences up to 10 years of imprisonment, but the convictions, have been very few as there is hardly any oral evidence- Trial court, found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 Part II IPC - High Court rightly acquitted the accused on the ground of delay of more than one year- If really there was merciless beatings with such brutal force that a hockey stick broke and the beating was given for more than one hour, the result would not have been 16 simple injuries with no fractures or internal rupture However in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution State Government directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the mother and the children of the deceased. [Paras 6 to 10 and 28 to 37]
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-"If you once forfeit the confidence of our fellow citizens you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time", Said Abraham Lincoln. This Court in Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 SC 1087), took note of these immortal observations while deprecating custodial torture by the police.
2. Custodial violence, torture and abuse of police power are not peculiar to this country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which marked the emergence of a worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights stipulates in Article 5 that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment". Despite this pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilized nation shows its concern and makes efforts for its eradication.
3. If it is assuming alarming proportions, now a days, all around it is merely on account of the devilish devices adopted by those at the helm of affairs who proclaim from roof tops to be the defenders of democracy and protectors of peoples rights and yet do not hesitate to condescend behind the screen to let loose their men in uniform to settle personal scores, feigning ignorance of what happens and pretending to be peace loving puritans and saviours of citizens rights.
4. Article 21 which is one of the luminary provisions in the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) and is a part of the scheme for fundamental rights occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The Article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code ) deals with the powers of arrest of persons and the safeguards required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the arrested person. Articles 20(3) and 22 of the Constitution further manifest the constitutional protection extended to every citizen and the guarantees held out for making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is therefore difficult to comprehend how torture and custodial violence can be permitted to defy the rights flowing from the Constitution. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in custody which have assumed alarming proportions raise serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system. The community rightly gets disturbed. The cry for justice becomes louder and warrants immediate remedial measures. This Court has in a large number of cases expressed concern at the atrocities perpetuated by the protectors of law. Justice Brandies s observation which have become classic are in following immortal words:
"Government as the omnipotent and omnipresent teacher teaches the whole people by its example, if the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law into himself", (in (1928) 277 U.S. 438, quoted in (1961) 367 U.S. 643 at 659).
5. The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted peril because guardians of law destroy the human rights by custodial violence and torture and invariably resulting in death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose
Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana
Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P.
Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Ugar Ahir & Ors. v. The State of Bihar
Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Shri D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Krishna Mochi & Ors. v. State of Bihar etc.
Gangadhar Behera & Ors. v. State of Orissa
Balaka Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr.
Bhagwan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Kewal Pati (Smt.) v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Inder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors.
Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India & Anr.
Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Rizan & Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.