The protection of S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act cannot be extended to police officers accused of beating or confining persons in the course of investigation.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. - This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated July 24, 1964 in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1963.

2. The respondents - Atmaram and Uttam - are Head Constables and respondent Bhikaji is a police Constable. All the three of them were attached to Jalgaon Police Station in Buldhana District in September 1962. On September 1, 1962, one Akaram went to the police station to report that his brother Lahanu has disappeared. The Sub-Inspector in-charge of the Police Station recorded the information in the Station Diary and ordered respondent No. 1, Atmaram to enquire into the matter and report. Respondent No. 1 reached Sungaon village on September 3, 1962 and sent for Smt. Shiwanti, Dwarki, Jumma and Sukha Ram s/o Kishan in the Baithak of Police Patel and made enquiries. All these persons denied having any knowledge about Lahanu. They were assaulted by respondent No. 1 and detained in the Baithak of Police Patel till the evening when they were taken by him to the office of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 1 sent an interim report on September 4, 1962 requesting for more police help. Uttam, respondent No. 2 and Bhikaji, respondent No. 3 along with another Constable arrived in response to his request. Dwarki was detained in the office of the Gram Panchayat but the other three persons were taken out to the Jungle and assaulted. On the way back Jumma was stripped naked and kept hanging from a Salai tree. All these persons were detained that night in the office of the Gram Panchayat. On account of ill treatment meted out to them Shiwanti and Sukha Ram s/o Kishan made false confessional statements before respondent No. 1 involving Jumma for the murder of Lahanu. These statements were recorded by respondent No. 1. On the morning of September 5, 1962 respondent No. 1 submitted another report to the Station Officer incorporating the alleged confessions. On receipt of this report a case under S. 302, Indian Penal Code was registered in the Crime Register and Shri Dokhe himself proceeded to the spot for enquiry where he found all the detained persons in the office of the Gram Panchayat. Senior Police Officers later on got suspicious and made enquiries and found that Lahanu was alive and he actually appeared before them. On September 9, 1962 two complaints were received, one from Sukha Ram s/o Kishan and the other from his brother and after further enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer a case for wrongful confinement and ill treatment for extorting confession was registered against the respondents. After investigation a charge sheet was submitted under Ss. 330, 342, 343, 348, Indian Penal Code against the respondents. On September 30, 1963, the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon convicted respondent No. 1 for offences under Ss. 330, 342, 343, 348, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each of the offences. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under S. 330 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. The respondents filed an appeal in the High Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1963. The High Court took the view that the prosecution of the respondents was barred under S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act an accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions and sentences imposed upon the respondents.

3. In State of Maharashtra v. Narharrao, Cri Appeal No. 214 of 1966, judgment in which has been pronounced just now, we have considered the true legal effect of S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. We have expressed the view in that case that there must be a reasonable connection or nexus between the alleged act and the duty or authority imposed upon the officer under the Bombay Police Act or any other enactment conferring powers on the police under the colour of which the act may be said to have been done. Unless there is a reasonable conn