SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 88

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., A. VARADARAJAN AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.
Anil Yadav and others, Petitioners
Versus
(1) The State of Bihar, and (2) Bachcho Lal Das, Respondents.
Criminal Misc. Petns. Nos. 8774 of 1980 and 2581 of 1981
Decided on 23-3-1982.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. L. Das, Petitioner (in Misc. Petition) in-person; Mr. K. G. Bhagat and Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocates, for the Respondent (State) Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocate, for Respondent (CBI).

Advocates:
B.L.DAS, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, K.G.Bhagat, R.N.Poddar

Headnote:

Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions - Inhuman torture imaginable - Penalty or punishment – Inquiry - Petitions are an off-shoot of blindings of undertrial prisoners at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar - Truth has a strange habit of revealing itself and in spite of the veil of secrecy behind which blindings of those prisoners lay concealed or suppressed, this Court and the country awoke one day to incredible fact that, in Bhagalpur, undertrial prisoners were subjected to most inhuman torture imaginable: their eyes were pierced with needles and acid poured into them - Whether these barbarous acts were committed by members of the public after prisoners were caught or by police after they were arrested, is not a matter directly in issue before us - Greater probability is that these acts may have been committed mostly by police - Application was forwarded by the petitioner to Chief Judicial Magistrate - Later, eleven prisoners made similar complaints which were forwarded by petitioner to learned Sessions judge, Bhagalpur, on July 30, 1980 - Complaints made by these prisoners unquestionably demanded most prompt and careful attention - Held, On a careful consideration of aforesaid affidavit and arguments advanced before us by parties, we find it difficult to accept petitioners contention that \order of suspension was passed by Government of Bihar mala fide, that is to say, as a counterblast to order passed by this Court and to defeat it - Question for inquiry in these miscellaneous petitions is very narrow and limited - Petitioner would be free to file his affidavit in spite of the order of suspension and in fact he has filed an affidavit in this Court after he was suspended - During course of arguments before us, he produced photostat copies of quite a few documents, which also show that the order of suspension is not calculated to interfere with direction given by this Court, asking petitioner to file his affidavit - If we had found that by reason of order of suspension petitioner was prevented from filing his affidavit, we would not have hesitated to ask Government of Bihar to supply copies of necessary documents to petitioner in order to enable him to file a full and complete affidavit in compliance with our order - Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

ORDER :— These Misc. Petitions are an off-shoot of the blindings of undertrial prisoners at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar. Truth has a strange habit of revealing itself and in spite of the veil of secrecy behind which the blindings of those prisoners lay concealed or suppressed, this Court and the country awoke one day to the incredible fact that, in Bhagalpur, undertrial prisoners were subjected to the most inhuman torture imaginable: their eyes were pierced with needles and acid poured into them. Whether these barbarous acts were committed by members of the public after the prisoners were caught or by the police after they were arrested, is not a matter directly in issue before us. The greater probability is that these acts may have been committed mostly by the police. But this much is certain, that six prisoners were thus blinded between Oct., 1979 and May 1980 and twelve between June 11 and July 25, 1980. The petitioner Bachcho Lal Das, who has filed these Misc. Petitions, had assumed charge as the Superintendent of the Bhagalpur Central Jail on Aprl. 19, 1979.

2. On Oct., 26, 1979 a prisoner by the name of Arjun Goswami was sent to the Bhagalpur Central Jail. On Nov., 20, 1979 he addressed an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, asking that an inquiry be held into the torture inflicted upon him, especially the blinding of his eyes. That application was forwarded by the petitioner to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Later, eleven prisoners made similar complaints which were forwarded by the petitioner to the learned Sessions judge, Bhagalpur, on July 30, 1980. The complaints made by these prisoners unquestionably demanded the most prompt and careful attention. But, instead of directing a full and proper inquiry into the allegations made by the undertrial prisoners, the learned Sessions Judge on Aug. 5, 1980, sent a cold and indifferent reply to the petitioners covering letter, saying that "there is no provision in the Cr. P. C. to provide a lawyer to any person for prosecuting a criminal case as a complaint" and that the petitions of the prisoners were forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, "for needful in accordance with law".

3. On Oct., 9, 1980, ten blinded prisoners filed a Habeas Corpus petition in this Court (Criminal Writ Petition No. 5352 of 1980) asking that : (1) they should be produced in the Court, (2) they should be examined by a Medical Board, (3) they should be paid compensation for the damage done to their eyes and that (4) the police officers guilty of committing atrocities upon them should be suitably punished. On Oct. 10, 1980 a Bench of this Court consisting of one of us, (the Chief Justice), and Justice A. D. Koshal passed the following order in that petition :

"We direct that the petitioners shall be examined by the Jail Doctor forthwith, and a report shall be submitted to this Court expeditiously in regard to the allegation in the petition that their eyes have been damaged by certain police officers by putting acid therein. The report shall be submitted within four weeks from today. The w. p. be listed for hearing after the report is received."

By his letter dated Oct. 31, 1980 the petitioner, who is respondent 2 in the Habeas Corpus petition, forwarded to this Court the report of the Jail Doctor on the condition of the eyes of the prisoners. The remaining 2 prisoners were already released and could not therefore be examined. The report of the Jail Doctor in regard to one of the prisoners, Anil Yadav is representative of the condition of all the eight of them and may be extracted here :

"(1) Presence of old burn sear around. both the eyelids of both the eyes and on left cheek.

(2) Collapse of both the eve balls.

(3) Perception of light and projection of rays absent, in both the eyes.

(4) Eye sight of both the eyes lost.

The cause is perforation of eye balls by bum with some corrosive substance and puncture by some sharp and pointed weapon.

From the records of Jail




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top