IMPORTANT POINT
The findings of the Commission of Inquiry that there is no reliable and independent material to hold that the undertrial prisoner was ill-treated in police custody is not binding on the Supreme Court when the court has arrived to its own conclusion on the independent assessment of the persuasive evidence that the prisoner was subjected to ill-treatment by the police for extorting a confession or any information leading to the detention of stolen articles in a theft case.

JUDGMENT

S. RatnaveI Pandian, J. - The appellant, Sham Kant who was aged about 24 years at the relevant period of the occurrence in question Le. in June 1980 was acting as Sub- Inspector in Ramtek Police Station in the State of Maharashtra. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated arc as follows:

2. For the sake of convenience, we address this appellant as accused No.1 as arrayed before the trial Court alongwith six others who were accused Nos. 2 to 7.

On the intervening night of 23rd/24th June 1980, there was a house-breaking in the Shantinath Jain Temple, Ramtek. A brass idol and some silver ornaments called Chhatra worth about Rs. 4,500/- were stolen from the temple. The priest of the temple, Bhorumal lodged a complaint in respect of this incident on 24th June 1980 at Ramtek Police Station. On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 96/1980 under sections 452 and 380, I.P.C. As the regular Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr. Bukhari attached to that Police Station was on leave, the accused No.1 was acting as the Station House Officer. He entrusted the investigation of this case to accused No.2, a Head Constable. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were Head Constables of the Station and Accused No.5 to 7 were the constables. They were all assisting accused No.2 in the investigation which was under the supervision and guidance of accused No.1.

3. One Ratiram Raut (who is since dead) and P.W. 13 (Motiram Bagde) were taken into custody as suspects in connection with theft of the brass idol evidently for interrogation on the night of 25th June. Both of them were taken to the Shantinath Jain Temple. Some more suspects namely one Ramu, Ramesh and Habib were also taken into custody by the police. According to the prosecution, they were all beaten by the police during the interrogation by means of leather belt, tyre belt called Gangaram and canes besides being assaulted with fists and kicks in order to extract a confession of their guilt and to recover the stolen property. Inspite of the inhuman treatment meted out by the police, no information could be gathered from anyone of them during that night. On the next day morning, the suspects Ratiram and Motiram were taken to the police station and were shown as if they have been apprehended only at 4.00 p.m. on 26th June 1980. They infact were taken into custody even on the night of 25th June. At the police station also they were tortured but there was no fruitful result. On the following day i.e. 27.6.1980 they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek who on a request by the police granted police custody of Ratiram and Motiram till 3.7.1980. During the period of police custody, they were intermittently interrogated, taken to the temple and tortured. On 29.6.1980, one Hazari and Ismail (P.W. 19) happened to be at the Ramtek Police Station. Ratiram and Motiram showed their injuries on their person and complained about police torture. On that night, P.W. 19 telephonically contacted the superior police officers including the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur and requested the S.P. to instruct the first accused not to beat Ratiram and Motiram. The S.P. assured to look into the matter personally. It is said that as the first accused was not available, the constable on duty was instructed to inform the first accused not to torture the undertrial prisoners. On the evening of 30.6.1980, Ratiram and Motiram were produced before the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Parseoni to have them medically examined as the Medical Officer, Ramtek was not available. By then, the regular Station House Officer, Mr. B ukhari returned from leave. Mr. Bukhari and accused No.1 met the medical officer, P.W. 7. It is in the evidence of P.W.7 that he on examination found as many as R superficial abrasions with scab formation, one infected superficial ulcer on front of left knee join~ and one ulcer on each of the two buttocks on the person of Ratiram. He also found infected int