1. Custodial torture leading to alleged death — Conviction under Sections 304 Part II, 330, 331, 348, 387, 201, 202, 203, and 218, IPC — Challenge against conviction and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 826
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Manik & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1614-1618 of 2012
Decided on : 25-09-2024
Prosecution must establish identity and criminal culpability beyond reasonable doubt, especially in custodial death cases, where police accountability is critical.
Headnote:(A) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 302, 304, 330, 331, 342, 343, 348, 354, 385, 387, 201, 202, 203, 218 - Custodial torture leading to death - Conviction under various sections confirmed by High Court, except under Section 201 - State filed appeal against acquittal of certain accused - Respondent did not appeal acquittal under Section 201 - Conviction for custodial torture established, but questions regarding identification of the victim and alleged murder remained unresolved. (Paras 1, 10, 49)
(B) Legal Principles - The prosecution must prove the identities and crimes beyond a reasonable doubt - Homicidal death and the burden of proof per the established jurisprudence assessed with a focus on eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence. (Paras 31, 45)
(C) Finding that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient regarding the victim's identification crucial in establishing murder - Appeals for perpetrators dismissed based on lack of evidence proving the alleged crime unequivocally. (Paras 49, 50)
Findings of Court:
The High Court confirmed that custodial torture, as indicated through witness statements, was evident but failed to prove homicide conclusively due to procedural lapses, particularly in victim identification.
Issues: Whether the evidence sufficiently proved homicide by police custodians and whether the necessary procedural safeguards were observed.
Ratio Decidendi: Failure to establish victim identity and burden of proof not met for murder charges, while abuse of authority and subsequent acquittals highlight systemic issues within law enforcement.
Result: Appeals allowed in part; convictions under certain offences maintained, while others quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenge convictions for custodial death and torture — Prosecution contends custodial torture culminated in death and evidence was destroyed to conceal the crime. (Para 4 , 10 )
3. Failure to prove identity of recovered body is fatal when prosecution claims recovery — Defence evidence of victim being alive creates reasonable doubt — Omissions in testimony amount to contradictions. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 30 , 31 , 36 , 41 , 43 , 46 )
4. If prosecution claims recovery of a body but fails to prove its identity, it cannot subsequently rely on the principle that a body is not essential for conviction. (Para 30 )
5. Appellants acquitted of offences under Sections 304 Part II, 331, 201, 202, 203, and 218, IPC; convictions under Sections 330, 348, and 387, IPC confirmed. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 )
6. Is the recovery of a dead body mandatory for a conviction of murder or culpable homicide?
No, it is not an absolute necessity. However, if the prosecution claims a body was recovered and fails to prove its identity, it cannot then argue the body is untraceable to sustain a conviction. (Para 29 , 30 )
7. What is the standard of proof required for an accused to establish a defense plea?
The accused does not need to meet the prosecution's standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; they must establish their case through a preponderance of probabilities. (Para 14 , 41 , 43 , 44 )
8. When does an omission in a witness's testimony amount to a contradiction?
An omission to state a fact amounts to a contradiction if it militates against the core of the prosecution's case, thereby affecting the credibility of the witness. (Para 36 )
9. How is evidence of custodial torture evaluated when police officers are the accused?
While police officers have exclusive knowledge of events in custody, convictions for death require proof of the factum of death, even if custodial torture is established. (Para 11 , 12 , 50 )
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. In these quintuplet appeals, the appellants-convicts who stood the trial in Sessions Trial No.21 of 1996 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia for the charge of commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and/or various other offences under the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) are challenging the common judgment dated 12.07.2011 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 71, 76, 77 and 88 of 1997 whereby and whereunder their conviction and consequential sentences, handed down by the trial Court except under Section 201 read with Section 34 , IPC, were confirmed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. For the sake of convenience appellants are referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with the order of their rank as accused before the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.1614/2018 stood abated as the sole appellant who was the first accused and the sole appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.64/1997, died on 06.03.2022 and hence, the rest of the appellants in the appeals are, at times, commonly referred to as ‘appellant-convicts’. The appellant-convicts stood the trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 330, 331, 342, 343, 348, 354, 385, 387, 193, 201, 202, 203, and 218 read with Section 34 , IPC, in connection with the death of one Shama @ Kaliya s/o Nanu Uke. Though accused No.8 (Sudhir s/o Rambhau Kayarkar) and accused No.9 (Ganesh s/o Raghuji Turkar) were acquitted of the twin offences charged against them under Sections 201 and 202, IPC, read with Section 34 , IPC, the respondent State did not file an appeal against their acquittal before the High Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the offence(s) for which each one of the appellant-convicts (accused Nos. 2 to 7) was convicted and the sentence(s) imposed therefor, by the trial Court, can be enumerated as under: -
| Accused Number | IPC offence(s) for which conviction was entered and the consequential sentence(s) imposed |
| A2 (Ravindra) & A4 (Hans Raj) | Section 304 Part I I read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- each. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj) & A5 (Vishnu) | Section 331 read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj) & A5 (Vishnu) | Sections 330 , 348, & 387 read with Section 34 , IPC and sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. |
| A3 (Manohar), A5 (Vishnu), A6 (Vishwanath) & A7 (Dilip) | Section 202 read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo 3 months of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- each. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj), A5 (Vishnu), A6 (Vishwanath) & A7 (Dilip) | Section 203 , IPC. – No separate sentence was imposed. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj), A5 (Vishnu), A6 (Vishwanath) & A7 (Dilip) | Section 201 and 218 read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. |
3. All the corporeal punishments of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant-convicts were directed to be run concurrently. Default sentences were also ordered in respect of sentences for payment of fine.
4. Against the judgment of conviction, accused Nos.6 and 7 jointly filed Criminal Appeal No.65/1997, accused Nos. 2 and 4 jointly filed Criminal Appeal No.76/1997, accused Nos. 3 and 5 separately filed Criminal Appeal No.77/1997 and 71/1997 respectively and the State filed Criminal Appeal No.88/1997 against all the convicts. Obviously, the State challenged acquittal of all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 354 read with Section 34 , IPC, while the aforesaid accused persons challenged their conviction under all the aforesaid sections for which they were convicted and
