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

2019 Supreme(Bom) 2214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Sadhana S Jadhav, JJ.
Leonard Xavier Valdaris - Appellant
Versus
Officer-in-charge, Wadala Railway Police Station, Mumbai - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2110 of 2014
Decided On : 19-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Payoshi Roy, Advocate, Yug Mohit Chaudhary & Ajay Basutkar, Advocate, H.S. Venegaonkar, Advocate, M.M. Deshmukh, Advocate

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 118, 119, 166, 166A, 193, 195A, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 217, 220, 295A, 324, 302, 392, 439, 224 and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 174 and 176 - Sexual Abuse And Torture - Custodial Death - Petitioner No - 1 herein happens to be an unfortunate father who died in custody of police station and petitioner nos-2 and 3 are accused registered at police station - Petitioners have prayed to this court mainly to take stringent action against delinquent police officers who are responsible for custodial death of son of petitioner no - 1 and custodial sexual abuse and torture of petitioner nos-2 and 3 - Pursuant to directions of this court and directions of apex court - This court had passed several directions and called for papers of investigation - On division bench was informed that CBI has filed a charge sheet – However investigation as far as offences under provisions are concerned were in progress - Held, When he is in duress either because he is held by investigating agency or other police or allied authority or is under control of court having been remanded by judicial order, or having offered himself to court jurisdiction and submitted to its orders by physical presence no lexical dexterity nor presidential profusion is needed to come to realistic conclusion that he who is under control of court or is in physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for purpose - This word is of elastic semantics but its core meaning is that law has taken control of person - Equivocatory quibbling and hide-and-seek niceties sometimes heard in court that police have taken a man into informal custody but not arrested him have detained him for interrogation but not taken him into formal custody and other like terminological dubieties are unfair evasions of straightforwardness of law – Order Accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. - The Petitioner No. 1 herein happens to be an unfortunate father of one Agnello @ Richie, who died in the custody of Wadala Police Station and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the accused in C.R. No. 49 of 2014 registered at Wadala Police Station on 11/4/2014. The petitioners have prayed to this Court mainly to take stringent action against delinquent police officers, who are responsible for the custodial death of son of Petitioner No. 1 and the custodial sexual abuse and torture of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Pursuant to the directions of this Court and directions of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 , this Court had passed several directions and called for the papers of investigation. On 24/2/2016 the Division Bench (presided over by the Hon''ble Shri Justice V.M. Kanade) was informed that CBI has filed a chargesheet. However, the investigation as far as offences under the provisions of POCSO are concerned were in progress.

3. As on today we are informed that the charge-sheet has been filed for offence under section 118, 119, 166, 166A, 193, 195A, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 217, 220, 295(A), 324 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, it is prayed by the Petitioners to direct the respondents to file charge-sheet under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and further pass an order that charges be framed against delinquent officers for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the factual matrix of the case which demonstrate the circumstances in which the petitioners are praying for addition of charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The factual matrix is as follows :

(i) On 11/4/2014 FIR was registered at Wadala Police Station by one Shriniwas Kisan Viramallu at about 1.35 a.m. alleging therein that on 10/4/2014 he was dropped at Wadala Railway station by his friend and he was to go home to Dockyard Road. At about 9.10 p.m. he had boarded a local going to CST station. 3 to 4 young unknown boys had taken seat in front of him. He had given description of the said boys. Since he wanted to alight at Dockyard Road railway station, he had proceeded towards exit door. He was followed by the four boys. They had robbed him of his golden chain, finger ring, a watch and a cash of Rs. 1100/- by threatening him.

(iii) On the basis of his statement, Crime No. 49 of 2014 was registered at Wadala Railway Police Station against unknown persons for offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The scribe of the said FIR was ASI V.M. Pathan.

(iv) In the midnight of 15/4/2014 and 16/4/2014 Wadala Police had arrested petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and then had proceeded to the house of the petitioner No. 1. His son Agnello was not at home. He was staying with his grand-parents. The police had taken the petitioner No. 1 to the house of his parents and had searched the house. Son of the petitioner No. 1 i.e. Agnello @ Richi was taken into custody by the police and they had asked the petitioner No. 1 to meet them in the court on the next day. Petitioner No. 1 had exchanged cell phone numbers with the police whose name was Suryawanshi.

(v) On 16th April, 2014 brother of accused Suffian (petitioner No. 2) informed petitioner No. 1 that the police had told him that Petitioner No. 1 was ready to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs to the police and that other 3 accused would be dealt with. The Petitioner No. 1 denied the said allegations.

(vi) On 17th April, 2014 the petitioner No. 1 was called to the police station as ACP and DCP had been there. The petitioner No. 1 suspected that there is demand of illegal gratification. At about 4 p.m. petitioner No.1 had learnt that Agnello @ Richie was not produced before the court and therefore, he alongwith his friend Narayan Kutkuri proceeded to CST railway court and met the accused Sufian a

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top