IMPORTANT POINT
Its is ironical that a person who complained against a policeman for bribery, was done to death by that policeman and the Station House Officer under the guise of Sanctum Sanctorum.

JUDGMENT

Chandrachud, C.J. - This is an appeal by the State of U.P. against be judgment of a

learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur against the four respondents. Respondents 1 and 2, Ram Sagar Yadav and Shobha Nath alias Pujari, were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 304, Part 2, of the Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for' seven years. Respondent 1 was also convicted under section 220 of the Penal Code for keeping a person in confinement corruptly and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Respondents 3 and 4 were convicted under section 304, Part 2 of the Penal Code and were Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

2. Respondent 1, Ram Sagar Yadav, was the Station House Officer of the Hussainganj, Police Station, District Fatehpur, while the remaining three respondents were attached to that Police Station as constables. On the morning of August 29, 1969 respondents 3 and 4 went to village Haibatpur, arrested the deceased Brijlal and brought him to the Police Station at about 10.00 A.M. Brijlal died the same day at about 6.00 P.M. due to the injuries which were caused to him between the time that he was brought to the Police Station and the forenoon of August 29.

3. The cast of the prosecution is that the respondents wanted to extort illegal gratification from Brijlal in connection with a complaint, which was filed against him by one Faheeman Faqirin for cattle trespass. Respondent 2, Shobha Nath had succeeded in obtaining a sum of Rs. 100/- from Brijlal with an assurance that no steps will be taken against him in that complaint. Respondent 2 demanded a further sum of Rs. 200/- from Brijlal for hushing up the case, which the latter refused to pay. Instead, on August 7, 1969 he sent a complaint (Exhibit Ka-2)to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, complaining that a bribe was being demanded from him by respondent 2, a policeman of the Hussainganj Police Station. That complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to respondent 1 for inquiry and report. Being incensed by the 'audacity' of Brijlal in complaining against a policeman under his charge, respondent 1 sent respondents 3 and 4 to bring Brijlal to the Police Station in order that he Could be taught a proper lesson. That is the had damaged her crop, there was no complaint or charge against him.

4. We have heard this appeal at reasonable length and both Shri M.R. Sharma. Advocate, who appears on behalf of the appellant, and Shri R. K. Garg, Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondents, have taken us through the relevant evidence and the judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Court. Upon a consideration of that evidence, we find it impossible to sustain the judgment of the High Court. It has totally overlooked crucial evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case and, with respect, taking an unrealistic view of unequivocal facts, it has not even adverted to the reasons given by the trial court in support of its conclusion that the respondents are guilty of the offences of which it convicted them.

5. The record of the case is disproportionately bulky to the narrow points, which is involved in the case. It is not an unusual experience that the wood is missed for the trees when a Judge is confronted with a jumbled-up mass of data, relevant and irrelevant. It is necessary in such cases to find out the central point of the case and to concentrate upon evidence which bears upon that point. Petty details which before. the real issue and minor contradictions in the evidence which are inevitable when a story is narrated under the stress of a grave crime, ought not to be permitted to tilt the scales of justice. The more a Judge gets bogged down in superfluous details, the greater is the likelihood of his straying away from evidence, which can clinch the issue. In the instant