T.N.K. Singh, J.

1. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in the custody which have assumed alarming proportion raise serious question about the credibility to the Rule of Law and administration of criminal systems. No doubt it is true that the cry for justice is so loud that it deafens ear of the peace loving citizens of India that they cannot live in a peaceful atmosphere and they are disturbed with the apprehension that they may be one of the victims of torture and assault in the custody of the law protector in uniform.

2. The Constitution of India is adorned with Articles 20, 21 and 22 which are almost in consonance with the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly 217A(iii) of 10th December, 1948. Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, read as follows:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex language religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3: Everyone has the right of life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

3. The word "life" has been used, prominently in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. "Life" is recognized as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and it has to have the same meaning and interpretation as had been placed with that word by the Apex Court its various decisions relating to Article 211 the Constitution of India. The meaning of words "life" cannot be narrowed down. Lord Diplock in Salomon v. Commnr of Customs & Excise (1996) 3 All ER 871 states that there is a prima facie presumption that the Parliamentarian does not intend to act in breach of international law. Again, Lord Bridge in Brind v. Secy of State for Home Department(1991) 1 All ER 720 observed that it is well settled that, in construing any provision in domestic legislation which is ambiguous in the sense that it is capable of a meaning which either conforms to or conflicts with the internal law conventions, the court would presume that parliament intended to legislate in conformity with the conventions and not in conflict with it.

4. Disturbed by the situation of having the difficulty of proving the torture of the citizen of India by the protector of law in uniform in their custody, the Law Commission in its 113th report recommended the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to provide that in the prosecution of a police officer for the alleged offence of having caused bodily injuries to a person while in police custody, if there is evidence that the injury was caused during the period when the person was in police custody, the court may presume that the injury was caused by the police officer having the custody of that person during that period unless the officer proved to the contrary. The onus to prove the contrary must be discharged by the police official concerned.

5. Admittedly, the most precious of the precious fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen of India by the Constitution of India is the right of life. The most precious right to life is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Justice Bhagwati (as then he w