Back
2011 Supreme(Ker) 284
High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. HEMA
P. Prakash I.P.S.
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By the Public Prosecutor & Another
Crl.MC.No. 2847 of 2006
Decided on : 18-03-2011
The protection under Section 197(1) of the Code does not apply if the offending acts have no reasonable connection to the acts necessary to perform and complete a particular duty.
Headnote:
Custodial Violence - Protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 197(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an IPS officer, allegedly inflicted custodial violence on a person called to the police station for questioning. The petitioner assaulted the complainant, denuded and detained him, and forced him to sign blank papers. The complainant was also wrongfully detained and manhandled on multiple occasions.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the scope of Section 197(1) of the Code and concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to protection under this section. The court emphasized that the protection under Section 197(1) does not apply if the offending acts have no reasonable connection to the acts necessary to perform and complete a particular duty. The court also rejected the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition under Section 482 of the Code.
Issues: The crucial issue was the application and scope of Section 197(1) of the Code, specifically whether the alleged offences were committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of the petitioner's official duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established a three-question test to determine the applicability of Section 197(1) of the Code, focusing on the particular official duty, the act or acts necessary to perform and complete such duty, and the reasonable connection between the offending acts and the duty. The court also emphasized that custodial violence is not a part of a police officer's duty and is condemned by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court refused the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition under Section 482 of the Code.
1. If a police officer, in the course of investigation, allegedly inflicts custodial violence on a person, who is called to police station for questioning, is he entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short)? Is it enough, if a police officer establishes that offences were allegedly committed by him, "in the course of investigation", to get protection under Section 197 of the Code? What is meant by the expression, "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty", referred to in section 197 of the Code? Is there any difference between the expressions "in the course of discharge of" and "in the discharge of" official duty? Mainly, these few questions arise for consideration in this case.
2. Facts briefly: A private complaint was filed by second respondent(complainant) before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court inter alia, stating that he is an Engineer working in a reputed automobile body construction company and on 11.5.2006, he was called to the police station, stating that petitioner wanted some enquiry to be made about some case which was under investigation. Petitioner is an IPS officer. He was working as Station House Officer in a police station, as part of the training.
3. The complainant appeared before petitioner on 11.5.2006 by about 11 a.m., when he was told by the latter that during investigation into a chain-snatching case (Crime No.191/2006) against one Biju, it was revealed that complainant's motor cycle was used for committing the offence. The complainant was also asked to furnish the address and details of the said Biju. The complainant-respondent did not know any such person and he expressed his helplessness to furnish details.
4. Petitioner grew furious and he assaulted complainant. He also took help of other police constables (who are the co-accused) to assault him. Thereafter, complainant was denuded, except for an underwear and he was detained in the lock-up. During the odd ours of that night, co-accused entered lock-up and manhandled complainant again, and after about 6 hours of continuous torture, complainant was made to sign three blank white papers given by accused.
5. On the next day morning ie., on 12. 5. 2006, complainant was released by petitioner, with a direction to gather information and details regarding Biju and report the details to him. His motor cycle was detained at the police station, as a security to ensure compliance of the direction. The complainant straight away went to Government Hospital and got him examined there. He also got a discharge on request and on 14.05.2006, he filed a private complaint (CMP 2257/2006) before the Magistrate Court against petitioner and co-accused others, alleging various offences, in respect of the incidents which took place on 11.5.2006 and 12.5.2006.
6. While the matter was pending in court, on 15.5.2006, complainant was again called to police station, stating that it was to release his vehicle. When he went to the police station, petitioner along with some police constables again attacked him brutally with iron rods, lathis, stick etc., and threatened him that he would be implicated in many offences, if he did not withdraw the private complaint filed against petitioner. The complainant was also wrongfully detained in the police lock-up along with Biju, who was arraigned as 1st accused in the theft case (Crime No.191/2006). He was manhandled for two days in police lock-up and he was not even given any food or water on the 15th.
7. The complaint which was filed by complainant on the 14th had been posted for recording sworn statement to 18.05. 2006. On knowing that complainant was under illegal detention, complainant's counsel sought for issuance of search warrant and search warrant was issued production of complainant in court. The court staff went to the police station with search warrant and police produced complainant before learned Magistrate, on 16.5.2006 at
