Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 707
2011 (1) N.C.C. 306
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur
Criminal Appeal No. 2047-2049 of 2010
C.B.I. – Appellant
Versus
KISHORE SINGH & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 25.10.2010
For the Respondents: Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advs., Gp. Cap. Karan Singh Bhati, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mr. Kuber Bodh, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Mr. Rasheed Khan, Mr. Yash Wardhan Tiwari, Advs.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 57 and Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(2) — Requirements under — When a person is brought to the police station and locked up there — Obviously he is under arrest — Art. 22(2) of the Constitution requires that within 24 hours of the arrest the arrested person must be produced before a magistrate — Non-production of such before the Magistrate within that prescribed period of time amounts to offence u/s 342 of Penal Code by the Police Officer incharge of such police station. (Paras 25, 26)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 326, 342, 335 — Cutting off of penis of person lockedup in the police station — It cannot be said there was a sudden grave provocation so as to attract Sec 335 IPC — Rather it was a premeditated act by accused to carry a sharp edged weapon with him — Policemen do not normally carry any sharp edged weapon — It was a barbaric act on the part of the accused and he deserves no leniency — Such policemen who commit criminal acts deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and not break the law themselves — Accused found guilty of the offence u/s 326 r/w sec 120B IPC. (Paras 19, 30 to 33)
¼v½ n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 57 vkSj Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 22¼2½ & ds vUrxZr vis{kk;sa & tc fdlh O;fDr dks Fkkus esa yk;k tkrk gS vkSj gokykr esa cUn dj fn;k tkrk gS rks Li"V :i ls og vfHkj{kk esa gksrk gS & lafoèkku ds vuqPNsn 22¼2½ ds vUrxZr ;g vko';d gS fd ml fxj¶rkj O;fDr dks 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj fdlh n.Mkf/kdkjh ds lEeq[k is'k fd;k tk, & fuf'pr vof/k ds Hkhrj ,sls O;fDr dks n.Mkf/kdkjh ds lEeq[k is'k uk fd;s tkus ls Fkkuk izHkkjh ds fo#) /kkjk 342 vk ih lh ds rgr vijk/k cu tkrk gSA ¼izLrj 25] 26½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 326] 342] 335 & iqfyl Fkkus esa cUn O;fDr dk fyax dkVk tkuk & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd dksbZ vdLekr mdlkus okyh ifjfLFkfr /kkjk 335 vk ih lh ds ykxw gksus ds okLrs Fkh cfYd vijk/kh }kjk ;g iwoZ fu;ksftr dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk tcfd og vius lkFk rst /kkj okyk gfFk;kj ysdj vk;k Fkk & iqfyleSu lkekU; :i ls vius lkFk rst /kkj okyk gfFk;kj ysdj ugha pyrk & vfHk;qDr ds }kjk ccZjrk okyk dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj og ujekbZ cjrs tkus ;ksX; ugha Fkk & ,sls iqfyleSu tks vijkf/kd dR; djrs gSa] dks dM+h ltk] vke yksxksa dh rqyuk esa nh tkuh pkfg, D;ksafd yksxksa dh lqj{kk djuk iqfyl dk drZO; gS uk fd muds }kjk dkuwu Hkax fd;k tk, & vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 326 vk ih lh lifBr /kkjk 120B ds vUrxZr vijk/k dk nks"kh ik;k x;kA ¼izLrj 19] 30 ls 33½
Markandey Katju, J. — Leave granted.
2. What should be done to policemen who “Bobbitt” a person in a police station and think that they can get away with it? That is the question to be decided in this case.
3. These appeals by special leave have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2008 passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006, SB Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 & SB Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006 of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.
4. This case reveals how some policemen in our country have not got over their old colonial mentality and are still persisting in barbaric acts in a free country which claims to be run by a democratic Constitution and the rule of law. It also reveals a grisly state of affairs prevailing in our police set up even today.
5. Heard Mr. J.S. Atri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, CBI, Mr. KTS Tulsi, learned senior counsel for respondent constable Kishore Singh, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for respondent Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumer Dan and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing for respondent S.H.O. Sohan Singh.
6. The prosecution case is that one Jugta Ram, the injured witness in this case, was an employee of one Bheru Singh and was working in his liquor shop. Jugta Ram also lived in the house of Bheru Singh in one room of the upper floor, while the family of Bheru Singh was living in the ground floor. Bheru Singh had two sons and three daughters. Jugta Ram is said to have had an affair with Bheru Singh’s wife and eldest daughter. This was suspected by Bheru Singh, whose relative was accused constable Kishore Singh.
7. On 2.2.1994, at about 8 P.M. Jugta Ram was carrying a bottle of liquor when accused constable Kishore Singh met him and snatched the liquor bottle and in the course of the scuffle the bottle fell down and got broken. Kishore Singh then took Jugta Ram to the Sadar police station where the accused SHO Sohan Singh and some policemen were also present. Sohan Singh allegedly assaulted Jugta Ram and at that time Bheru Singh also came to the police station. Accused Kishore Singh, constable, is the son of Bheru Singh’s brother-in-law (sala).
8. Jugta Ram was taken to the police station on 2.2.1994 and kept locked up there till 5.2.1994. He was beaten up in the police lockup by Bheru Singh, constable Kishore Singh and A.S.I. Sumer Dan. On 4.2.1994 at about 2 or 3 P.M., Jugta Ram’s brother Kheraj Ram came to the police station and he stated that the policemen demanded Rs. 40-50 thousand otherwise Jugta Ram will not be released.
9. On 5.2.1994, Jugta Ram was again assaulted by Bheru Singh, Sumer Dan and Kishore Singh who kept asking about his illicit relationship and then he stated that he had illicit relationship with Gaj Kanwar, wife of Bheru Singh. At this, Bheru Singh and Sumer Dan caught hold of Jugta Ram. Accused A.S.I. Sumer Dan held Jugta Ram by the neck and put his hand on his mouth and then accused constable Kishore Singh chopped off Jugta Ram’s penis with a sharp edged weapon (‘ustra’ or barber’s razor). At this, Jugta Ram became unconscious and when he gained consciousness he found that he was admitted in Barmer hospital.
10. Jugta Ram related the story to the doctors in the hospital and also his brother Kheraj Ram who came there with some persons.
11. The police registered the F.I.R. of Jugta Ram on 5.2.1994 under sub-Section 307/326. Initially the investigation was handed over to the Additional S.P., Barmer, but thereafter it was transferred to the C.I.D., Crime Branch which added the offences of Sections 343 and 120B I.P.C. Thereafter, at the instance of the State Government the investigation was transferred to the C.B.I., which investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet.
12. The accused denied the prosecution case, but the trial court found all the three accused guilty vide its judgment dated 21.12.2005. The fourth accused Bheru Singh died during the trial.
13. The trial court sentenced accused Kishore
