Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Pravat Chandra Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
The State of Odisha and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 125, 126 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6174, 6224 of 2020
Decided On : 11-02-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304, 342, 323, 294, 201 167, 477-A, 471 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320 – Custodial death – Compounding of offence – Statutory requirement makes it a clear duty of Court to look into nature of offence and evidence and to satisfy itself whether permission should be or should not be granted – Administration of criminal justice requires prosecution of all offenders by State – Prosecution by State is policy of law because all offences are against society – Offenders have to bring to Courts and punished for their offences to maintain peace and order in society – It is duty of prosecution to ensure that no offender goes scot-free without being punished for an offence – Innocent should not be punished – Nature of offence and its affect on society are relevant considerations while granting leave by Court of compounding offence – Offences which affect public in general and create fear in public in general are serious offences, nature of which offence may be relevant consideration for Court to grant or refuse leave – Both accused have mercilessly beaten deceased in premises of Police Station – Eleven injuries were caused on body of deceased by accused – Police of State is protector of law and order – People look forward to Police to protect their life and property – People go to Police Station with hope that their person and property will be protected by police and injustice and offence committed on them shall be redressed and guilty be punished – When protector of people and society himself instead of protecting people adopts brutality and inhumanly beat the person who comes to police station, it is a matter of great public concern – Beating of a person in Police Station is concern for all and causes a sense of fear in entire society – Present is a case where this Court is not to grant leave for compounding offences under Section 324 IPC – Custodial violence on deceased which led to death is abhorrent and not acceptable in civilized society – Offence committed by accused is crime not against deceased alone but was against humanity and clear violations of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution – Although High Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs in favour of legal representatives of deceased, compensation awarded was not adequate – Sentence awarded to appellants under Section 324 IPC of one year is reduced to six months with enhancement of compensation to Rs. 3.5 lacs each in addition to compensation awarded by High Court to be paid to legal heirs of deceased. (Paras 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, 43 and 44)
Facts of the case:
These two appeals by accused have been filed against the common judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 09.11.2020 dismissing the Criminal Appeal Nos. 207 and 210 of 1988 filed by the appellants. Both the appellants being the accused in Lal Bagh P.S. Case No. 273 of 1985 were tried in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 1985 for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 342, 323, 294, 201 167, 477-A, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Sessions Judge convicted accused Pratap Kumar Choudhury under Section 304 (Part II) IPC to undergo R.I. for eight years and accused Pravat Chandra Mohanty under Section 304 (Part II) to undergo R.I. for five years. Both accused were further sentenced under Section 471 IPC read with Section 466 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and R.I. for three months under Section 342 IPC and R.I. for one month under Section 323 IPC. Question arises as to while granting leave of the Court for composition of offence, what is guiding factor for Court to grant or refuse leave for composition of offence.
Findings of Court:
Both appellants are more than 75 years of age now. Ends of justice be served in reducing the sentence awarded for conviction under Section 324 IPC to six months instead of one year. Additionally the legal heirs of the deceased can be compensated by the compensation which has been offered and deposited by the appellant in this Court.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Custodial death is abhorrent and not acceptable in civilized society. Such offence is crime not against deceased alone but against humanity and clear violations of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution.
No, this statement is incorrect.
In this judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the defense argument that a wooden lathi (MO.IV) and wooden batten (MO.VII) were not dangerous weapons likely to cause death. The Court held that such instruments, commonly used by police, qualify under Section 324 IPC as weapons "likely to cause death" when used as weapons of offence, depending on the manner of their use.[1000736470021][1000736470022]
The Court affirmed the High Court's conviction under Section 324/34 IPC (not altering it to Section 323 IPC), noting 11 injuries on the deceased caused by merciless beating in police custody, including pattern bruises, abrasions, and lacerations consistent with these weapons.[1000736470017][1000736470018][1000736470019][1000736470023][1000736470024]
The appellants' prayer to convert the conviction to Section 323 IPC or substitute imprisonment with a fine was dismissed, upholding Section 324 IPC while only reducing the sentence to six months in light of the appellants' age and deposited compensation.[1000736470008][1000736470025][1000736470042]
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals by the accused have been filed against the common judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 09.11.2020 dismissing the Criminal Appeal Nos. 207 and 210 of 1988 filed by the appellants. Both the appellants being the accused in Lal Bagh P.S. Case No. 273 of 1985 were tried in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 1985 for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 342, 323, 294, 201 167, 477-A, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused Pratap Kumar Choudhury under Section 304 (Part II) IPC to undergo R.I. for eight years and accused Pravat Chandra Mohanty under Section 304 (Part II) to undergo R.I. for five years. Both the accused were further sentenced under Section 471 IPC read with Section 466 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and R.I. for three months under Section 342 IPC and R.I. for one month under Section 323 IPC by judgment dated 29.08.1988.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty (hereinafter referred to as “Mohanty”) filed Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 1988 and Pratap Kumar Choudhury (hereinafter referred to as “Choudhury”) filed Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1988 before the Orissa High Court. The High Court decided both the appeals by its judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 partly allowing the appeals. The conviction of both the appellants under Section 304 (Part II) IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342/34 IPC was set aside and their conviction under Sections 323/34 IPC and 471/34 IPC was upheld. The High Court convicted both the appellants under Section 324/34 IPC. Simple imprisonment for one month was imposed under Section 323/34 IPC. Simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 471/34 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC were imposed by the High Court. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the above judgment these appeals have been filed.
4. When these appeals were taken by this Court on 17.12.2020, learned counsel for the appellants confined his submissions to the conviction under Section 324 IPC only. Learned counsel for the appellants further volunteered that the appellants are willing to compensate the family of the deceased. Following order was passed on 17.12.2020 by this Court:
“Learned senior counsel for the petitioners confines his submissions to the conviction under Section 224 of the IPC on the ground that what was used was a baton. He volunteers that the petitioners are willing to compensate the family of the deceased and that they are now in their middle 70s. On a Court query learned counsel offers and agrees to deposit Rs. 3.5 lakhs each for the two petitioners each totaling to Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation in this Court within three weeks so that the total compensation admissible to the family would be 10 lakhs taking into consideration Rs. 3 lakhs awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased which the State Government would have paid.
Issue notice on the SLP as well as on the interim bail returnable in the first miscellaneous week post the winter recess.
We consider appropriate to implead the legal representatives of the deceased as respondents.
Amended memo of parties be filed.
Notice be also issued to the said respondents.
Dasti in addition through the standing counsel for the State and to the legal heirs of the deceased in person.”
5. Legal heirs/representatives of the deceased were impleaded in these appeals and they entered appearance before this Court. On 08.01.2021 following order was passed:
“Applications for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and official translation are allowed.
Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased have entered appearance through counsel and are agreeable to the proposal made by learned counsel for the petitioner on 17.12.2020 which was recorded by us.
Learned counsel for the State submits that he has just entered appea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
