Custodial Assault To Extract Confession Not Official Duty, No Prior Sanction Needed To Prosecute Police Officers: Bombay High Court

Assaulting a suspect for a confessional statement would never be an act in discharge of official duty of any police officer, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to discharge three policeman, who had allegedly assaulted a man— forcing him to confess to a murder offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 319]Sitting at the Kolhapur bench, single-judge Justice Sandesh Patil noted that in the instant case, the complainant was called by the policemen deployed at the Shivaji Nagar Police Station in Ichalkaranji city on November 26, 2008 at 12 noon and were asked to sit there till 10 in the night and later was 'assaulted' till next morning asking him to confess to a murder offence. "Going by the dictum of the Supreme Court, it is clear that it was not the duty of the Police Officer to assault any person while investigation of the crime. The Police Officers cannot under the guise of investigation, use third degree treatment against any person. In the instant case, as is revealed from the prosecution records, inflicting injury of such nature was not warranted at the hands of the Police Officers. It cannot be said that the Police Officers were discharging duty or were acting in excess of the discharge of duty. In the present case, assaulting the suspect for a confessional statement would never be said to be an act in discharge of official duty and, therefore, the provisions of section 197 would not come in the way of the prosecution," the judge held in the order pronounced on July 9.The judge was hearing criminal writ petitions challenging the decision of the sessions court which had rejected their plea against the order passed by a Magistrate Court that had issued process against the errant cops. The officers contended that the Magistrate erred in interpreting the provisions of law as it did not consider the fact that section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) barred prosecution of a public servant for offences allegedly committed at the time of exercising official duty. The policemen argued that they were merely 'doing their duty' and thus cannot be prosecuted against. However, Justice Patil was not impressed with the contentions. "The Magistrate while issuing process against the accused/petitioners had considered section 197 of the Cr.PC and held that it was not the duty of the Police Officer to inflict such injury. At this stage, facts on record as they are revealed are sufficient to conclude that going by the case of prosecution as it is, resultantly, orders passed by the Magistrate cannot be said to be erroneous, hence they require no interference," the judge held. With these observations, the bench dismissed the petitions filed by the policemen. Appearance: Advocates PD Dalvi, Tejas Shelake and Sonal Nalawade appeared for the Petitioners.Additional Public Prosecutor Shriram Chaudhari represented the State. Advocate Aditya Raktade represented the Complainant. Case Title: Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 2509 of 2022)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 319Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Custodial Assault To Extract Confession Not Official Duty, No Prior Sanction Needed To Prosecute Police Officers: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Custodial Assault To Extract Confession Not Official Duty, No Prior Sanction Needed To Prosecute Police Officers: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers