"Custodial Violence Is Abhorrent": Orissa HC Directs Septuagenarian Ex-Cops To Serve Imprisonment in 35-Year Old Custodial Death Case

"Custodial violence on a person which may sometimes lead to his death is abhorrent and not acceptable in a civilised society and it is a crime against humanity and a clear violation of a person's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", observed the Orissa High Court on Monday.Justice S. K. Sahoo was rendering judgment on two 32-year old criminal appeals by a former inspector and senior sub-inspector in connection with a custodial death occurred during illegal confinement of a person at the Purighat police station in Cuttack in 1985. On August 29, 1988, the court of Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack had convicted the two for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years and eight years respectively. They were also sentenced to a maximum sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment for fraudulent preparation of FIR, wrongful confinement and voluntarily causing hurt. Both had filed criminal appeals in the High Court and were released on bail by September 1, 1988. "Police excesses and maltreatment of detainees, under trial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation", noted the Single Judge.The bench opined that stern measures are required to be taken to check the malady against those police officials who consider themselves to be above the law and bring disrepute to their department, otherwise the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and the common man may lose faith in the judiciary. "Act of custodial violence reflects tragic state of affairs indicating the apparent disdain of the State to the life and liberty of individuals, particularly those in custody and relief could be moulded by granting compensation to the next of kin of the deceased", said the bench, appreciating that the Supreme Court, in the case of Nilabati Behera, proceeded to take view that even convicts, prisoners and undertrials cannot be denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and once an incumbent is taken into custody and there are injuries on his body, then State will have to explain, as to how he sustained the injuries, and compensation can be awarded under public law remedy.While disposing of their appeals after 32 years on Monday, the Single Judge Bench of Justice SK Sahoo acquitted both the police officers of charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced the maximum sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment for other charges, taking their age into consideration. "In view of the evidence of P.W.1 and other surrounding circumstances and corroborating medical evidence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellants were responsible for causing the external ante mortem injuries as noticed on the deceased. In the case in hand, there is no evidence that the appellants had any knowledge that the deceased was labouring under any disease and that the weight of his heart was abnormal and it was a diseased one and that he had serious lungs problem. The external injuries were superficial in nature and not fatal in ordinary course of nature. None of the injuries either individually or collectively were fatal in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were on the non-vital parts of the body and those were mainly abrasions or bruises", observed the Single Bench.Justice Sahoo further noted that the finding of the trial Court that it was a case of long detention of the deceased throughout the night is factually incorrect as the deceased was not detained throughout the night but taken to hospital past midnight. The detention was stated to be on account of his involvement in a case instituted at the instance of P.W.13 where he was shown to be arrested. "The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased does not indicate it to be a case of merciless beating as observed by the trial Court. Of course, the deceased could have been taken to the hospital earlier without waiting for his health condition getting worse. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the humble view that the conviction of the appellants under section 304 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eye of law, which is accordingly set aside and instead the appellants are found guilty of offence under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code", concluded the bench.It carefully examined taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as to what sentence is required to be imposed upon the appellants. "One of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The quantum of sentence imposed should not shock the common man. It should reflect the public abhorrence of the crime. The...

"Custodial Violence Is Abhorrent": Orissa HC Directs Septuagenarian Ex-Cops To Serve Imprisonment in 35-Year Old Custodial Death Case

Mehal Jain

Tags