Absence Of Evidence Regarding Homicidal Death: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict In 1995 Custodial Death Case
The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict in a custodial death case in which the police officers were convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court was dealing with appeals filed by the accused police officers who were convicted by the Trial Court and the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench had confirmed the same.
Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed, “In the absence of evidence regarding homicidal death of Shama @ Kalya in Gondia City Police Station coupled with the defence evidence, which could stand the test of preponderance of probabilities and the other circumstances favourable to the accused emerging from the other circumstances and failure of the prosecution to establish the case put forth by it. Appellants in Crl. Appeal No.1617 of 2012 viz., Accused No. 2 (Ravindra) and Accused No. 4 (Hans Raj) are entitled to be acquitted for commission of offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34, IPC, granting the benefit of doubt.”
He said that, there is absolute absence of medical and oral evidence to find that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the deceased being in custody sustained any ‘grievous hurt’ or sustained a kind of hurt, falling in one or the other of the eight kinds of hurt (firstly to eighthly given under Section 320 of IPC).
On the other hand, Justice Sanjay Kumar remarked, “I would, therefore, respectfully disagree with the conclusion drawn by my learned brother that, in the absence of evidence regarding the homicidal death of Shama @ Kalya, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC read with Section 34 IPC, by granting them the benefit of doubt.”
He disagreed with the view of Justice Ravikumar that, once the dead body is said to have been traced and it is, then, not proved to be of that person, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared for the appellants/accused while Advocate Shrirang B. Varma appeared for the respondent/State.
Factual Background -
As per the prosecution case, the deceased namely Shama, a history sheeter, was taken into police custody for interrogation in connection with an incident of house-breaking at a residence and stealing properties worth more than Rs. 1 lakh in the year 1995. It was alleged that he was kept in the custody without duly recording the arrest. Allegedly, the suspect was subjected to third degree methods during interrogation, resulting in his death. Thereafter, an un-identified body which was burnt and buried, was found in the forest within the jurisdiction of Tirodi police station in Balaghat district of Madhya Pradesh State. It was further alleged that after committing heinous crime, the appellants i.e., police personnels concocted a case and contrived false evidence to escape prosecution for custodial death by making one Dipak disguised as Shama.
It was also alleged that the appellants made Dipak to run away from the jeep to make it appear that Shama had escaped from custody. The Trial Court in view of this case, found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and it concluded that the prosecution had succeeded only in establishing charge under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC. As the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants, they approached the Apex Court.
Justice Ravikumar in the above regard, noted, “I have already declined the finding that Shama @ Kalya had sustained the injury of cutting of veins of his legs. In such circumstances, the conviction of accused Nos. 2 (Ravindra), No. 3 (Manohar), No. 4 (Hans Raj) and No. 5 (Vishnu) under Section 331 read with Section 34, IPC cannot be sustained.”
He added that, since the conviction under Section 330 covers Section 323 IPC, no separate sentence for voluntary causing hurt is to be imposed.
“In view of the conclusions and finding in respect of the offence under Section 304-Part II read with Section 34, IPC, and the consequential acquittal of the convicts concerned granting benefit of doubt the convicts under the other offences are also entitled to get benefit of doubt, as those offences have relation with the main crime. Consequently, conviction based on finding guilt under Section 201, 202, 203 and 218 read with Section 34, on appellants-convicts concerned are also liable to be set aside”, he further said.
Resultantly, Justice Ravikumar set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted all the appellants.
Whereas, Justice Sanjay said, “At the outset, though my learned brother has prefaced his verdict by stating that Criminal Appeal No. 1614 of 2012 filed by Manik, s/o Sitaram Jibhkate, stands abated as he died on 06.03.2022, I do not find anything on record to support and substantiate this statement. I, therefore, proceed on the assumption that this appeal also remains alive for active consideration, along with the other four appeals.”
He noted that, even if it is assumed for a second that the police version of Shama’s escape is true, it would require another huge leap of faith to believe that Shama, a fugitive from the law, would have willfully refused to pay Rs. 50/-, while caught travelling ticketless between Gondia and Raipur, and would have preferred to go before the Railway Court to suffer and document a conviction, whereby he had to pay Rs. 200/- as fine.
“Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises’. This art would be all the more essential in the repertoire of a Judge, who may be presented with incomplete and, sometimes, incorrect information, while adjudicating a case. Appearances can be manipulated and may be completely deceptive, by deliberate design. It would be gullible for a Court to accept appearances at face value, however unconvincing they may be, and play into the hands of those who seek to dishonestly deceive it”, he also observed.
Furthermore, Justice Sanjay remarked that, when sufficient evidence is available to conclude that Shama was in no position to escape from the custody of the appellants, the inevitable corollary that follows is that he died due to their torture while in their custody.
“This is the major point of divergence between our views. My learned brother has acted upon the premise that once the dead body is said to have been traced and it is, then, not proved to be of that person, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Permitting this premise to gain acceptance would mean that those in the police organization, who resort to such nefarious methods, can take this easy way out to ward off a finding of guilt”, he noted.
He emphasised that, it is high time that our legal system squarely faces the menace of police excesses and deals with it by putting in place an effective mechanism to obviate such inhuman practices.
“Irrespective of that step being taken, the fact remains that when sufficient evidence is adduced to prove custodial torture by the police, it is then for the police themselves to prove their innocence, be it in a case of death in police custody or even if such a victim goes missing or vanishes. Notably, Section 29 of the Indian Police Act, 1861, makes willful breach of regulations by a policeman and causing of unwarrantable personal violence to any person in his custody, punishable with fine or imprisonment. Further, Police Manuals invariably hold those in charge of police stations responsible for the safe custody of all the prisoners housed therein”, he added.
Therefore, Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the appeals and maintained the convictions and sentences of the appellants.
Cause Title- Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 734)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, AOR Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocates Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Vignesh Singh, Brij Kishor, Aditya S. Jadhav, and Arun Kanwa.
Respondents: Advocate Shrirang B. Varma, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, and Adarsh Dubey.
