Police Atrocities, Custodial Deaths and Illegal Detention are in Violation of Article...

Police Atrocities, Custodial Deaths and Illegal Detention are in Violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution

1994
0
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Police Atrocities, Custodial Deaths and Illegal Detention are in Violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution
Police Atrocities, Custodial Deaths and Illegal Detention are in Violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution

Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Prithipal Singh Etc v State of Punjab & Anr. Etc

(2012) 1 SCC 10

JUDGES: P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan

Date of Decision: 04-11-2011

FACTS:-

 In the instant case, the deceased, human activist was abducted from his house. He was never returned to home nor his body recovered. When no assistance was provided by the police, the respondent, wife of the deceased, filed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition in the Supreme Court, whereof order to transfer investigation to CBI was passed. On investigation, witnesses revealed and identified the appellant-police officials accountable for the abduction and murder of the deceased. Trial Court convicted the accused under S.302/34 IPC and under S.201/34 IPC. Aggrieved by the order, respondent –wife filed revision petition to enhance the sentence of the appellants. The High Court acquitted one of the co-accused and sou moto enhanced the conviction to life imprisonment of the appellants. Hence, these appeals were filed by the appellant police officials before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

ISSUE:-

  1. Whether the High Court was justified by enhancing punishment against police atrocities, custodial deaths and illegal detention?
  2. Whether police atrocities are violative of the constitutional mandate, particularly, under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution?

JUDGMENT:-

 The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the High Court committed error in observing that it was a fit case for enhancement of punishment sou moto though charges had never been framed for the offences providing more rigorous punishment as there had been no material at the time of framing of the charges for a more serious offence. Further, it was submitted that none of witnesses could be treated as reliable as neither they named the appellant in the FIR, Writ Petition nor even in their statement recorded by the CBI. In case of discharge of one of the accused by the trial court and acquittal of other co-accused of the said charges by the High Court, question of convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC could not arise. The dead body of deceased was not recovered. The appeals have merit and deserve to be allowed. On the other hand, respondent justified the decision of the High Court for enhancing the punishment considering the gravity of the offence committed by them. Recovery of the dead body in a crime is not a condition precedent for conviction. Though sufficient evidences has been placed against the appellants. Once the case of abduction by the appellant’s stands proved, the burden of proof was shifted on the respondents to disclose as what happened to the deceased.

On pursuing records of the case, the Hon’ble Court contended that there was a clear motive of the accused police officers to abduct and kill the deceased and also accused had been identified correctly in the court by various witnesses. Unfortunately, in spite best efforts by the Hon’ble Court, whereabouts of the deceased could not be traced. Particularly it is very difficult to get evidence against the policemen responsible for custodial death. The charges had been framed prior to the statements recorded by one of the witness and in such a fact-situation, the trial court ought to have altered the charges, but failed to do so. The offence proved against the appellants has been abducting the deceased so that he could be murdered. The High Court was justified in enhancing the punishment particularly in the peculiar facts of this case.

Thus, in above case, the Hon’ble Court do not found any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the High Court and thereby, dismissed the appeal.

HELD:-

Thus, held, police atrocities, custodial deaths and illegal detention are violative of the constitutional mandate, particularly, under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution.

To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here  

To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

NO COMMENTS