1994 JTR(SC) 1010
1995 ACJ 320 ; 1995 AIR(SC) 117 ; 1994 AIR(SCW) 4148 ; 1994 CriLR 59 ; 1994 CriLR 806 ; 1994 3 Crimes(SC) 694 ; 1994 2 EastCrC(SC) 12 ; 1995 1 EastCrC(SC) 115 ; 1993 Supp JT 594 ; 1994 6 JT 478 ; 1994 4 Scale 466 ; 1994 6 SCC 565 ; 1995 SCC(Cri) 29 ; 1994 Supp4 SCR 310 ; 1995 1 UJ 144 ; 1994 KHC 892
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Mohan & S.B. Majmudar, JJ
Arvinder Singh Bagga - Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 271 of 1993
Decided on 6.10.1994
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner - R.S. Sodhi.
For the Respondents - A.S. Pundir.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161
(A) The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 161 Cr. P.C., which governs the examination of witnesses and recording of statements by investigating officers, are central to this case. This section was violated through the use of illegal verbal orders of arrest not contemplated under Section 55 Cr. P.C. and the fabrication of statements. The constitutional guarantee under Article 32 of the Constitution of India provides the remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which was invoked to address the custodial torture and illegal detention detailed in the report. The interplay between the procedural safeguards of the Cr. P.C. and the constitutional right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights forms the statutory backbone of this judgment.
(B) Key legal principles include the prohibition of torturephysical, mental, and psychologicalby law enforcement authorities, the requirement of personal knowledge and credible information for an arrest, the illegality of verbal arrest orders outside Section 55 Cr. P.C., and the accountability of state functionaries for abuse of power. The case also underscores the right against self-incrimination and the sanctity of personal liberty.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was allegedly subjected to torture, including physical assaults and threats, by police officers on 24th, 25th, and 26th July 1993 to coerce her into implicating her husband and his family in a fictitious case of abduction and forcible marriage. She was illegally detained, humiliated, and made to write dictated statements under duress, which were then reproduced in the case diary as her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Illegal arrests were made, and the procedural safeguards under Section 164 Cr. P.C. were disregarded.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the District Judge's report, which found the allegations of torture, fabrication of evidence, illegal arrest, and wrongful detention to be true. The conduct of the police officers was deemed a grave abuse of power, causing physical and mental trauma to the petitioner and her family members.
Issues:
Whether the police officers abused their authority by resorting to torture and illegal detention in violation of Section 161 Cr. P.C. and constitutional rights? Whether compensation is payable to the victims of such illegal acts? Whether prosecution of the erring police officers is warranted?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that custodial torture, illegal detention, and fabrication of evidence by police officers constitute a blatant abuse of the legal process and warrant both prosecution of the offenders and compensation for the victims. The principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards under the Cr. P.C. must be strictly adhered to, and any deviation attracts state liability.
Result:
The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh to prosecute the involved police officers, pay specified compensation to the victims, and ensure recovery of the amount from the responsible officers.
(A) The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 161 Cr. P.C., which governs the examination of witnesses and recording of statements by investigating officers, are central to this case. This section was violated through the use of illegal verbal orders of arrest not contemplated under Section 55 Cr. P.C. and the fabrication of statements. The constitutional guarantee under Article 32 of the Constitution of India provides the remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which was invoked to address the custodial torture and illegal detention detailed in the report. The interplay between the procedural safeguards of the Cr. P.C. and the constitutional right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights forms the statutory backbone of this judgment.
(B) Key legal principles include the prohibition of torturephysical, mental, and psychologicalby law enforcement authorities, the requirement of personal knowledge and credible information for an arrest, the illegality of verbal arrest orders outside Section 55 Cr. P.C., and the accountability of state functionaries for abuse of power. The case also underscores the right against self-incrimination and the sanctity of personal liberty.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was allegedly subjected to torture, including physical assaults and threats, by police officers on 24th, 25th, and 26th July 1993 to coerce her into implicating her husband and his family in a fictitious case of abduction and forcible marriage. She was illegally detained, humiliated, and made to write dictated statements under duress, which were then reproduced in the case diary as her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Illegal arrests were made, and the procedural safeguards under Section 164 Cr. P.C. were disregarded.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the District Judge's report, which found the allegations of torture, fabrication of evidence, illegal arrest, and wrongful detention to be true. The conduct of the police officers was deemed a grave abuse of power, causing physical and mental trauma to the petitioner and her family members.
Issues:
Whether the police officers abused their authority by resorting to torture and illegal detention in violation of Section 161 Cr. P.C. and constitutional rights? Whether compensation is payable to the victims of such illegal acts? Whether prosecution of the erring police officers is warranted?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that custodial torture, illegal detention, and fabrication of evidence by police officers constitute a blatant abuse of the legal process and warrant both prosecution of the offenders and compensation for the victims. The principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards under the Cr. P.C. must be strictly adhered to, and any deviation attracts state liability.
Result:
The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh to prosecute the involved police officers, pay specified compensation to the victims, and ensure recovery of the amount from the responsible officers.
A.S.PUNDIR, R.S.SODHI
JUDGMENT
Mohan, J. - Pursuant to our order dated November 16, 1993, the District Judge of Bareilly has submitted his report. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh perused the reports. Mr. R.S. Sodhi would submit that the erring Police Officers should be prosecuted and compensation should be given to such of those who have been illegally detained and suffered humiliation at the hands of the police.
2. Learned counsel for the State, though was present on an earlier occasion, did not choose to appear in spite of the matter having been passed over twice.
3. We have carefully perused the report. We are appreciative of the good work done by the learned District Judge. He had held a thorough inquiry by examining several witnesses to arrive at the troth. In our considered opinion the report is a fair one and deserves to be accepted. It is accordingly accepted.
4. The report in no uncertain terms indicts the police. It inter alia states:
"On a careful consideration of all the evidence on record in the light of the surrounding circumstances I accept the claim of Nidhi that she was tortured by the police officers on 24th, 25th and 26th July, 1993. On 24.7.1993 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I. and Narendrapal Singh S.I. and threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his family in a case of abduction and forcible marriage thereafter. She was threatened with physical violence to her husband and to herself in case of her default and when she refused her family members were brought into pressurise her into implicating them. On 25th July 1993 she was jolted out of sleep by Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. and made to remain standing for a long time. She was abused and jostled and threatened by le. Upadhyay, Sukhpal Singh and Narendrapal Singh with injury to her body if she did not write down the dictated note, Sukhpal Singh SSI even assaulted her on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. She did not yield to the pressure: Then, on 26.7.1993 she was given filthy abuses and threatened by J.C. Upadhyay and Sukhpal Singh for writing a dictated note. She was pushed and jostled by them both. Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. hit her with a Danda on her leg and made threatening gestures aiming his Danda on her head. Ultimately they both succeeded in making her write a note dictated by them whose contents were those which were incorporated by the investigating officer in his case diary as her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Thereafter on 27th July she was purported to be taken by K.C. Tyagi to the Court for the recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but was taken by le. Upadhyay, S.H.O. to Chauki Chauraha Police Outpost and kept there and brought to the police station and kept there. She was dispatched from there to Nari Niketan only at 5 P.M. When A.C.J.M. II had passed orders for Nidhi being kept at Nari Niketan Bareilly K.e. Tyagi La. was under obligation to take her from court to Nari Niketan straightaway without any delay whatsoever but she was brought back to the police station and lodged there and only afterwards she was dispatched from there for Nari Niketan. Then on 29.7.1993 while being taken to the court for the recording of her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. Nidhi was brought from Nari Niketan to the police station and there J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. commanded her to speak that which he had asked her to speak and if she did not make her statement accordingly and went with Charanjit Singh then she would not be spared by him and he would ensure that she underwent miserable life time. He further told her that if she cultivated enmity with the police its consequences were only too obvious. So the torture extended uptil 29.7.1993. Torture .is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in Authority and. that too by a police officer the mental torture caused by it is even more grave."
This clearly brings out not only highhandedness of the police but also uncivilised behaviour on their part. It is difficult to understand why Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I. assaulted Nidhi on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. Where was the need to threaten her? As rightly pointed out in the report that torture is not merely physical but may even consist of mental and psychological torture calculated to create freight to make her submit to the demands of the police?
A further reading of the report shows:
(ii) fabrication;
(iii) illegal arrest;
(iv) without personal knowledge or credible information that the arrested persons were involved in a cognizable offence; ,and
(v) illegality of verbal order of arrest not contemplated under Section 55 Cr. P.C.
This again is a blatant abuse of law.
5. The report clearly holds Narendrapal Singh S.I. of indulging in illegal arrest and detention in arresting Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rajinder Singh Bagga. Further, both of them were tortured as they were given Danda blows at police station on 23rd July, 1993. The report blames J.C. Upadhyay, S.H.O. and K.C. Tyagi, I.O. for the wrongful detention of Nidhi. It concludes:
"The detention of a married woman in custody who is not an accused on the pretext of her being a victim of abduction and rape which never was to her knowledge and to the knowledge of the police officers concerned aforesaid is itself a great mental torture for her which cannot be compensated later but here we have found that she was tortured otherwise also by threats of violence to her and to her husband and his family and was given physical violence calculated to instill fear in her mind and compel her to yield and to abandon her marriage with Charanjit Singh Bagga which had been duly performed in Arya Samaj Bhoor and which had been duly registered in the office of Registrar of Hindu Marriages under the U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. XXV of 1955).
She was made to write a statement as commanded by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and Sukhpal Singh SSI on 26.7.1993 which was reproduced by the La. in the case diary as her statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. The physical and mental torture was given to Nidhi on 24th July, 1993 and 25th July, 1993 by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh and SSI and Narendrapal Singh S.I. but on 26.7.1993 it was done by only J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and Sukhpal Singh SSI and there was no participation of K.C. Tyagi I.O. in the torture and harassment dated 24.7.1993, 25.7.1993 and 26.7.1993."
6. On a perusal of all the above, we are really pained to note that such things should happen in a country which is still governed by the rule of law. We cannot but express our strong displeasure and disapproval of the conduct of the concerned police officers. Therefore, we issue the following directions :
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh will take immediate steps to launch prosecution against all the police officers involved in this sordid affair.
2. The State shall pay a compensation-n- of Rs. 10,000/- to Nidhi, Rs. 10,000/- to Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rs. 5,000/- to each of the other persons who were illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs. Time for making payment will be three months from the date of this judgment. Upon such payment it will be open to the State to recover personally the amount of compensation from the concerned police officers.
Writ Petition shall stand disposed of in view of the above terms.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1995 SC 117 = (1994) 6 SCC 565 = 1995 SCC (Crl.) 29