Arvinder
Singh Bagga Vs. State of U.P [1994] INSC 517 (6 October 1994)
Mohan,
S. (J) Mohan, S. (J) Majmudar S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 117 1994 SCC (6) 565 JT 1994 (6) 478 1994 SCALE (4)466
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. MOHAN, J.- Pursuant to our order dated 16-11-1993, 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 truth. 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 24/25/26-7-1993. On 24-7-1993 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyay
SHO, Sukhpal Singh SSI and Narendrapal Singh SI 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 in to pressurise her into implicating them. On 25-7-1993 she was jolted out of sleep by Sukhpal Singh SSI and
made to remain standing for a long time. She was abused and jostled and
threatened by J.C. 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 567 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 SSI 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 CrPC.
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 CrPC but was taken
by J.C. Upadhyay SHO to Chauki Chauraha Police Outpost and kept there and
brought to the police station and kept there. She was despatched from there to Nari
Niketan only at 5 p.m. When ACJM 11 had passed orders for Nidhi
being kept at Nari Niketan, Bareilly, K.C. Tyagi 10 was under obligation to
take her from court to Nari Niketan straightway without any delay whatsoever
but she was brought back to the police station and lodged there and only
afterwards she was despatched 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 CrPC Nidhi was brought from Nari Niketan to the police station and there
J.C. Upadhyay SHO 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
lifetime.
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 high-handedness of the police but
also uncivilised behaviour on their part. It is difficult to understand why Sukhpal
Singh SSI 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 fright to make her submit to the demands of the police? 5.
A further reading of the report shows:
(i) fabrication;
(ii) illegal
arrest;
(iii) without
personal knowledge or credible information that the arrested persons were
involved in a cognizable offence; and (iv)illegality of verbal order of arrest
not contemplated under Section 55 CrPC.
This
again is a blatant abuse of law.
568
6. The
report clearly holds Narendrapal Singh SI 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
23-7-1993. The report blames J.C. Upadhyay SHO and K.C. Tyagi 10 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 instil
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 SHO and Sukhpal
Singh SSI on 26-7- 1993 which was reproduced by the 10 in the case diary as her
statement under Section 161 CrPC. The physical and mental torture was given to Nidhi
on 24-7-1993 and 25-7-1993 by J.C. Upadhyay SHO, Sukhpal Singh and SSI and Narendrapal
Singh SI but on 26-7-1993 it was done by only J.C. Upadhyay SHO and Sukhpal
Singh SSI and there was no participation of K.C. Tyagi 10 in the torture and
harassment dated 24-7-1993, 25-7-1993 and 26-7-1993." 7.
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 police
officers concerned. 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 of Rs 10,000 to Nidhi, Rs 10,000 to Charanjit
Singh Bagga and Rs 5000 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 police
officers concerned.
8.
Writ petition shall stand disposed of in view of the above terms.
Back