Haricharan & Anr.
Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Nathuram Vs State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors
Ram Ujagar Singh Vs State
of Madhya Pradesh
Anil Kumar Singh
Kushwaha Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
J U D G M E N T
SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, J.
1.
These
appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of
Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1990 whereby the High Court accepted
the appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh and convicted the appellants herein
for an offence under Section 304 Part II and sentenced them to five years R.I. and
fine of Rs.5,000/- each and further convicted the appellants under Section 330
IPC and sentenced them to three years R.I. In so doing, the High Court reversed
the judgment of the trial court in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1988 dated 7th March,
1989 whereby the appellants were acquitted of all the offences under Section,
343, 330 and 304 Part II IPC.
2.
At
that relevant time, all the appellants were police officers and posted at Police
Station Indar, District Shivpuri. Anil Kumar Kushwaha, appellant in 2 Criminal Appeal
No. 584 of 2003 was posted as the Station House Officer of the aforesaid Police
Station. Ram Ujagar, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2003 was posted as
Head Constable. Nathuram, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2003 was also
posted as Head Constable. Haricharan and Mazid Hussain, appellants in Criminal Appeal
No. 581 of 2003 were posted as Constables.
3.
Briefly
stated the prosecution case, as noticed by the High Court is that Mathura was called
to the Police Station through Head Constable Ram Ujagar with regard to the investigation
of Crime Case No. 57 of 1983 for offence punishable under Section 457 and 380
IPC. He was interrogated at the Police Station and was confined in the lock up.
While he was confined in the lock up, he was subjected to third degree torture.
He was given electric shock on his scrotum with the intention to extort the confession
for the crime of the alleged theft. As due 3 to the torture and electric shocks,
condition of Mathura deteriorated, he was released on 11th October, 1983. According
to the prosecution, Mathura was unlawfully detained in the Police Station from 8th
October, 1983 till 11th October, 1983. The police had neither made any entry
about his detention in the police records nor about his discharge.
4.
Mathura
was handed over to Takhat Singh, PW1 and Parmal Singh, PW16, who took Mathura
to his house. He was looked after by the family members. However, the condition
of Mathura worsened on 13th October, 1983. Takhat Singh, PW1 alongwith his brother
Amrit Lal sent a private doctor Jagdish Prasad Soni, PW18 for his treatment. On
seeing that Mathura was unconscious, Jagdish Prasad Soni advised that he should
be immediately taken to hospital at Shivpuri. Takhat Singh, PW1 brought him to Shivpuri
by bus. He also intimated Superintendent of Police about the ill-treatment and 4
torture of Mathura by the police personnel at Police Station Indar. He
requested the Superintendent of Police to ensure that proper medical treatment is
given to Mathura. He also made a request for an enquiry against the police officers
at the aforesaid police station. Accepting the request made by Takhat Singh, Superintendent
of Police, R.K. Tripathi, PW28 directed Town Inspector, Shivpuri to get the
injured Mathura medically examined and to submit his report.
5.
PW34,
R.P. Upadhyay took Mathura to the District Hospital at Shivpuri. He was first
examined by Dr. L.D. Vaswani, PW24. Dr. Vaswani found that Mathura was unconscious
but his pulse and breathing was normal. He admitted Mathura in hospital and kept
him under observation. On 13th October, 1983 at about 6.10 p.m., condition of Mathura
further deteriorated. At that stage, Dr. C.M. Tripathi, PW23, who was on
casualty duty also examined Mathura and found Mathura was on the 5 verge of death.
He had, therefore, given artificial respiration, oxygen and extra massage to
Mathura. In spite of following the aforesaid procedures for about ten minutes,
Dr. Tripathi could not revive the heartbeats of Mathura. He was declared dead at
6.20 p.m. in the evening.
6.
The
Town Inspector was given intimation of the death vide Ex.P7 and a request was made
for a postmortem of the dead body. The dead body of Mathura was examined in the
presence of PW1, Takhat Singh and PW37, Laxminarayan Kulshreshtha, Sub-Divisional
Magistrate. Panchnama of the dead body (Ex.P3) was duly prepared. Thereafter, a
direction was issued for performing the postmortem. On 14th October, 1983 at
about 11.50 a.m., the postmortem was performed by Dr. L.D. Vaswani. He found
one oval shaped charring wound on each side of the anterior of the scrotum. A
black charring wound oval in shape 2.5 cm x 3 cm on the right side and a black charring
oval in shape 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the left side. According to this postmortem, no other
external injuries were found. On internal examination, it was found that arachnoid
membrane of the brain was congested. He also found sub arachnoid Hemorrhage at
the base of the near circle of Willis. The vessels of the circle were diluted
and ruptured. Haematoma in the substance of the brain at the middle portion of
the brain near base. According to the report Haematoma was 4 cm. in diameter. Dr.
Vaswani found that the cause of death was coma caused by intracranial
Hemorrhage, which might be due to hyper tension.
7.
After
the death of Mathura, FIR was duly registered against all the appellants. Upon completion
of the investigation, the appellants were put on trial. The trial court vide
its judgment dated 7th March, 1989 acquitted all the appellants of all the charges.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the State of Madhya Pradesh
challenged the same by way of an appeal. The High Court by its judgment dated
1st August, 2002 allowed the appeal and reversed the findings of acquittal recorded
by the trial court. All the appellants were convicted and sentenced as noticed above.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have filed the present four
appeals.
8.
We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9.
Mr.
K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel, appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2003
on behalf of Head Constable, Nathuram submitted that the High Court committed a
grave error in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. He
relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Nandu
Vishwakarama and Ors.1 , to point out that in reversing the judgment of the
trial court, the High Court has disregarded the principles within which the High
Court was to exercise its 1 (2009) 14 SCC 501 8 appellate powers. In the aforesaid
judgment, this Court notices and reiterates the principles laid down in the case
of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnat aka2 , which are as follows:- "42. From the
above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various
expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good
and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies
are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance
of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An
appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of 2
(2007) 4 SCC 415 9 innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle
of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless
he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured
his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." The same principles were
laid down in the case of M.C. Ali & Anr. Vs. Stat e of Kerala.
10.
Mr.
Tulsi submitted that the High Court would have been justified in interfering with
the order of acquittal only in case, the High Court had recorded a conclusion
that the findings recorded by the trial court were perverse and resulted in miscarriage
of justice. It was not in the domain of the High Court to interfere with the
findings of the facts recorded by the trial court, upon due appreciation of evidence
and recording plausible conclusions. He further submitted that if two views are
possible on the 3 (2010) 4 SCC 573 10 evidence adduced in the case, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favorable
to the accused should be adopted. In support of the submissions, learned counsel
relied on Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat4 , and Raghunath Vs. State
of Haryana & Anr. .
11.
Mr.
Tulsi further submitted that there were discrepancies between the charges as laid
by the prosecution and medical evidence. According to the postmortem, injury had
been caused within two days. This, according to Mr. Tulsi, would clearly rule
out the case of torture. Even according to the prosecution, Mathura had been taken
into the custody on 8th October, 1983 and had been released on 11th October, 1983.
The postmortem was conducted on 14th October, 1983 at around 11.50 a.m.4 (2002)
3 SCC 575 (2003) 1 SCC 398 11
12.
Mr.
Tulsi then submitted that the discrepancies between the oral evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and the medical evidence would clearly show that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants have been convicted by
the High Court merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions based on suspicion.
He relied on the observations made by this Court in Paragraph 31 of the judgment
in the case of Sadashio Mundaji Bhalerao Vs. State of M aharashtra6 , which are
as follows:- "We are conscious that there is a rise in incidents of custodial
deaths but we cannot completely dehors the evidence and its admissibility according
to law convict the accused. We cannot act on presumption merely on a strong suspicion
or assumption and presumption. We can only draw presumption which is permissible
under the law and we cannot rush to the conclusion just because the deceased has
died in the police custody without there being any proper link with the
commission of the crime."
13.
Mr.
Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants in Criminal
Appeal No. 581 6 (2007) 15 SCC 421 12 of 2003, submitted that the appellant Majid
Hussain was a mere constable and he had no role to play in the illegal custody of
Mathura. He has not been named in the FIR. No specific role has been attributed
to him. He has only been implicated because he was posted in the police station
at that relevant time. He further submitted that appellant Haricharan similarly
had only been involved in the entire episode because he was posted as a guard outside
the police station. He submits that no role is attributed to this appellant inside
the police station. The High Court failed to notice any of the circumstances,
which would clearly show that these two appellants were innocent victims of the
fortuitous circumstance of having been posted at the police station at the
relevant time.
14.
Mr.
Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal
appeal No. 584 of 2003 submitted that even though the appellant was posted as the
Station House Officer at the relevant 13 time, he has been convicted without any
direct evidence of his involvement in the illegal custody or alleged torture of
Mathura. He submits that no specific role has been attributed to him. In fact, PW6,
Kamal Singh, who had stated that "Mathura told him that Nathuram has caused
him severe beatings. At that time, the condition of Mathura was very serious
but he was speaking. I did not see any injury on his person and even he also did
not show him any injury." In spite of such statement of PW6, the High Court
without any justification reversed the findings recorded by the trial court. Learned
counsel then submits that the trial court on examination of the evidence of PW6,
Kamal Singh discarded the same, concluding that he was a manufactured witness
and could not be relied upon.
15.
According
to Mr. Nagendra Rai, the High court ignored the settled principle of law that
the findings of fact recorded by the trial court can not be ignored unless the
conclusions have led to a miscarriage of justice. Learned senior counsel further
submitted 14that there is no evidence on record to show that Mathura was kept in
custody from 8th October, 1983 to 11th October, 1983. In fact, PW6 clearly
stated that "then Mathura was kept in the police station for about two days".
According to Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel that the custody of Mathura
being doubtful, the appellant can not be connected with the crime of alleged
torture. He then pointed out to a communication addressed by Dr. K.L. Singh,
Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh to the concerned
Inspector dated 29th October, 1983. This communication was in the context of a
query regarding the postmortem report of deceased Mathura, which had been
addressed by the concerned Inspector on 20th October, 1983. It was stated in this
communication that on passing electric current on scrotum, intracranial
hemorrhage is not possible. The postmortem report dated 14th October, 1983 clearly
stated that "the cause of death in the case is due to coma caused by 15 intracranial
Hemorrhage, which might be due to hyper tension". It is submitted by Mr.
Nagendra Rai that the two aforesaid facts would clearly raise the doubt as to
whether the injuries were sustained by Mathura on account of electric shock. Learned
senior counsel pointed out that there is evidence on the record to show that Mathura
was a habitual drunkard. He was also suffering from some dangerous disease. He was
being treated by Dr. Jagdish Prasad Soni, PW18 for a number of years. 16. Learned
senior counsel further submitted that the cumulative affect of all the evidence
raises a reasonable doubt about the events as projected by the prosecution. Learned
senior counsel submitted that the reasoning adopted by the trial court in Paragraph
20 of the judgment can not be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence.
The conclusions drawn by the trial court being plausible conclusions could not have
been reversed by the Appellate Court. Learned senior counsel also
16.
16
reiterated the observations made by this Court in the case of Sadashio Mundaji Bhalerao
(supra) that suspicion, however, strong can not take the place of legal proof,
even in cases of custodial death.
17.
On
the other hand, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel submits that the judgment
of the High Court does not call for any interference. It is well within the
findings of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. On merits, she
submits that in this case, the prosecution has presented systematic evidence, in
four stages to connect the accused appellants with the crime. She submits that there
is evidence that :- i) Mathura was taken to the Police Station. ii) That he was
given electric shocks and he was taken to the hospital. iii) The postmortem report
clearly shows that the injuries suffered by Mathura had been caused as he had
been subjected to electric shock. 17 iv) That the death was the direct result of
the torture inflicted on Mathura.
18.
According
to the learned counsel, in this case, the medical evidence is the crucial link.
She has made detailed reference to the evidence given by PW23, Dr. C.M. Tripathi
and PW24, Dr. L.D. Vaswani. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of these witnesses
have been carefully scrutinized by the High Court. The High Court has also
demonstrated the implausibility of the conclusions recorded at the trial court.
Learned counsel emphasized that there is clear evidence that Mathura was called
to the police station. He was kept there for two days. Injuries were caused during
that period. Injuries were torturous in nature. All these facts are adverted to
by PW6. The trial court wrongly discarded the evidence of this witness. Learned
counsel then submitted that the High Court rightly relied on the evidence of DW1,
Suresh Singh Sikarwar, who had clearly stated that Mathura had 18 been called to
the police station and that he had been illegally confined.
19.
Learned
counsel further submitted that the trial court has not given sufficient attention
to the evidence of the brother PW1, Takhat Singh. It can not be said that he
did not support the prosecution, merely because he stated that he had no
knowledge about the torture. This witness had not stated that Mathura was not
taken to the police station. Once it was established that Mathura had been
taken to the police station, it was for the police to explain the injuries suffered
by Mathura. Finally, learned counsel submitted that in case of custodial death,
normal rules with regard to appreciation of evidence can not always be made applicable.
In support of her statement, the learned counsel relied on judgment of this
Court in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. Stat e of West Bengal7 . According to the learned
counsel, the guidelines laid down in this judgment 7 (1997) 1 SCC 416 19 have been
flouted by the police totally. She relied on the judgments of this Court, i.e.,
State of M.P. Vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors.8 and Sahadevan Alias Sagadevan
Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai9 , in support of the submission
with regard to the manner in which the evidence has to be appreciated in cases relating
to custodial death. Learned counsel also relied on Munshi Singh Gautam (Dead)
& Ors. Vs. State of M adhya Pradesh
20.
We
have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In principle,
as a pure statement of law, Mr. Tulsi is entirely correct in the submission that
the Appellate Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal, unless the
conclusion recorded by the lower court is held to be perverse and has resulted
in miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Court would also not interfere with an
8 (1995) 4 SCC 2629 (2003) 1 SCC 53410 (2005) 9 SCC 631 20 order of acquittal
if two reasonable conclusions are possible.
21.
We
also find much substance in the submissions of Mr. Tulsi, again as a pure statement
of law, that suspicion, no matter how strong cannot form the basis of a conviction.
Even in cases of custodial death, it is for the prosecution to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a proper link between the accused and the commission of crime.
22.
Similarly,
the submissions made by senior advocates, i.e., Mr. Nagendra Rai, and Mr.
Mahabir Singh cannot be said to be without merit as legal propositions.
23.
We
are, however, unable to agree that any of the appellants could take advantage of
any of the legal submissions made by the learned counsel in the facts and
circumstances of this case. It has become necessary to remind ourselves of the
principles laid 21 down by this Court in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. Stat e of
West Bengal. In the aforesaid landmark judgment, this Court declared that custodial
violence, including rape, torture and death in the lock up, strikes a blow to
the rule of law.
24.
It
was emphasised that custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized
society governed by rule of law. It is aggravated by the fact that crimes in custody
are committed by persons, who are charged with the solemn responsibility to protect
the fundamental rights of all the citizens. These crimes are committed under the
shield of uniform and authority within the four walls of police station or lock
up, the victim being totally helpless. The Judgment further declared that the fundamental
rights under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution required to be jealously
and scrupulously protected. It reiterated the principle that the expression "Life
or Personal Liberty in 11 (1997) 1 SCC 416 22 Article 21 includes right to live
with human dignity. Therefore, it also includes within itself guarantee against
the torture and assault by the States or his functionaries."
25.
The
Supreme Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human
rights of the citizens, would view with deep concern any allegation made against
the police officials about custodial crimes. In the present case, we are dealing
with the torture of detenue, resulting in death. Using any form of torture for
extracting any kind of information, from a suspect was declared to be "neither
right, nor just, nor fair." It was specifically laid down that though a crime
suspect must be interrogated ---- indeed subjected to sustain and scientific
interrogation -- determined in accordance with the provisions of law, he cannot,
however, be tortured or subjected to third degree methods or eliminated with a view
to elicit information or extract a confession. The aforesaid observations of this
Court, in our opinion, have been totally disregarded in the present case.
26.
Mr.
Nagendra Rai had submitted that there is no direct evidence of the involvement of
Anil Kumar Singh Kushwaha in the legal custody and alleged torture of Mathura. He
also submitted that no specific role had been attributed to him. In our opinion,
both the submissions are without any merit. This submission of Mr. Nagendra Rai
is completely answered by the observations made by this Court in the case of State
of M.P. Vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors. (supra). We may notice here the observations
made in Paragraph 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment:- 16...............The High
Court erroneously overlooked the ground reality that rarely in cases of police torture
or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel
would be available, when it observed that `direct' evidence about the complicity
of these respondents was not available. Generally speaking, it would be police
officials alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their
custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not
unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not
even pervert the truth to save their colleagues, and the present case is an apt
illustration, as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance
about the whole matter.17. From our independent analysis of the materials on the
record, we are satisfied that Respondents 1 and 3 to 5 were definitely present
at the police station and were directly or indirectly involved in the torture of
Nathu Banjara and his subsequent death while in the police custody as also in making
attempts to screen the offence to enable the guilty to escape punishment. The trial
court and the High Court, if we may say so with respect, exhibited a total lack
of sensitivity and a "could not care less" attitude in appreciating
the evidence on the record and thereby condoning the barbarous third degree
methods which are still being used at some police stations, despite being
illegal. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof
beyond every reasonable doubt, by the prosecution, ignoring the ground realities,
the fact-situations and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present
case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system
a suspect. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets
encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on the increase, receive
encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach of the courts because it reinforces
the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to them, if an odd
prisoner dies in the lock-up, because there would 25 hardly be any evidence available
to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture. The courts must
not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst
kind of crimes in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a
serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Torture in custody flouts the
basic rights of the citizens recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront
to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners
or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in
`Khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become
law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady, the
foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and the civilization
itself would risk the consequence of heading towards perishing. The courts
must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity
which they deserve, otherwise the common man may lose faith in the judiciary
itself, which will be a sad day.
27.
Keeping
in view the aforesaid salutary observations, we may now examine the question as
to whether the High Court committed an error in reversing the judgment of
acquittal as recorded by the trial Court. It was the case of the prosecution
that Mathura was suspected of having committed theft. He was, 26 therefore,
picked up for interrogation on 8th October, 1983, with regard to a case registered
under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, i.e. lurking house trespass and theft respectively.
He was kept in custody till 11th October, 1983 at the police station. The
objective of keeping him in custody was to get a confession from him of having committed
the offence of house trespass and theft. At the relevant time, Anil Kumar Singh
Kushwaha, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2003 was Station House Officer
of the Police Station Indar. Ram Ujaagar, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 583 of
2003 and Nathu Ram, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2003 were both
working as Head Constables.
28.
In
our opinion, the High Court has correctly concluded that there is sufficient
evidence on record to prove that Mathura had been taken into an illegal custody.
This fact has been adverted to by PW6, Kamal Singh. When this witness appeared
in Court, he was absolutely terror stricken. He categorically stated as
follows:- "I will give statement in favour of the accused persons because
if I speak against them then I will be beaten up in the police station. I am a poor
person. That is why I am so frightened that if I give the statement against the
accused persons then they will cause loss to me in the police station. None of the
accused persons came to me asking for giving such a statement. I feared because
my nephew Lalji has been murdered and we have not been heard anywhere. (The witness
was told that he would get full protection as per his requirement. Hence tell all
this truth to the Court)."
29.
Upon
being given the assurance by the Court, as noticed above, the witness proceeded
to state that Mathura was his uncle's son. He stated that Nathuram, appellant
No.3, had taken Mathura with him to the police station. He was kept in the
police station for about two days. Takhat Singh, PW1 and Parmal Singh, PW16 had
brought Mathura from the police station. He had talked to Mathura when he came back
from the police station. Mathura told him that Nathuram had given him severe
beatings. This statement clearly shows that Mathura was 28 kept in illegal custody,
as claimed by the prosecution.
30.
Apart
from Kamal Singh (PW6), it appears that the other witnesses were also under
constant pressure, not to depose against the police. This is evident from the
fact that virtually all the witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution
case. It is noteworthy that Shrikrishna, PW3, Mathura's brother, his widow and
his son did not support the prosecution version. The terror of the police was such
that even the family members of the deceased refrained from speaking the truth.
Takhat Singh, PW1, the brother of the deceased Mathura, had plucked up enough
courage to state that the police had called Mathura to the police station. He, however,
stated that Mathura came back in the morning. This witness had also stated that
the police had beaten up his brother and he was rendered unconscious. He had been
taken to the hospital from the Shivpuri Kotwali. He had also 29 lodged a complaint
with the Superintendent of Police, R.K. Tripathi, PW28, as the condition of Mathura
was serious.
31.
The
fact that Mathura had been tortured and subjected to electric shock whilst in police
custody is well established by the medical evidence given by PW23, Dr. C.M. Tripathi
and PW24, Dr. L.D. Vaswani. Dr. Tripathi had clearly stated that he had found two
burn injuries on the scrotum. The injury on the right side was 2.5 cm x 3 cm. There
was oval shape charring of the skin, which had become irony. Similar wound was
found on the left side of the scrotum, which was also oval shape and 2 cm x 1.5
cm in dimensions. It was the positive opinion of Dr. Tripathi that the wounds had
been caused by electric shock. This witness further stated that as the result of
the electric shock, the brain was found to be congested in aragonite membrane. He
stated that Mathura had died of Hemorrhage of the vessels of the brain. This 30witness,
in cross-examination, totally ruled out the possibility that the injuries could
have been caused with hot metal. He has clearly stated that- "It can be ascertained
as to how the burn injuries could have been caused. When the body is burnt with
a hot object blisters are caused and if the blisters are absent then the skin at
that place squeezes and below the skin on the raptor and on the muscles becomes
red. Whereas the marks formed by electric current are black and hard. (The meaning
of word orne is hard). The skin also becomes hard due to post mortem
burns." During the cross examination, he further clarified that " when
low voltage shocks are given to anyone, as a result of it Brenticoolar Fredania
is caused due to which the heart beats are increased very much and the speed of
the heart increases. It is wrong to suggest that Intracranial hemorrhage is not
possible due to electric shocks". This witness also clarified that due to
the impact of electric shocks the blood pressure of Mathura was increased. In
view of the aforesaid, we are unable to 31 accept any of the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties that Mathura was not subjected to
electric shock.
32.
We
are of the considered opinion that in accepting the evidence of PW6 and the medical
evidence of PW23 and PW24, the High Court has not committed any error. The
evidence on the record clearly shows that death of Mathura was a direct
consequence of the inexcusable and inhuman torture by the police. The prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mathura was taken to the police
station. Whilst at the police station, he was subjected to third degree torture.
He was given electric shocks in the scrotum. Such torture was inflicted on Mathura
merely for the purpose of extracting a confession that he was guilty of the
offence of theft. Upon his release, the police personnel terrorized the entire
family. This is evident from the fact that the widow, the son and the brother of
the deceased Mathura, all turned hostile. However, there is sufficient evidence
on the record given by PW6, PW23 and PW24 to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Mathura died due to the inhuman torture inflicted upon him by the appellants.
33.
We
see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the High Court. The appeals
are dismissed.
...................................J.
[B.Sudershan Reddy]
...................................J.
[Surinder Singh Nijjar]
New
Delhi;
March
9, 2011.
Back