The poor show of Madhya Pradesh Police detaining an innocent man in the pretext of detaining a convict didn't go well with the High Court.
The Court came down heavily on such a grave mistake and was also angry at the Police's attempt to defend its illegal actions.
The judgement came out in a case titled as Kamlesh v. State of MP
The Court while puling up with the Police, stated in its judgement:
"In the present case, a person, who has not been convicted in any criminal case nor is in under trial, has been sent to jail by the police. He was caught from his village and produced before the Magistrate stating that he is Husna and the learned Judge, based upon the report filed by the police, in a mechanical manner, sent him to jail.
The most unfortunate part is that the State Government while filing a reply initially has defended its illegal action of sending an innocent man, who is aged about 68 years, to jail. No amount of compensation can return the period during which, the father of the petitioner was in jail. The constitutional rights of Husan have been violated with impunity."
The case was brought up to the High Court via a Habeas Corpus petition which was filed on behalf of the detenu, who was a 68 years old illiterate tribal man.
During the hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner alleged that 'Husna', who was actually convicted under Section 302 of IPC, died while he was on parole and the Police on its expiration arrested 'Husan', father of the Petitioner, instead.
The State however categorically submitted that the right person had been detained. In that regard, a supporting affidavit was also filed by the Sub Divisional Officer of the Police.
Nevertheless, on the Petitioner's insistence, the Court directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department to conduct an inquiry-based upon the fingerprints and other materials to unearth the facts.
The report of the Secretary revealed that the detenu wasn't the same person who was convicted.
Thus the Court observed:
"An inquiry has been conducted in the matter and based upon the fingerprints, a report has come duly signed by the Principal Secretary Home Department and now the Principal Secretary has stated that the person who is in jail is not Husna, meaning thereby, an innocent person is languishing in jail for the last four months."
The Court said that it is really "unfortunate" that while filing a return in the case, an attempt was made by the State of Madhya Pradesh to incriminate an innocent man.
In regard to the above, the Court held:
"It was only the insistence of the petitioner which forced us to direct a thorough inquiry and to obtain a report from the Principal Secretary Home Department based upon fingerprints obtained for the first time when Husna was lodged in jail and the fingerprint of the person, who is in jail at present i.e. Husan.
The report submitted by the Principal Secretary establishes that the person, who is in jail is not Husna, and therefore, as his detention, every second is illegal detention the respondents State is directed to release Husan, forthwith,"
The Court went on to remark that the present case is an example of arresting innocent people without identifying them properly. It was therefore directed that
"in all cases, where an arrest is made, the authorities shall identify the persons so arrested on the basis of Bio-metric as well as other documents in order to ensure their identity, in order to ensure that no innocent person like the father of the present petitioner, Husan go to jail again. The State Government shall issue necessary instruction to all the authorities and to all police authorities for assuring compliance of the order passed by this Court."
The Court also was furious at the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Police), for making an incorrect statement on the affidavit and attempting to incriminate an innocent man.
It then ordered registration of a separate case for contempt against the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Police) and also against all those persons who had made various entries in the Rojnamcha, stating that the correct person had been arrested.
The Court also directed the State Government to pay a compensation of ₹5 Lakh to Husan, father of the Petitioner.
The judgement has been delivered by Justice SC Sharma and Justice Shailendra Shukla on 10-02-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
