The Patna High Court, in a petition filed seeking action against the police officials accused of custodial violence, observed that the policemen involved in the case had special knowledge as to who committed custodial violence upon the victim and further directed the State Government to pay a compensation of ₹2 lakhs to a man who was subjected to severe torture and assault while in police custody.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the father of the victim alleging custodial violence perpetrated upon his son. He filed the petition seeking action against police personnel linked with the matter, accusing them of illegally arresting his son and beating him badly with a lathi, Kicking and punching and causing serious injury to him.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner produced certain pictures, which showed the extent of injuries sustained by the petitioner and further referred to an application made before the trial court to submit that from the beginning, the arrested person made a complaint of police atrocity while he was in the custody of the police.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 7 states that Respondent No. 7 was unaware of any injury received by the son of the petitioner in police custody. However, since he was primarily under the custody of Respondent No. 7, who at the relevant point of time was Officer-in-Charge of Siwan Muffasil Police Station, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was duly punished. Respondent No. 8 stated in his counter affidavit that the concerned Police Station Case No. 185 of 2017 related to Siwan Muffasil Police Station and Respondent No. 8 does not have any role in arresting, keeping the accused in police lock-up or alleged police atrocity and custodial violence. By filing a separate counter affidavit, it is stated by Respondent No. 5, the Superintendent of Police, Siwan that to date departmental inquiries are going on to ascertain the real culprits who were responsible for assaulting the son of the petitioner and as soon as it is ascertained by the police, the criminal case shall be instituted against them.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the decision in the case of State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors., wherein it was held that the courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crimes in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society and the 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.
The court noted that it is not in dispute that the son of the petitioner was in custody under Respondent No. 7 and all police officers and personnel who were on duty on 4th of July, 2017 from 02:00 P.M to 05:00 P.M in Siwan Muffasil Police Station and thus applying the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, they have special knowledge as to who committed custodial violence upon the son of the petitioner. If the police personnel fails to discharge their burden of special knowledge, adverse presumption may be drawn against them.
Further, the court stated that applying the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is concluded that the Officer-in-charge, lock up in-charge and all other police officers and personnel who were on duty on 4th of July, 2017 from 2 P.M to 5 P.M. are responsible to state how and by whom the son of the petitioner was assaulted in the police lock-up of Siwan Muffasil Police Station. On their failure to provide such information, they are liable to be prosecuted.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed that a complaint be lodged against the accused police officials and further due to custodial violence and police atrocity, directed the Department of Police under the Home Department to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh to the son of the petitioner within four weeks.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case no.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2525 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms Shama Sinha, Ms Asmita and Ms Shreya
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
