Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Custodial Torture Cannot Be Tolerated: PH HC Convicts DSP of Punjab Police  Under Section 302 IPC

09 September 2024 3:07 PM

By: sayum


Punjab & Haryana High Court sets aside acquittals, holds police officers guilty of custodial death under Section 302 IPC. In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the acquittals of several police officers in a custodial death case, convicting them under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Gamdoor Singh. The court found the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, sufficient to establish that the police officers were responsible for the death of the victim while in custody. The judgment underscores the importance of holding law enforcement accountable for custodial violence.

The case revolved around the alleged illegal detention and custodial death of Gamdoor Singh, who was abducted by police officials, including SHO Harbhajan Singh and ASI Kirpal Singh, from his home on November 14, 1995. Witnesses testified that the police tortured Singh during his detention, causing severe injuries. He was later released in a critical condition and admitted to PGI Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on December 7, 1995. Despite these allegations, the trial court had acquitted the officers of murder charges, convicting them only for lesser offences.

The court relied heavily on the testimony of Baghel Singh (PW-3), who had initially provided incriminating evidence against the officers but later retracted parts of his statement. However, the High Court dismissed his retraction, stating that the witness had been pressured by senior police officers, including DSP Gursewak Singh, to change his testimony. The court noted, "His initial statements were consistent and aligned with the prosecution's case. The subsequent retraction, made under duress, does not diminish the credibility of his earlier testimony."

The medical reports were pivotal in establishing the cause of death. The post-mortem revealed multiple injuries on the victim’s body, including contusions and abrasions consistent with physical assault. The High Court observed, "The systemic disturbances caused by the ante-mortem injuries directly led to the death of Gamdoor Singh, despite his pre-existing cardiac and lung conditions. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature." The court also rejected the trial court’s reliance on an earlier medical report suggesting natural causes of death, citing that the doctors who provided these reports were not cross-examined or confronted with contradictory evidence.

The court emphasized the importance of protecting individuals from custodial violence, stating that such acts by law enforcement are intolerable in a constitutional democracy. The bench noted that the delay in the post-mortem report did not undermine the credibility of the medical evidence and that the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient to hold the police officers accountable under Section 302 IPC. "The custodial torture inflicted on the deceased was directly responsible for his death, and the accused must bear the full consequences of their unlawful actions," the court remarked.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur, delivering the judgment, stated, "The law enforcement officers violated the fundamental rights of the deceased, and their actions cannot be condoned. Custodial violence is a grave violation of human dignity and must be punished with the full force of law." He further added, "The injuries sustained by the deceased, as corroborated by medical evidence, clearly establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC."

This judgment marks a crucial stance against custodial violence, reinforcing that law enforcement agencies are not above the law. By overturning the acquittals and convicting the police officers for murder, the High Court has sent a strong message regarding the accountability of public officials. The case will likely have far-reaching implications for future custodial violence cases, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of individuals, even when faced with institutional pressures.

Date of Decision: 23rd August 2024​.

State of Punjab vs. Harbhajan Singh and others

Latest Legal News