Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

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

Similar News