Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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