MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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