Penal Code, 1860: s. 324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Two police officers mercilessly beat victim in the premises of the police station, who died the same night – Conviction of the accused u/s. 304 (Part II), s. 471/466, s. 342, s.
323 and sentenced accordingly – High Court set aside the conviction u/s. 304 (Part II) r/w s. 34 and s. 342/34, and upheld their conviction u/s. 324/34, s. 323/34 and s. 471/34 – Appeal before this Court – Submissions of the accused that conviction u/s. 324 be compounded by this Court u/s. 320(2) Cr.P.C.; and that the accused are willing to compensate the family of the deceased – Held: Evidence of informant, who was also the eye-witness cannot be discarded because he was agnate of the deceased – Wooden lathi and batten are the weapons of the police force and the injuries having caused to the victim by these weapons, were likely to cause death – Trial court recorded the findings that with mala fide intentions to suppress the injuries, description of injuries were minimized in inquest report by accused – Thus, conviction by the High Court u/s. 324 is sustainable, and upheld – However, as prayed by the accused, offence u/s. 324 cannot be compounded by the Court in exercise of s. 320(2) read with sub-section (5) – Offence was committed by the in-charge of the Police Station as well as the Senior Inspector, posted at the same Police Station – Police of State is protector of law and order – Beating of a person in the Police Station is the concern for all and causes a sense of fear in the entire society – In view of the fact that the accused are more than 75 years of age now, the sentence awarded for conviction u/s. 324 is reduced to six months instead of one year with compensation of Rs.3.5 Lakhs each to the legal heir of the deceased in addition to the compensation awarded by the High Court – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 320(2) and (5) – Compensation – Witnesses.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 320(2) and (5) – Compounding of offence u/s. 324IPC – Leave of the Court – Permission of – Held: Offence u/s. 324 can be compounded only with permission of the Court – Grant of leave as contemplated by sub-section (5) of s. 320 is not automatic nor it has to be mechanical on receipt of request by the accused which may be agreed by the victim or his legal heirs – Statutory requirement makes it a clear duty of the Court to look into the nature of the offence and the evidence and to satisfy itself whether permission should be or should not be granted – Furthermore, administration of criminal justice requires prosecution of all offenders by the State – Offences which affect the public in general and create fear in the public in general are serious offences, nature of offence may be relevant consideration for the Court to grant or refuse the leave.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court have been perused and have adverted to the marshalling of oral evidence by both the Courts below as well as analysis of the documentary evidence on record where evidence of PW.1, who was the informant and eye-witness was rightly been believed by the trial court and the High court to the fact that both deceased and informant arrived at Police Station after 7.30 p.m. and they were mercilessly beaten by the accused. In spite of Varandah of the Police Station washed in the morning by the sweeper, the scientific officer, who visited the police station found the blood stains in the Varandah. The evidence of PW.1 could not have been discarded merely because he was an agnate of the deceased. In the long cross-examination, PW.1 could not be shaken and his evidence of account given of beating of the deceased by the Police Officers, is to be believed and relied on. [Paras 19 and 20][420-G-H; 421-A-C]
1.2 Emphasis of the counsel for the appellants is that only lathi and wooden baton were alleged to have been used as weapons of offence, use of which weapons cannot be said to be likely to cause death. MO.IV was a bamboo lathi and Mo.VII was a wooden batten. Section 324 IPC uses the examination of “weapon of offence”. Wooden lathi and baton are the weapons which are usely possessed by the police and the submission cannot be accepted that the injuries cannot be caused by wooden lathi and baton which may cause death. It depends on the manner of use of the wooden lathi and baton. Weapons were seized and exhibited as material objects. The failure of prosecution to show the weapon to PW.1 in no manner can be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. Wooden lathi and batten are the weapons of the police force and the injuries having caused to the deceased by these weapons as has been found by the trial court and High Court, non-showing to PW.1 cannot impeach the credibility of evidence of PW.1. [Paras
22 and 23][421-F-H; 422-A-C]
1.3 The trial court has also convicted on the inquest report prepared by accused PK. The trial court after considering the evidence recorded the findings that with mala fide intentions to suppress the injuries, description of injuries have been minimized in the exhibit by accused PK. The submissions that conviction by the High Court under Section 324 IPC is unsustainable cannot be accepted. Thus, the conviction of accused under Section 324 IPC is upheld. [Para 25][423-A-C]
2.1 In the instant case, accused has already been convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC. By Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005, offence under Section 324 IPC has been made noncompoundable offence. Prior to the aforesaid amendment, offence under Section 324 was compoundable. The submissions that on the date when offence was committed, i.e., 04/05.05.1985, the offence under Section 324 IPC was compoundable is accepted. [Para 28][423-F-H]
2.2 The offence under Section 324 in the facts of the instant case can be compounded only with permission of the Court. SubSection (5) of Section 320 provides that “no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court.” Thus, the composition of the offence in the facts of the instant case is not permissible only on the agreement on the request of the appellant which may be also accepted by the legal heirs of the deceased but composition is permissible only by the leave of the Court. [Para 29][424-B-C]
2.3 The grant of leave as contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 320 is not automatic nor it has to be mechanical on receipt of request by the appellant which may be agreed by the victim. The statutory requirement, makes it a clear duty of the Court to look into the nature of the offence and the evidence and to satisfy itself whether permission should be or should not be granted. The administration of criminal justice requires prosecution of all offenders by the State. The prosecution by the State is the policy of law because all the offences are against the society. The offenders have to bring to the Courts and punish for their offences to maintain peace and order in the society. It is the duty of the prosecution to ensure that no offender goes scot-free without being punished for an offence. It is also the settled principle of law that innocent should not be punished. [Paras 30 and 31][424-C-F]
2.4 The nature of offence, and its affect on society are relevant considerations while granting leave by the Court of compounding the offence. The offences which affect the public in general and create fear in the public in general are serious offences, nature of which offence may be relevant consideration for Court to grant or refuse the leave. Looking into the conclusion recorded by the trial court and the High Court after marshalling the evidence on record, it is established that both the accused have mercilessly beaten the deceased in the premises of the Police Station. Eleven injuries were caused on the body of the deceased by the accused. As per the evidence of PW-1, which has been believed by the Courts below, the victim was beaten so mercilessly that he passed stool, Urine and started bleeding. [Para 32][424-F-H; 425-A]
Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar vs. Bipin Singh Choudhary AIR (1945) Nagpur, Oudh, Peshawar & Sind 104 – approved
2.5 In the instant case, the offence was committed by the in-charge of the Police Station, Purighat as well as the Senior Inspector, posted at the same Police Station. The Police of State is protector of law and order. The people look forward to the Police to protect their life and property. People go to the Police Station with the hope that their person and property will be protected by the police and injustice and offence committed on them shall be redressed and the guilty be punished. When the protector of people and society himself instead of protecting the people adopts brutality and inhumanly beat the person who comes to the police station, it is a matter of great public concern. The beating of a person in the Police Station is the concern for all and causes a sense of fear in the entire society. [Para 36][426-B-D]
2.6 Present is a case where this Court is not to grant leave for compounding the offences under Section 324 IPC as prayed by the counsel for the appellants. The present is a case where the accused who were police officers, one of them being in-charge of Station and other Senior Inspector have themselves brutally beaten the deceased, who died the same night. Their offences cannot be compounded by the Court in exercise of Section 320(2) read with sub-section (5). The prayer of the appellants to compound the offence is rejected. [Para 38][427-A-C] Yashwant and others vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)
18 SCC 571 – relied on.
3.1 This Court noticed the submission of the counsel for the appellants that they are ready to compensate the family of the deceased. The Court noticing the said statement had issued notice in the matter. The appellants have also deposited the amount of Rs.3.5 Lakhs each as offered by their counsel recorded in the order dated 17.12.2020. [Para 39][427-C-D]
3.2 The custodial violence on the deceased which led to the death is abhorrent and not acceptable in the civilized society. The offence committed by the accused is crime not against the deceased alone but was against humanity and clear violations of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Although the High Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased. The compensation awarded was not adequate. [Para 40][427-D-E]
3.3 Looking to the facts that both the appellants are more than 75 years of age now, the ends of justice be served in reducing the sentence awarded for conviction under Section 324 IPC to six months instead of one year. Additionally the legal heirs of the deceased can be compensated by the compensation which has been offered and deposited by the appellant in this Court. Thus, sentence of one year is reduced to six months by awarding compensation of Rs.3.5 Lakhs each to the legal heir of the deceased in addition to the compensation awarded by the High Court. The compensation deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the trial court who may pay the same to the legal heirs of the deceased. [Para 43][428-G-H; 429-A-B]
Gulab Das and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 10 SCC 765: [ 2011] 13 SCR 177; Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 667 : [2008] 14 SCR 574 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.