Penal Code, 1860 – Custodial torture – Death of victim – Acquittal of accused – Prosecution case that the two police officers i.e. A1 and A2, assaulted J in the confines of the Amraiwadi police station at separate intervals causing multiple injuries all over his body due to which he later died – Trial Court proceeded to convict both the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life – A1 and A2 appealed before the High Court – During the pendency of appeal, A-2 expired – High Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court, however, the offence was toned down from Section 302 IPC to offence under Section 304 Part I IPC – Correctness:
Held: J had come along with his advocate and his two sisters namely, PW-1 and PW-2 and surrendered at the Amraiwadi police station – Next evening J was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody whereafter, he was taken to and lodged at the Sabarmati Central jail – J’s condition deteriorated in the prison, later he died – It is further revealed from the records that deceased-J had been taken and presented before the DCP at the Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad and only thereafter, he was produced in the concerned Court of the Magistrate – The Medical Jurist (PW-9) stated that the person having received the injuries noted in the post-mortem report (Exhibit-50) would not be able to climb a stair case without support and that the expression of the person and his movement would be painful – Thus, there was hardly any possibility that after having received the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report (Exhibit-50), deceased-J could have climbed up the stairs of Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad for being presented before DCP – Furthermore, on being presented before the Magistrate, the expression of pain on the face of the victim, would be prominently visible and could not have escaped being noticed by the Magistrate – Medical Jurist (PW-9) opined in his examination in chief that the injuries caused to the deceased were fresh and must have occurred within six to eight hours of the death – Thus, there is formidable evidence of the Medical Jurist (PW-9) which totally discredits the version of the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) that deceased-J was inflicted the injuries leading to his death while being in police custody at the Amraiwadi Police Station – Their evidence is contradicted in material particulars by the medical evidence and other attending circumstances – Considering the unimpeachable and strong opinion of the Medical Jurist (PW-9), the probability of the victim having been assaulted in Sabarmati Central jail leading to the fatal injuries noted in the postmortem report (Exhibit-50) is much higher as compared to the theory set up in the complaint and the evidence of the star prosecution witness that deceased-J was fatally assaulted by A1 and A2 while he was detained at the Amraiwadi Police Station – The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons (A1) (since deceased) and (A2)(since deceased) by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and their conviction as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law – Resultantly, both accused A-1 and A-2 are acquitted of the charges. [Paras 41, 42, 43, 46, 50, 52] Evidence – Testimony of witness – Unnatural conduct: Held: In the instant case, two sisters (PW-1 and PW-2) claimed to have personally witnessed the assault being made on J (deceased) – They admitted in their cross-examination that they had been arraigned as accused in a couple of prohibition cases – Thus, it can safely be inferred that these two so-called eyewitnesses were having sufficient contact with the legal system and were well aware of the legal machinery and would be knowing the importance of filing a complaint promptly – However, they did not approach the higher officials or the concerned Court to make a complaint of the alleged assault made on their victim brother in the Amraiwadi Police Station by the police officials – They also did not approach the advocate engaged by them to tell him about the custodial torture – This pertinent omission in failing to inform their advocate about the custodial torture allegedly meted out to J gives rise to a strong assumption about the unnatural conduct of these eyewitnesses, casting a doubt on the truthfulness of their version and discredits their testimony. [Paras 29, 30] Evidence Act, 1872 – Marking of exhibit – Proof of document: Held: Mere marking of exhibit upon the letter without the expert deposing about the opinion given therein would not dispense with the proof of contents of the document as per the mandate of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 36]
Evidence – Contradiction between the opinion of Medical jurist and ocular testimony:
Held: This Court is conscious of the proposition that where there are contradictions inter se between the opinion of the Medical Jurist and the ocular testimony, generally, the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be given precedence – However, where the contradiction is so prominent that it completely demolishes the version of the eyewitnesses who are interested and partisan, in such cases, the Court should be circumspect in admitting the evidence of the eyewitness while ignoring the convincing opinion of the Medical Expert. [Para 44]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.