State of Madhya Pradesh V. Shyamsunder Trivedi

BENCH : Dr. A.S. Anand & M. K. Mukherjee, JJ.

FACTS : On the fateful night, intervening 13-10-1981 and 14-10-1981, the uncivilized way of interrogation led to the inhumane custodial death of a suspect of a murder case named Nathu Banjara of village Dhabala Deval, because of the vigilance of some of the members of Bar Rampura this incident was brought in the light of the court and the crime was made noticed and action was taken against the perpetrator. 

At the conclusion of the investigation, the respondents were arrested and a challan was filed against them. The respondents were committed to stand their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial court after hearing acquitted respondent 2 and convicted respondents 1,3,4, and 5 of the crime. The respondents then appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which further upheld the acquittal of respondent 2 and set aside the conviction of the other respondents. 

ISSUES RAISED : Following are the issues which were raised in this case :-

1. Whether the respondents were responsible for the death of Nathu Banjara ? 

2. Whether the trial court and High Court erred in their appreciation of the evidence ? 

3. Whether appropriate sentence was imposed upon the respondents ?

LAW INVOLVED :  Section 302 r/w 149 & 147, S. 304, S. 34, 201 & 342 of IPC, 1860 ; Section 313 of CrPC, 1973 and Article 136 of Constitution of India (Interference in Criminal matters).

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS : The learned counsel for the State-appellant (the Petitioners) has very fairly submitted their argument urging to the Hon’ble Court that through an adequate and exemplary sentence of imprisonment would have been normally called for the crime committed by them the respondents but due to the delay which has been caused instead of giving them severe punishment a reduced punishment could be considered. The Counsels for the State also urged that the respondents should also be sentenced to pay a substantial amount of fine, as a form of compensation to the heirs of the deceased.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS : Learned counsel for the respondents has also urged that sending the respondents to the prison at this distant point of time would only cause great hardship to them and might make them hardened criminals which would only contradict the meaning of intended punishment i.e. to encourage reflection and rehabilitation of the offenders. 

JUDGMENT : Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available. Generally speaking, it would be police officials alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown by the personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues – and the present case in its apt illustration – as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter. [para 16 of the judgment]

The High Court after appreciation of the ocular evidence(visual evidence which is seen with the eyes) and the other material on record rightly observed : “…and there remains no doubt, on a proper appreciation of evidence of these witnesses that the dead body of the deceased Nathu was taken out from the Police Station Rampura on 14-10-1981. The necessary interference which follows is that the deceased Nathu Banjara died in police custody in Rampura Police Station and further that the deceased Nathu Banjara remained at the police station at the time he was brought there in the evening on 13-10-1981 under custody till the time his dead body came out from the police station. The case set up by the defence on the basis of a Roznamcha (Ex. P/22-A) prepared at the police station is that the deceased Nathu had been released from police custody after interrogation at 10:30 p.m. The deceased Nathu had admittedly been brought to Rampura Police Station in police custody by bus from his village, a distance of 100 kms or so and it would be normally expected that the police would arrange the facility to return of his distant village by bus which is not the case here. At any rate it is difficult in the circumstances to believe that after having been brought in police custody from a distance of 100 kms he was let off that very night and left to his fate at Rampura. The Roznamcha (Ex. P/22-A), in our opinion, sets up a story which is intrinsically not reliable in the circumstances. This document appears to have been prepared to conceal the truth that the deceased Nathu died in police custody.” 

As issue 3rd raises a question before the Court regarding the appropriate punishment upon which the court held that : “Since the occurrence took place 14 years ago, the respondents have gone through the ordeal of a protracted trial and the appeals in the High Court and in this Court. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties on the question of sentence. We are conscious that a precious human life has been lost at the hands of those who are expected to protect the life and liberty of the citizens of this country. We are also conscious of the fact that the crime is a dehumanizing one and is an affront to the human dignity. The long lapse of period is indeed a consideration which may weigh in favour of the respondents for not being awarded a long sentence of imprisonment but then the interests of the victim of the crime have also to be kept in view. Keeping in view the consideration of the human factor involved and particularly the interests of the heirs of Nathu – deceased to whom mere imprisonment of the respondents at this belated stage may not offer much solace, we have to strike a balance between these disparate considerations and keeping in view the fact that Respondent 1 has already undergone a sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment consequent upon his conviction for the various offences by the High Court as noticed earlier we pass the following order.”

CONCLUSION : The Hon’ble Court after hearing the matter from both the sides and on the basis of the evidences presented by the learned counsels on behalf of the State and given the post-mortem report held that the deceased Nathu Banjara died as a result of the torture and physical cruelty inflicted on him while being in the police custody, and also held that the Hon’ble High Court erred in their appreciation of the evidence and condoned the use of barbarous third-degree methods used by the policemen. The court emphasized on making appropriate changes in the law to curb the crime and ensure that the perpetrators doesn’t go unpunished. 

At last, regarding the disposal of the case the court allowed the appeal for respondents 1, 3, 4, and 5 and as for respondent 2 it dismissed the appeal.