Summary
Split verdict in appeals by police officers convicted for the custodial torture and death of a suspect. C.T. Ravikumar, J. would acquit them of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and the connected offences, because the High Court had found the recovered body not proved to be the deceased's and there was no other reliable evidence of homicide, while upholding convictions for custodial torture under Sections 330, 348 and 387 IPC. Sanjay Kumar, J. would maintain all convictions and dismiss the appeals. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC for custodial death can stand when the High Court held that the body recovered was not proved to be that of the deceased and the State did not appeal that finding.
- Whether, absent the body, the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the deceased in police custody by other reliable evidence.
- Whether the courts below wrongly placed a burden on the accused to prove the deceased's escape from custody and wrongly disregarded the certified copy of a Railway Court conviction relied on by the defence.
- Whether the convictions for custodial torture and for the offences of screening evidence and false records should stand.
Provisions considered
- Section 304 Part II read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Ravikumar, J. held that culpable homicide requires proof of the homicidal death of the very person alleged; with the body's identity not proved and no other reliable evidence, the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Sanjay Kumar, J. would uphold the conviction. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 33, 49)
- Section 331 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Ravikumar, J. found no medical or oral evidence that the deceased suffered grievous hurt, having rejected the finding that the veins of his legs were cut, so this conviction could not stand. (¶ 49)
- Sections 330, 348 and 387 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Concurrent findings of custodial torture during illegal detention were not disturbed and these convictions and sentences were confirmed by Ravikumar, J.; Section 330 was held to cover Section 323. (¶¶ 10, 12, 50)
- Sections 201, 202, 203 and 218 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Ravikumar, J. held that, as these offences were linked to the main charge of custodial death, the accused were also entitled to the benefit of doubt on them. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 51, 52)
- Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872PW-1's omissions, brought out by confronting her with her earlier statements including the Section 164 CrPC statement, were held to amount to contradictions going to the core of the prosecution case. (¶ 36)
- Sections 43 and 79, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The trial court could not refuse to accept the existence of the certified copy of the Railway Court order of 07.01.1996; its evidentiary value had to be assessed on the preponderance of probabilities. (¶¶ 43, 44, 46)
Held
- Ravikumar, J.: Recovery of the body is not essential to prove murder or culpable homicide if the fact of death is proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence; but where the prosecution's own case is that the body was recovered and it fails to prove the body's identity, that failure is fatal and the prosecution cannot switch to a case that the body is untraceable, nor may the court build a new case for it. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Ravikumar, J.: No witness saw the veins of the deceased's legs cut, there was no medical evidence of such injury, the post-mortem on the recovered body showed no ante-mortem injuries, and PW-1's material omissions affected her credibility; the finding that such injuries caused death was unjustified and was not examined by the High Court. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Ravikumar, J.: The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and cannot gain strength from a weak defence; the accused need only show preponderance of probabilities. The High Court erred in treating the escape plea as a burden on the defence and ignoring the defence evidence, and the trial court rejected the Railway Court order on surmise. (¶¶ 13, 14, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
- Ravikumar, J.: Custodial torture during illegal detention was concurrently proved; the convictions under Sections 330, 348 and 387 read with Section 34 IPC of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were upheld, while they and the other appellants were acquitted, with the benefit of doubt, of the offences under Sections 304 Part II, 331, 201, 202, 203 and 218. (¶¶ 12, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
- Sanjay Kumar, J. (dissenting): Proven prolonged custodial torture made the claimed escape from a moving jeep highly improbable, a police witness admitted the escape entry was false, and the Railway Court record was a fabrication. Rejecting the fingerprint evidence only made the body untraceable, so death in custody could still be inferred, and once custodial torture is proved the police must prove their innocence.
- Sanjay Kumar, J. (dissenting) found nothing on record to support the abatement of the appeal of Accused No. 1 and treated it as alive; he would maintain all convictions and sentences as confirmed by the High Court and dismiss all the appeals.
Result
Split verdict. Ravikumar, J. would partly allow the appeals: acquit the appellants of all offences except the convictions of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 under Sections 330, 348 and 387 read with Section 34 IPC, and treat the appeal of Accused No. 1 as abated. Sanjay Kumar, J. would dismiss all the appeals. The papers were directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench.