Summary
In two complaints of custodial killing by police officers in Vijayawada in 2002, the High Court had set aside a committal order and discharged the accused, accepting the CID and CBI reports that the police fired in self-defence. The Supreme Court held that self-defence is a matter to be proved at trial and cannot be accepted at face value at the quashing stage. It restored both prosecutions and directed the trial courts to conclude the trials within one year.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, while exercising its quashing and revisional jurisdiction, could set aside a committal order and discharge police officers accused of custodial killing by accepting their plea of self-defence on the basis of investigation reports.
- Whether the allegations disclosed offences warranting trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973At the quashing stage the High Court only assesses whether, on a prima facie view of the allegations, a cognizable offence is made out; it must exercise restraint and not decide questions, such as self-defence, that belong to the trial. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Sections 302, 201, 149 and 120B read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences alleged in the private complaints and taken on file by the Magistrates; the Court held an offence warranting trial was made out and declined to comment further on the merits. (¶¶ 4.3, 5.5, 5.6, 10, 12)
- Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused contended that cognizance was barred without prior sanction since they acted in discharge of official duty and in private defence; the Supreme Court recorded the plea but did not uphold it and restored the prosecutions. (¶ 4.14)
Held
- When dealing with a petition effectively seeking quashing, the High Court's task is to see whether, on a prima facie view of the allegations, a cognizable offence is made out. It cannot conduct what amounts to a full trial to conclusively determine how the incident occurred. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- A plea of self-defence cannot be accepted at face value or taken lightly, especially in a case of custodial death. Grounds of defence are matters of trial, to be explained and proved under the rules of evidence and procedure, and the High Court erred in relying wholly on the CID and CBI reports to hold that the police acted in self-defence. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- Custodial killing gravely affects the right to life and public confidence in justice; denying a fair trial in such a case would shake the public conscience. On the facts, offences warranting trial were made out, and neither the discharge of the accused nor the setting aside of the committal order was warranted. (¶¶ 1, 11, 12)
- The trial must not be an empty formality or a reproduction of the investigating agency's reports; the prosecution must lead evidence properly and in time, and the trial courts must make an honest effort to uncover the truth. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals allowed; common High Court order set aside; proceedings in P.R.C. No. 13 of 2003 and S.C. No. 248 of 2008 restored to the respective trial courts to resume from the stage reached, with directions to conclude the trials within one year; no further observations on merits.