Summary
In a custodial-torture case, the Supreme Court retained the acquittal on homicide charges because a causal link between the beatings and death was not established, and upheld the acquittal of an officer whose presence was doubtful. It rejected the other officers’ belated superior-orders defence and affirmed their Section 330 IPC convictions. Their imprisonment was increased from three to seven years, reflecting the gravity of police torture to extract information or confession.
Issues
- Whether the evidence justified disturbing the concurrent acquittal on homicide charges.
- Whether superior orders excused the subordinate officers or the acquittal of accused A-10 should be reversed.
- Whether the sentence for custodial torture under Section 330 IPC required enhancement.
Provisions considered
- Section 299, Indian Penal Code, 1860Culpable homicide requires a causal link between the accused’s act and death. On the accepted evidence, asphyxiation from vomit was an independent cause and that link was not established. (¶ 16–22)
- Section 76, Indian Penal Code, 1860Following a superior’s order is insufficient by itself; the claimed good-faith belief in its legality must be supported. The belated defence lacked evidentiary foundation here. (¶ 24–25)
- Section 330, Indian Penal Code, 1860Convictions for causing hurt to extract information or confession were retained. The gravity of deliberate police torture justified enhancing imprisonment to the statutory maximum of seven years, with the existing fine maintained. (¶ 28–34)
Held
- The concurrent finding that death was due to asphyxiation, rather than the injuries, was a reasonable view supported by the medical and surrounding evidence. The injuries were not shown to have caused death. Without the Section 299 causal link, neither murder nor culpable homicide was made out; no perversity justified overturning the acquittal. (¶ 15–22)
- The superior-orders plea was raised as an afterthought without evidence or an earlier case that the subordinate officers acted under a bona fide belief that the orders were lawful. Their knowing participation in the investigation prevented acceptance of that unsupported defence or a retrial on it. (¶ 24–25)
- Reasonable doubt remained about A-10’s presence, supported by the evidence and accounts that he had fallen sick and gone home. His acquittal was left undisturbed. The maxim that falsity in one part invalidates all testimony does not apply in India; courts must separate reliable evidence from exaggeration. (¶ 26–27)
- There was no basis to interfere with the remaining Section 330 convictions. Taking the victim and his family into custody and inflicting injuries to extract a confession constituted grave police lawlessness. Officers charged with protecting the law require proportionately stringent punishment when they violate it, both for deterrence and public confidence. (¶ 28–33)
- Three years’ imprisonment was grossly insufficient on these facts. It was increased to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the trial court’s fine. The State’s appeals were partly allowed, the accused’s appeals dismissed, and the accused directed to surrender forthwith. (¶ 34–36)
Result
State’s appeals partly allowed to enhance Section 330 imprisonment to seven years, with the existing fine maintained. Homicide acquittal and A-10’s acquittal undisturbed; accused’s appeals dismissed and surrender directed forthwith.