HC upholds life term to policeman for custodial death

The Delhi High Court has upheld the life imprisonment awarded to a police constable for custodial violence against a man who later succumbed to his injuries, saying it was a classic case where "the guardians of the law became its transgressors".
A bench of justices G S Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal also upheld the five-year prison term given by the trial court to a sub-inspector of the same police station for the offence of culpable homicide as he had detained the victim in his room for an entire night and permitted every policeman who entered to beat up the man.

The high court, however, acquitted then station house officer, R S Dahiya, of the Lahori Gate Police Station, saying though there was evidence that he "tinkered with the evidence" it was insufficient to hold him guilty of culpable homicide as was done by the trial court.
The bench also said that if any disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the three policemen, such action be taken against them.
The high court's ruling and directions came on the appeals of the three policemen against the trial court's January 6, 2004 order convicting and sentencing them for various offences.
The bench relied on the testimony of the deceased's father, Teg Bahadur, to uphold the conviction and jail term of then constable Anil Kumar for murder and then sub-inspector Sher Singh for the offence of culpable homicide.

According to the prosecution, Jagannath was picked up by the police for questioning on the intervening night of May 1- 2, 1991.

According to the father of the deceased, he saw his son, who worked as a peon-cum-night watchman, the next day in a badly beaten condition in the police station and right before his eyes Anil Kumar had repeatedly and mercilessly beaten him up.
Bahadur had also contended that when his son's condition deteriorated, the policemen were slow to take Jagannath to a hospital and only after the intervention of his employer (a lawyer), the victim was taken to St Stephen's Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries 10 days later.

Accepting the contentions of the deceased man's father, the bench said that Bahadur's testimony "portrays a harrowing tale wherein his son Jagannath was mercilessly beaten to death by the officers of Lahori Gate Police Station."
"The situation is aggravated by shoddy investigation and hostility of witnesses as the prosecution is also undertaken by the kith and kin of the accused," the high court added.
In its 108-page judgement, it said that "this is a classic case when the guardians of law became its transgressors and the whole might of the State came down upon one individual, who belonged to a weaker section of society, inevitably causing his death".

The bench said it was "spine-chilling" to even imagine the plight of a father "witnessing first-hand his son being beaten to a pulp by those in uniform".
It noted that constable Kumar was not motivated by the desire to save the life of the deceased as he did not attempt to provide medical aid and only took the victim in a rickshaw from doctor to doctor only "to save his own skin".
"In the whole story, all the police officials acted in a ruthless manner with the sole aim of saving themselves from any liability," the bench said and added that appreciation of evidence in a custodial violence or death case is never an easy task as the police witnesses "often stay true to their brethren than the truth".

"They even resort to making false records and entries. Where there are public witnesses, they face the hardships in deposing against the 'khakhi' colour and may be dissuaded from coming forward.
"The investigation is also undertaken by other police officials, whose interests lie in...obscuring the truth leading to faulty investigations," the court said.
It said that in the instant case, the beatings given to the man could not be labelled as being lawful or necessary.
It said, "Even a constable cannot be under the belief that custodial violence for the purpose of interrogation is necessary, let alone lawful. The act was wholly unlawful.