ARVINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

A                             ARVINDER SINGH
                                        v.
                          STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                               OCTOBER 6, 1994
B
                   [S. MOHAN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

        Constitution of India-Article 32--Writ-Allegation of illegal detention
  and torture against some police officers-£nquiry by District Judge-Report
C confirming allegations-Direction by Supreme Court to launch prosecution
  against erring police officials-Award of compensation.

         The appellant filed a writ petition in this Court seeking prosecntion
   of certain police officers and award of compensation alleging that he and
   his family members were illegally detained, assaulted, tortnred and
.D humiliated by the police officers. Pursnant to this Court's order, the
   District Judge, Bareilly condncted a thorough enqniry and examined
   several witnesses and reported that the appellant and his family members
   including a lady member, N, were illegally detained, tortured and assanlted
   by some police officers. The Enqniry report fnrther confirmed that record
   was fabricated, illegal arrest was made without personal knowledge or
 E credible information that the arrested persons were involved in a cog-
   nisable offence and there was illegality in verbal order of arrest not
   contemplated under Section SS of the Code of Criminal Procednre, 1973.

           Accepting the Report of the District Jndge, this Court
F
           HELD : 1. The report of the Inquiry snbmitted by District Jndge,
     Bareilly clearly brings out not only highhandedness of the police bnt also
     uncivilised behaviour on their part. Court is pained to note that such
     things shonld happen in a conntry which is still governed by the rnle of
     law. Conrt cannot but express its strong displeasnre and disapproval of
G    the conduct of the concerned police officers and issne the following direc-
     tions : [313-C, 314-E]

           (a)   The State of Uttar Pradesh will take immediate steps to lannch
                 vrosecntion against all the police officers involved in this
H                sordid affair;
                                        310
            ARVINDERSINGH v. STATEOFU.P. [MOHAN,J.]                         311

      (b)    The State shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 each to N            A
             and her hnsband and Rs. 5,000 to each of the other persons
             who were illegally detained and humnliated for no fault of
             theirs. It will be open to the State to recover personally the
             amount of compensation from the concerned police officers.
                                                                 [314-F, G]
                                                                                   B
     2. Torture is not merely physical but may even consist of mental and
psychological torture calculated to create fright to make one submit to the
demands of the police. [313-C]

      CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
m~wn                                                                               c
      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

      R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner.

      A.S. Pundir (N.P.) for the Respondents.                                      D
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      MOHAN, J. Pursuant to our order dated November 16, 1993, the
District Judge of Bareilly has submitted his report. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the            E
State of Uttar Pradesh perused the reports. Mr. R.S. Sodhi would submit
that the erriog Police Officers should be prosecuted and compensation
should be given to such of those who have been illegally detained and
suffered humiliation at the hands of the police.

        Learned counsel for the State, though was present on an earlier            F
occ'!filon, did not choose to appear in spite of the matter having been
passed over twice.

      We have carefully perused the report. We are appreciative of the
good work done by the learned District Judge. He had held a thorough
inquiry by examining several witnesses to arrive at the truth. In our con·         G
sidered opioion the report is a fair one and deserves to be accepted It is
accordingly accepted.

      The report in no uncertain terms indicts the police. It inter alia states:

             "On a careful consideration of all the evidence on record in the      H
    312                SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         light of the surrounding circumstances I accept the claim of Nidhi
          that she was tortured by the police officers on 24th, 25th and 26th
          July, 1993. On 24.7.93 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyaya
          S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh, S.S.!. and Narendrapal Singh S.I. and
          threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his
          family in a case of abduction and forcible marriage thereafter. She
B         was threatened with physical violence to her husband and to herself
          in case of her default and when she refused her family members
          were brought in to pressurise her into implicating them. On 25th
          July 1993 she was jolted out of sleep by Snkhpal Singh S.S.!. and
          made to remain standing for a long time. She was abused and
c         jostled and threatened by J.C. Upadhyay, Sukhpal Singh and
          Narendrapal Singh with injury to her body if she did not write
          down the dictated note. Sukhpal Singh SSI even assaulted her '!n
          her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. She did not yield
          to the pressure. Then, on 26.7.1993 she was given filthy abuses and
          threatened by J.C. Upadhyay and Sukhpal Singh for writing a
D         dictated note. She was pushed and jostled by them both. Sukhpal
          Singh S.S.I. hit her with a danda on her leg and made threatening
          gestures aiming his Danda on her head. Ultimately they both
          succeeded in making her write a note dictated by them whose
          contents were those which were incorporated by the investigating
          officer in his case diary as her statement under Section 161 CrP.C.
E         Thereafter on 27th July she was purported to be taken by K.C.
          Tyagi to the Court for the recording of her statement under Section
           164 Cr. P.C. but was taken by J.C. Upadhyay, S.H.O. to Chauki
           Chauraha Police outpost and kept there and brought to the police
          station and kept there. She was despatched from there to Nari
           Niketan ouly at 5 P.M. When A.CJ.M. II had passed orders for
F          Nidhi being kept at Nari Niketan Bareilly K.C. Tyagi 1.0. was
           under obligation to take her from court to Nari Niketan straightway
          without any delay whatsoever but she was brought back to the
           police station and lodged there and only afterwards she was
           despatched from there for Nari Niketan. Then on 29.7.93 while
G          being taken to the court for the recording of her statement under
           section 164 Cr.P.C. Nidhi was brought from Nari Niketan to the
           police station and there J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. commanded her to
           speak that which he had asked her to speak and if she did not
           make her statement accordingly and went with Charanjit Singh
           then she would not be spared by him and he would· ensure that
H
           ARVJNDER SINGH v. STATE OFU.P. [MOHAN, J.]                     313

        she underwent miserable life time. He further told her that if she· A
        cultivated enmity with the police its consequnces were only too
        obvious. So the torture extended uptil 29.7.93. Torture is not
        merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological
        torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands
        or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in
        Authority and that too by a police officer the mental torture caused B
        by it is even more grave.11

      This clearly brings out not only highhandedness of the police but also
uncivilised behaviour on their part. It is difficult to understand why Sukhpal
Singh, S.S.l. assaulted Nidhi on her leg with Danda and poked it in her          C
stomach. Where was the need to threaten her? As rightly pointed out in
the report that torture is not merely physical but may even consist of mental
and psychological torture calculated to create fright to make her submit to
the demands of the police?

      A further reading of the report shows :                                    D
      (i) fabrication;

      (ii) illegal arrest;

      (iii) without personal knowledge or credible information that the          E
arrested persons were involved in a congnizable offence; and

      (iv) illegality of verbal order of arrest not contemplated under Sec-
tion 55 Cr. P.C.

      This again is a blatant abuse of law.                                      F

      The report clearly holds Narendrapal Singh S.l. of indulging in illegal
arrest and detention in arresting Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rajinder Singh
Bagga. Further, both of them were tortured as they were given Danda
blows at police station on 23rd July, 1993. The report blames J.C. Upad-         G
hyay, S.H.O. and K.C. Tya'gi, 1.0. for the wrongful detention of Nidhi. It
concludes:

           "The detention of a married woman in custody who is not an
        accused on the pretext of her being a victim of abduction and rape
        which never was to her knowledge and to the knowledge of the             H
     314                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A             police officers concerned aforesaid is itself a great mental torture
              for her which cannot be compensated later but here we have found
              that she was tortured otherwise also by threats of violence to her
              and to her husband and his family and was given physical violence
              calculated to instil fear in her mind and compel her to yield and
              to abandon her marriage with Charanjit Singh Bagga which had
B
              been duly performed in Arya Samaj Bhoor and which had been
              duly registered in the office of Registrar of Hindu Marriages under
              the U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 framed by the
              Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the
              Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. XXV of 1955). She was made
c             to write a statement as commanded by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and
              Sukhpal Singh SSI on 26.7.93 which was reproduced by the 1.0. in
              the case diary as her statrnent under section 161 Cr. P.C. The
              physical and mental torture was given to Nidhi on 24th July, 1993
              and 25th July, 1993 by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh and
              SSI and Narendrapal Singh S.I. but on 26.7.93 it was done by only
D
              J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and Sukhpal Singh S.S.!. and there was no
              participation of K.C. Tyagi 1.0. in the torture and harassment
              dated 24.7.93, 25.7.93 and 26.7.93."

           On a perusal of all the above, we are really pained to note that such
E    things should happen in a country which is still governed by the rule of law.
     We cannot but express our strong displeasure and disapproval of the
     conduct of the concerned police officers. Therefore, we issue the following
     directions :

          1. The State of Uttar Pradesh will take immediate steps to launch
·p   prosecution against all the police officers involved in this sordid affair.

           2. The State shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Nidhi, Rs.
     10,000 to Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rs. 5,000 to each of the other persons
     who were illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs. Time for
G    making payment will be three months from the date of this judgment. Upon
     such payment it will be open to the State to recover personally the amount
     of compensation from the concerned police officers.

           Writ Petition shall stand disposed of in view of the above terms.

H    T.N.A.                                                  Petition disposed of.