Holding

There was no error in the appreciation of evidence and the conviction of the petitioner for murder was affirmed.

Summary

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was accused of subjecting a theft suspect to severe flagellation in police custody, resulting in the suspect's death by asphyxiation. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the High Court affirmed this conviction. The petitioner challenged the conviction, alleging that the death was a suicide by hanging. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the circumstances of the custodial torture and found no merit in the suicide claim. It held that the lower courts had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the conviction was beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the life sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the death of the suspect was caused by police torture or by suicide.
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the petitioner under Section 302 for murder.
Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

police torturecustodial deathmurderasphyxiationhuman rightslife imprisonmentcriminal trialpolice misconduct

Judgment

277

RAGHBIR SINGH A
v.
S'I'ATE OF !JARYANA
March 31, 1980
[V. R, KRISHNA !YER AND E. S. VENKATARAM!AH, JJ.j B
Criminal trials-Death of a suspect in police custody-Use of third dtgree
methods by police in investigation-Disapproved.
The pr06ecution aille.ged that the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspccor of
Police, subjected one of the suspects in a theft case to severe flagellation which
A resulted in the death of the suspect. Medical examination of the deceased re- C
vealed that death was due to asphyxiation.
On a study of the circumstances and the incontrovertible facts of ftasella·
tion and asphyxiation within police premises and the testimony of eye witnesses,
the trial court found the petitiorn:r guilty of the offence with which he waa
charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. His explanation that
death was· due to suicidal hanging was rejected by the trial court as well as
by the High Court. D
Dismissing the petition,
HELD : There was no error either in the appreciatio:nl of evidence or th•
concJusion reached by the courts below. [278 D]
[It is disturbing to find diabolical recurrence of police tortures resulting in
a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty E
are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights to
d'eath. Police lock-ups are becoming more and more awesome cells. This
development is disastrous to the human rights awareness and the humanist
comtitutional order.] [278 El
CruM!NAL APPELLATE JURJSD!Cl!ON : Special Leave Petition (Cr!.)
No. 679/1980. F
From the Judgment and Order dated 6-12-1979 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 880/78.
A. N. Mui/a, T. L. Garg and N. D. Garg for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
G
KRI•HNA IYER, J., The criminal scenario with a tragic'crescendo
which has been unfurled in this Special Leave Petition starts with'a
bunch of 'suspects' being brought up to the police postjwhich was'in
charge of the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Insp~ctor. A;case of theft
in some officer's house had been reported to the police the previous
night and so as part of the investigation the suspects were picked'up H
and suffered as part of the processlof 'investigation' severe flagellation.
Chhabila, one of those so tortured, succumbed to his injuries. This
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.
••
· triggered off investigation into the murderous conduct of the investi-
gator, the petitioner, and another. Medical examination revealed the
cruel cause of death as asphyxiation. One of the injuries which,
according to the doctor, made the deceased unconscious was torture
on both the soles of the foot of the victim. A trial for murder fol· •
lowed, a conviction under s. 302 was entered and eventually the High
Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment so j
far as the petitioner was concerned. ' A false explanation of suicidal
hanging was set up by the police:officer-accused but this was rejected
and eventually on a study of the circumstances· and the incontrovertible
facts of flagellation and asphyxiation within ·police premises and the
testimony of eyewitnesses about nocturnal detention;within)he police
c station and beating up of the victim, the courts below concurrently
found the guilt of the petitioner proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Strenuous submissions have been made to us by Shri Mulla to discredit
the prosecution version of murder but we are not in the least con-
vinced that there is any error in the appreciation or the conclusion.
·o
We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police
torture resulting in a terrible scarce in the minds of common citizens
that their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians
of the law gore human rights to death. The vulnerability of human
rights assumes a traumatic, torturesome poignancy when violent vio-
E lation is perpetrated by the police arm of the State whose function is
to protect the citizen and not to commit gr.uesome offences against
them as has happened in this case. Police lock-up if reports in news-
papers have a streak of credence, are becoming more and more awe-
some cells. This development is disastrous to our human rights aware-
ness and humanist constitutional order.
F ;

The State; at the highest administrative and political levels, we --'-'
hope, will organise special strategies to prevent and punish brutality
by police methodology. Otherwise, the credibility of the rule of law
in our Republic vis-a-vis the people of the country will deteriorate.

We conclude with the disconcerting note sounded by Abraham
Lincoln:

"If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens
you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true
11 that you can fool all the people some of the time, and
some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the
people all the time."
RAGHDIR SINGH v. HARYANA (Krishna Iyer, I) 279

These observations have become necessary to impress upon;the State A
police echelon.s the urgency of stamping out the:vice;or 'third degree'
from the investigative armoury of the police.

'
P. B. R • Petition dismissed.

•