2003 (9) TMI 819 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms acquittal in custodial violence case, orders compensation for victim's family.

Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Versus Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Ors.

Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Versus Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Custodial violence and torture.2. Delay in filing the complaint.3. Credibility of witnesses and evidence.4. Procedural lapses by police and judiciary.5. Awarding of compensation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Custodial Violence and Torture:The judgment begins by highlighting the widespread issue of custodial violence, torture, and abuse of police power. It references Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits torture and cruel treatment. The judgment stresses the importance of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and underscores the inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries. The judgment notes that despite legal provisions like Sections 330 and 331 of the IPC, which punish those causing hurt to extort confessions, convictions are rare due to lack of evidence.2. Delay in Filing the Complaint:The judgment critically examines the delay in filing the complaint, noting that the private complaint was lodged more than a year after the alleged incident without a plausible explanation. The High Court found this delay to be a significant factor undermining the credibility of the complainant's version. The complainant's plea that she was unaware of legal remedies and was writing to high dignitaries was deemed unacceptable, especially since legal advice was sought immediately after the occurrence.3. Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence:The judgment scrutinizes the evidence provided by the complainant and witnesses (PWs 1, 2, and 5). It highlights several inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimonies. The High Court found the evidence of merciless assaults by the accused incredible, as the medical report only showed 16 simple injuries. The judgment also points out that the complainant's version was not supported by the initial medical reports or the statements recorded soon after the incident. The Court emphasizes the need to separate grain from chaff, acknowledging that while some exaggerations are common, the evidence in this case was too inconsistent to be credible.4. Procedural Lapses by Police and Judiciary:The judgment identifies several procedural lapses, including the failure to register an FIR despite clear allegations of assault. The Court criticizes the police for treating the statements under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as sufficient, instead of registering an FIR. The judgment also notes that the trial court did not grant the accused the opportunity to cross-examine court witnesses, which was contrary to established legal principles. Additionally, the Court highlights the lack of action on the part of higher authorities despite requests for a Crime Branch inquiry.5. Awarding of Compensation:Despite upholding the acquittal of the accused, the Court acknowledges the procedural failures and the injuries sustained by the deceased. It directs the State Government to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the mother and children of the deceased, while excluding the widow who had remarried. The compensation is to be kept in fixed deposit, with only the interest allowed to be drawn. The judgment also orders an inquiry by the Head of the Police force under the Chief Secretary's direct control to identify those responsible for the injuries and to take action against officials who failed to register the FIR or conduct a proper inquiry.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's acquittal of the accused due to lack of credible evidence and procedural lapses. However, it emphasized the need for accountability and directed compensation to the deceased's family, along with an inquiry into the procedural failures.