Leading Cases

Torture & Custodial Death

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Sagar Yadav & Ors.; (1985) 1 SCC 552

• We would like to impress upon the Government the need to amend the law appropriately so that policemen who commit atrocities on persons who are in their custody are not allowed to escape by reason of paucity or absence of evidence.

• The Law as to the burden of proof in such cases may be re-examined by the Legislature so that hand maids of law and order do not use their authority and opportunities for oppressing the innocent citizens who look to them for protection.

D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal; (1997) 1 SCC 416

• The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody.

• Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be “right nor just nor fair” and, therefore, would be impermissible, being offensive to Article 21.

• Need, therefore, is to develop scientific methods of investigation and train the investigators properly to interrogate to meet the challenge.

• The law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime.

Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raaghunath Dhoble; (2003) 7 SCC 749

• The Law Commission in its 113th Report recommended amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to provide that …….., if there is evidence that the injury was caused during the period when the person was in the police custody, the Court may presume that the injury was caused by the Police Officer having the custody of that person during that period unless the Police Officer proves to the contrary.

• The Courts are also required to have a change in their outlook, approach, appreciation and attitude, particularly in cases involving custodial crimes and they should exhibit more sensitivity and adopt a realistic rather than a narrow technical approach.

Prakash Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors; (2006) 8 SCC 1

• There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

• Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above.

• The district-level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge while the state-level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court.

• The State-level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous heart or rape in police custody.

• The district-level Complaints Authority would, apart from the above cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority.

• The recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and State-levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be binding on the authority concerned.

This direction was given in response to a huge number of complaints against the police, and the lack of accountability which has led to serious misconduct by members of the police force. However, six years after the Supreme Court’s directive only six states and four union territories have functioning PCAs.

Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association & ANR Vs. Union of India & Anr.; Writ Petition (CRL.) NO. 129 OF 2012

• HRLN filed a petition for setting up a Special Investigation team to investigate extra judicial killings of approx. 1600 victims in the State of Manipur.

• The Supreme Court appointed a Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) Santosh Hegde to investigate into six cases.

• Pursuant to enquiry the SC appointed Committee held that all six cases were cases of fake encounters.

• The Commission has also given its report on the role and functioning of the State Police and Security Forces in Manipur. The Commission has pointed out that this Court in 'Naga People's Movement for Human Rights vs. Union of India' (1998) 2 SCC 109, set out detailed guidelines within which the Security Forces should operate under the Armed Forces (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (in short 'AFSPA'). Following the decision of this Court, the Armed Forces Headquarters issued circulars laying down the Do's and Don'ts for the Security Forces.

• The National Human Rights Commission has also issued detailed guidelines and the State Government has also issued circulars prescribing operational limits for the State Police and the Security Forces. But, unfortunately, none of these guidelines or Do's and Don'ts are followed in actual operations.

• The Supreme Court has observed that one of the main issues before this Court, therefore, is how to ensure that the State Police and the Security Forces adhere to the guidelines laid down by this Court and the directions issued by the Army Headquarters, the National Human Rights Commission and the State Government.

• The matter is now pending for further hearing.