Police
No need to mention accused’s caste in SC, ST cases: Apex court
Posted by humanhorizons on February 16, 2009
Will not this judgement give open hand to police to do away or force FIR Atrocities applicant not to mention the caste of accused. This will automatically divert the case under CrPc and reduce the importance of SC/ST(PoA) Act.
No need to mention accused’s caste in SC, ST cases: Apex court
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blnus/28151620.htm
NEW DELHI: It is not necessary to mention the caste of the accused in the FIR in cases relating to atrocities under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Supreme Court has held.
A three-judge bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma and H L Dattu ruled that police can commence investigation on the basis of a complaint from the victim even if he or she had failed to mention the caste of the accused person.
“Whether the accused belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated,” the apex court observed, setting aside a Bombay High Court decision to quash the proceedings against an accused on the grounds tha t the victim Ashabai Machindra Adhagale failed to mention his caste.
The high court citing earlier judicial rulings had quashed the proceedings by invoking Section 482 CrPC under which it can quash a criminal case against any person. It quashed the criminal case after upholding the plea of the accused that the FIR did not disclose his caste, as mandated by the Act.
Aggrieved by the high court’s move Adhagale appealed in the apex court. – PTI
humanhorizons said
SC order on Torture/Illegal detention and Acquital
*Vadamalai Versus Syed Thastha Keer *
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High
Court allowing the appeal filed by the complainant- the respondent herein,
this appeal has been filed.
2. By the impugned judgment the High Court found that the two accused
persons were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 342 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction as recorded by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Chinglepet, was set aside by first Appellate Court i.e. learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai Division. There were two
appellants involved. Ranganathan (A-1) was Sub- Inspector of Police and the
present appellant (A-2) was Head Constable. It was alleged that they had
committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 384, 386 and 388 read
with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court convicted them for offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324 and 342 IPC and in appeal their conviction was set
aside and the first Appellate Court directed their acquittal.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The complainant was running a Gilt Shop in Madurantakam. On 10.5.1988 around
12.00 noon, Vadamalai (A2), the Head Constable, the present appellant came
to the shop and asked the complainant to come to the Police Station, as he
was wanted by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the complainant went
to the Police Station.
In the Police Station, Ranganathan (Al), the Sub Inspector of Police
enquired from a woman by the name Selvi in the Police Station about the
complainant. Then the Sub Inspector of Police asked the complainant as to
what happened to the jewels sold by the said Selvi to him. The complainant
said he neither received nor purchased any jewels from her. Then, Al beat
him with lathi on the back of his neck, back, etc. and A2 also beat him with
lathi on his left thigh, back etc. Thereupon, as directed by Al, A2 put
marble on the palm of the complainant and the same was pressed with force.
Despite the torture, the complainant maintained that he was innocent. He was
detained in the Police Station for about four days illegally.
In the meantime, telegrams were sent to the higher police officials about
the conduct of these police officers. On 13.5.1988, the complainant was
paraded hand-cuffed in the streets of Madurantakam. He was made to stand
near the Mosque. He was asked by Al to admit his having received the jewels
from the said Selvi. The complainant still pleaded innocence stating that it
being the month of Ramzan, he would not utter lies.
Thereafter, he was brought back to the Police Station. On knowing this, his
other three brothers came to the Police Station and requested Al to release
him. Al stated to them that unless the jewels were returned, the complainant
would not be released and they would also be detained. On that day also, the
complainant was beaten.
Unable to bear the cruelty and humiliation, his brothers went to the house
of the complainant and obtained the jewels like Jemikki, tops, etc., of the
complainant’ s wife and delivered the same to Al on 13.5.1988. Then, the
complainant was released.
Thereafter, the complainant got admitted in the Madurantakam Government
Hospital on 14.5.1988 and for ten days, he was hospitalised. Despite report
to the higher officials about the incident, no action was taken against the
accused officers. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint
against the accused.
Though the complaint was filed for various offences, charges were framed
against Al for the offences under Sections 342 IPC and 324 IPC against A2
for the offences under Sections 342 and 323 IPC. The trial Court convicted
them and sentenced Al to undergo RI for three months for the offence under
Section 342 IPC and to undergo RI for 3 months with a fine of Rs.500/- for
the offence under Section 324 and sentenced A-2 to undergo RI for three
months for the offence under Section 342 and RI for 2 months with a fine of
Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 323. The appellate Court set aside
the same and acquitted the appellant.
Challenging the order of the trial Court the appeal was filed and the
appellate Court directed acquittal of the appellant and the co-accused. The
appellate Court recording the following findings to direct acquittal:
(1) Telegrams Exts. P-1 to P-4 though were sent on 12.5.1988 do not refer
about the illegal detention of the complainant in the police station.
(2) According to the defence, on the complaint for theft registered on
14.4.1988 the complainant was interrogated on being identified by Selvi, the
accused in that case at his shop and he voluntarily gave the gold ingot and
the same was recovered from him in the presence of mahazar witnesses and as
such there is no torture. This is the submission of A1 who was examined
himself as DW1.
(3) Though it is the case of the complainant prosecution that he was
detained from 10.5.1988 at the Madurantakam Police Station, PW 4 the father
of the complainant sent telegrams only on 12.5.1988. There is no reason as
to why he did not send such telegram immediately.
(4) PW-5 doctor would state that the complainant (PW-1) told him that he was
attacked by two persons on 13.5.1988 evening. Therefore, the complainant did
not tell the doctor that he was tortured from 10.5.1988 onwards.
(5) Though there are materials that he was taken to the police station and
beaten, it has not been established that the complainant was detained and
tortured at the police station from 10.5.1988 onwards.
(6) Even though the complainant was released on 13.5.1988 he did not get
immediate treatment from the hospital and according to PW-1 he got admitted
in the hospital only on 14.5.1988. Therefore, the reason for the delay in
getting treatment has not been properly explained.
In appeal filed by the complainant the High Court took the view that even if
the informant has not sustained injuries on 10.5.1988 yet he was taken to
the police station and beaten up on 13.5.1988. The High court felt that the
reasoning of the Appellate Court was erroneous and directed conviction as
noted above.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the first Appellate Court at para 9 had recorded as follows:
“…Moreover, in his evidence about the time he was sent out of Police
Station, PW-1 has given contradictory statement. In his complaint he stated
that he was let out only in the evening of 13.5.1988 but in his evidence he
said only at 11 p.m. on 13.5.1988 he was let out. If he was let out in the
evening of 13.5.1988 there was no restriction for him to go to the hospital
and take treatment in the evening itself. But, in his statement he stated
that in the night at 11 O’clock he went to the hospital and since the doctor
was not there, he was lying on the verandah and the next day 8 O’clock he
met the doctor. This statement is not acceptable one. Because the house of
PW-1 is in the same town and if his statement is to be true that doctor was
not available at 11 p.m. he could not have come to his house and stayed the
night and the next day morning he could have gone to the hospital. Had he
said like that it could have been accepted. Instead in spite of his house in
the same place, he stayed in the verandah of the hospital is not believable
one. Moreover, PW-6 during his cross examination stated that when PW-1 went
to the hospital the next day, he also accompanied him. Hence, PW-1 visited
the hospital on 14.5.1988 is the statement of witness No.6. So the statement
of witness No.1 that he went on 13.5.1988 in the night at 11 O’clock to the
hospital and since the doctor was not there he stayed there and met the
doctor the next day is proved to be false. If the statement of PW-1 is true
that he was attacked by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other policemen, the moment
he was let out, he could have gone to the doctor for treatment. So on the
basis of the evidence of PW-6 that on 13.5.1988 no injury was inflicted on
him is seen clearly.”
5. Similarly, in para 10 it was held as follows:
“so the offences against the accused under Sections 323, 324 IPC and offence
under Section 342 IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I
decide the allegations against the appellants have not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.”
6. It is submitted that there was no mention of beating by the appellant. In
fact right from the beginning such a stand was taken. The High Court’s
conclusions are primarily based on surmises. It appears that the first
Appellate Court’s order was erroneously read as recorded in para 17 of High
Court’s order is concerned.
7. It is pointed out that the Appellate Court found that the appellant was
taken to custody on 13.5.1988 and, therefore, the question of taking him in
prison on 10.5.1988 does not arise. It is to be noted that no effort was
made to analyse this aspect in detail. As rightly submitted, the factors
which weighed with the First Appellate Court cannot be stated to be without
substance. High Court in para 20 observed as follows:
“20. On the materials available on record, even as per the finding of the
appellate Court, which acquitted the accused, that the complainant was taken
to the Police Station on 13.5.1988 and he was beaten in the Police Station
by these accused on 13.5.1988 and thereafter he was released.”
8. Aforesaid finding of the High Court is wrong. The First Appellate Court
only stated that even if it is true that on 10.5.1988, PW1 was taken to
Police Station, there is no sufficient evidence to show that he was kept for
four days in the police station. It also recorded that the telegrams sent on
12.5.1988 did not refer to any illegal detention. The complainant got
admitted to hospital on 14.5.1988.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the co-accused has
not preferred an appeal though he was then a high official. There is no
reason to treat the same as a factor against the appellant. There may be
several reasons for which A-1 had not preferred an appeal but that does not
in any event take away the right of A-2 to file an appeal. In the
circumstances, the conviction as recorded by the High Court cannot be
maintained. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith. The appeal filed by
the appellant is allowed and the conviction as recorded stands set aside.
The bail bonds executed to give effect to the order dated 8.3.2002 stands
discharged.