Brief Facts
- In June 2015, the Appellant was arrested for alleged theft (`30,000) based on CCTV footage. While in police custody, Respondent No.2 allegedly paraded him half-naked with a footwear garland, abused him about his caste, and assaulted him. Despite bail being granted, Respondent No.2 delayed his release by illegally detaining him for four hours.
- On Complaint by the Appellant, an official inquiry was conducted wherein the Respondent No. 2 was found guilty of misconduct and only received a “strict warning.”
- Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of filing Writ Petition, inter alia, praying for initiation of departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings against Respondent No.2 and also sought compensation. However, wherein the Hon’ble Court partly allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant by awarding `75,000/- compensation from Respondent no.2 personally but refuse to initiate criminal action.
- Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant preferred this appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Issues
- Whether the custodial misconduct and caste-based humiliation of the Appellant by Respondent no. 2 warranted criminal prosecution under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
- Whether the compensation of Rs.75,000 awarded by the High Court was sufficient redress for the violation of the appellant’s fundamental and statutory rights?
- What are the prescribed guidelines that investigating authorities must follow while arresting a person and/or while the person is in their custody pursuant to remand?
Held
- The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the Judgment of the High Court and found that the Respondent no.2 had committed custodial excesses, including illegal detention and public humiliation of the Appellant, a member of the Scheduled Castes. The inquiry reports including those by the SDPO and NHRC, supported the Appellant’s version. The findings of the court are summarized as under:
- The Court would indicate that in such matters the Courts need to take a very strict view. A zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts needs to be adopted as such acts, committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen, who is in a non-bargaining position, bring shame to the entire justice delivery system. As such, we were considering resorting to Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct initiation of criminal proceedings, but only because of the fact that respondent no.2 has retired and has already paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) [Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) as per the Impugned Judgment and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) as per this Court’s order dated 07.07.2023] in total to the appellant, who has also been paid Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as per the Commission’s order, we refrain from so directing, in these peculiar facts and circumstances. We hold back noting that justice ought to be tempered with mercy.
- Further, the court while revisiting the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D K Basu v State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526, Bhim Singh, MLA v State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1985) 4 SCC 677, Sunil Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990) 3 SCC 119, Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 prompted to come down heavily on excess use of force by the police. As such, there will be a general direction to the police forces in all States and Union Territories as also all agencies endowed with the power of arrest 18 and custody to scrupulously adhere to all Constitutional and statutory safeguards and the additional guidelines laid down by this Court when a person is arrested by them and/or remanded to their custody.
Relevant Para No.
- 23 and 24