Case title – Somnath vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (CRL.) NO.2600 OF 2019
Decision on – March 18th, 2024
Quoram – Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Facts of the case
The complainant filed an FIR as he lost Rs.30,000/- when he visited the Holy Nath Temple to attend the last rites of his brother-in law. The appellant was arrested in connection with the said crime on the basis of CCTV footage. Subsequently, the appellant was produced before the Magistrate and was handed over to the investigating agency. It prepared a memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 showing recovery of Rs.30,000/- from the house of the appellant. Further, during the period of police custody, the appellant was allegedly taken out of the lock-up by the Police Inspector, who handcuffed and paraded him half-naked with garland of footwear around his neck. The Respondent 2 (R2) also verbally and physically assaulted him with reference to his caste.
Later, the appellant on being remanded to the judicial custody filed an application for bail in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Court granted a conditional bail. Consequently, instead of releasing him, the respondent captivated him in the Police Station.
One of the relatives of the appellant pleaded before the Judicial Magistrate, for issuance of Show-Cause Notice to the concerned police officer. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the appellant, the Sub Divisional Police Officer inquired into it and prepared the report. The Report affirmed the above allegations against the Respondent 2 and recorded that despite grant of bail to the appellant he was illegally detained by R2 for four hours.
The appellant, based on the actions of R2, filed a writ petition before the Bombay HC and pleaded for initiation of departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against him and sought for compensation. The HC by the impugned Judgment, partly allowed the petition, wherein it awarded Rs.75,000/- compensation payable by R2 but declined to give any direction for initiating criminal action against him under the SC/ST Act.
Submission by the Appellant
The Counsel submitted that it would be a travesty of justice if such blatant violation of the personal liberty of the appellant and abuse of authority by the R2 is waived off with just “strict warning” without any real effective punishment. It was submitted that, while the appellant was in the custody of police, R2 failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in D K Basu v State of West Bengal and Sube Singh v State of Haryana and thus pleaded to inflict major punishment upon him.
Submission by the Respondent
The Counsel submitted that in terms of Section 161 of the Police Act, the prosecution against the police officer acting under colour of official duty after six months of the alleged act cannot be entertained and contended that the High Court had rightly declined the plea to direct any action on such prosecution.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Supreme Court on perusal of the enquiry report of the Commission noted that there was sufficient material evidence to conclude that R2 committed excesses against the appellant. It observed that R2 being in a position of power, totally abused his official position.
The Court stated that there must be zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen as the same would bring shame to the entire justice delivery system. The Court in the view of justice, though resorted to Article 142 to direct initiation of criminal proceedings, it refused to do so, considering the fact that respondent no.2 had retired and paid sufficient compensation in accordance with the order and judgement of the Commission and HC respectively. Hence, asserted that justice ought to be tempered with mercy.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision of HC and disposed of the appeal.
The Court however was saddened by the fact that it had to restate the principles and directions laid down in D K Basu case for the protection of detenu. It relied on various authorities and noted that the dignity of individuals must be protected in all circumstances and the police officers ought to be sensitive about the personal liberty of citizens and must refrain from excess use of force.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
