ARVINDER SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 06-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ARVINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 6, 1994 
B 
[S. MOHAN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 32--Writ-Allegation of illegal detention 
and torture against some police officers-£nquiry by District Judge-Report 
C confirming allegations-Direction by Supreme Court to launch prosecution 
against erring police officials-Award of compensation. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in this Court seeking prosecntion 
of certain police officers and award of compensation alleging that he and 
his family members were illegally detained, assaulted, tortnred and 
.D humiliated by the police officers. Pursnant to this Court's order, the 
District Judge, Bareilly condncted a thorough enqniry and examined 
several witnesses and reported that the appellant and his family members 
including a lady member, N, were illegally detained, tortured and assanlted 
by some police officers. The Enqniry report fnrther confirmed that record 
was fabricated, illegal arrest was made without personal knowledge or 
E credible information that the arrested persons were involved in a cog-
nisable offence and there was illegality in verbal order of arrest not 
contemplated under Section SS of the Code of Criminal Procednre, 1973. 
Accepting the Report of the District Jndge, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. The report of the Inquiry snbmitted by District Jndge, 
Bareilly clearly brings out not only highhandedness of the police bnt also 
uncivilised behaviour on their part. Court is pained to note that such 
things shonld happen in a conntry which is still governed by the rnle of 
law. Conrt cannot but express its strong displeasnre and disapproval of 
G the conduct of the concerned police officers and issne the following direc-
tions : [313-C, 314-E] 
(a) 
The State of Uttar Pradesh will take immediate steps to lannch 
vrosecntion against all the police officers involved in this 
H 
sordid affair; 
310 
ARVINDERSINGH v. STATEOFU.P. [MOHAN,J.] 
311 
(b) 
The State shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 each to N A 
and her hnsband and Rs. 5,000 to each of the other persons 
who were illegally detained and humnliated for no fault of 
theirs. It will be open to the State to recover personally the 
amount of compensation from the concerned police officers. 
[314-F, G] 
2. Torture is not merely physical but may even consist of mental and 
psychological torture calculated to create fright to make one submit to the 
demands of the police. [313-C] 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 
B 
m~wn 
c 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner. 
A.S. Pundir (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MOHAN, J. Pursuant to our order dated November 16, 1993, the 
District Judge of Bareilly has submitted his report. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned 
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the E 
State of Uttar Pradesh perused the reports. Mr. R.S. Sodhi would submit 
that the erriog Police Officers should be prosecuted and compensation 
should be given to such of those who have been illegally detained and 
suffered humiliation at the hands of the police. 
Learned counsel for the State, though was present on an earlier F 
occ'!filon, did not choose to appear in spite of the matter having been 
passed over twice. 
We have carefully perused the report. We are appreciative of the 
good work done by the learned District Judge. He had held a thorough 
inquiry by examining several witnesses to arrive at the truth. In our con· G 
sidered opioion the report is a fair one and deserves to be accepted It is 
accordingly accepted. 
The report in no uncertain terms indicts the police. It inter alia states: 
"On a careful consideration of all the evidence on record in the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
light of the surrounding circumstances I accept the claim of Nidhi 
that she was tortured by the police officers on 24th, 25th and 26th 
July, 1993. On 24.7.93 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyaya 
S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh, S.S.!. and Narendrapal Singh S.I. and 
threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his 
family in a case of abduction and forcible marriage thereafter. She 
was threatened with physical violence to her husband and to herself 
in case of her default and when she refused her family members 
were brought in to pressurise her into implicating them. On 25th 
July 1993 she was jolted

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.