LexBASAMSETTI RAMA DEVI versus THE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1687 : 2024 INSC 1055 Basamsetti Rama Devi v. The State of A.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1358 of 2024) 07 August 2024 [Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and discharging the accused-respondents in the respective cases. Headnotes† Custodial Death – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 149, 120B r/w s.34 – Matters of custodial death – High Court solely relying on the reports of the investigating agencies (CID and CBI) held that the occurrence took place in the exercise of right of self-defence by the accused police officials-respondents and set aside the committal order and discharged the respondents in the respective cases – Challenge to: Held: High Court erred in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings against the accused police officials-respondents – Present matters did not warrant discharge or setting aside of committal order by the High Court – Approach taken by the High Court in allowing the revision petitions, deprecated – While conclusively asserting that the occurrence took place in the exercise of right of self-defence, the High Court glaringly lost sight of the fact that it was deciding petitions u/s.482, CrPC to set aside the committal order and grant discharge in respective matters, and not carrying a full-fledged trial so as to conclusively establish the cause of the incident itself – When dealing with such matters, u/s.482, CrPC, the High Court is to assess whether at a prima facie view of the allegations, a cognizable offence 1688 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports is made out or not – Going by the farthest stretch or even the most flexible interpretation of the principles involved in deciding a quashing petition, one fails to see how it can be implied that an offence warranting trial is not made out in the given set of facts and circumstances – The plea of self-defence could not have been accepted at face-value by the High Court without having to meticulously prove it during the trial – A plea of self-defence cannot be taken lightly, especially in a grave incident of custodial death, that too in such compelling circumstances – Grounds of defence adopted by the accused persons are a matter of trial which ought to be explained and proven in due course of proceedings following the strict rules of evidence and criminal procedure – Impugned order set aside – Matters remanded back to the respective Trial Courts – Right to life – Right to fair trial. [Paras 8-10, 12, 13] List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Custodial Death; Quashing; Exercise of right of self-defence by the police officials/officers; Tyranny of police; Right to life and Fair Trial; Rights of detained persons; Committal order; Discharge order; Offence warranting a trial; Investigation reports; Clean chit to accused before trial; Prima facie case; Judicial custody; Police firing; Telugu Desam Party; Bezawada Bar Association; Grounds of defense adopted are matter of trial; Human rights; Civil liberties. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1358 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in CRLRC No. 656 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2024 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1689 Basamsetti Rama Devi v. The State of A.P. & Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Rani Mishra. Adv. for the Respondents: Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Keshav Singh, D. Bharat Kumar, Aman Shukla, Rahul G. Tanwani, Amit Kumar, Ms. Yatika Gupta, M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Gopal Jha, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Sunny Kumar, Prateek Raushan, Puneet Aggarwal. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. “…but what happens after a person is arrested or detained? His troubles begin then. When he is detained or arrested and he is in the clutches of the police, he is alone in the world, and the forces of the police, the forces of the Crown and all other forces combine against him and he is helpless.” The above excerpt is from a Constituent Assembly Debate on 15th Septemb
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.