LexBHAGWAN SINGH AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A BHAGWAN SINGH AND ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. MAY 8, 1992 B [K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND R.C. PATNAIK, JJ.] Indian Penal Code: Sections 34, 201, 302, 323, 364 and 365-Custodial death-Disap- C pearance of dead body-Whether raises doubt about complicity of accused. Code of Criminal Procedure : Sections 160 and 161-Tltird degree treatment of a"ested person-Ac- tion of police personnel deprecated-Adoption of scientific methods-Neces- D sity for. E The prosecution alleged that the four accused one Assistant Sub· Inspector, 2 Head Constables and a Constable who were working in the C.l.A Staff of the State Police Department, went in a jeep to a Hotel on 6.8.78 at about 4 P.M. brought the deceased along with P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 to the C.J.A Staff Room in the Police Station, and interrogated him about smuggled narcotic powder. The A.S.I. and the head Constables were armed with a leather patta. While the deceased was being interrogated a constable was sitting out-side. The A.S.I. and the two Head Constables caused injuries to the deceased with their weapons who became unconscious. F P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 were kept outside under the guard of P.W. 7 another Constable, when the deceased was being interrogated and beaten in the room. Thereafter P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 were also taken inside the room and all the accused innicted injuries on them also while interrogating them and they were detained there till 9th August,1978. Later they were dropped near G a by-pass road. They went to the Hospital and got themselves medically treated by P.W.1 Surgeon. The prosecution further alleged that the deceased was taken in a car but he expired on the way and the dead body was thrown into a river and the same could not be recovered during investigation, P.W. 8 who was in H the company of the deceased in the Hotel of P.W. 6 when the deceased was 180 - BHAGWAN SINGH v. STATE 181 taken by the accused was also beaten. P.W. 9 the wife of the deceased made A .,.,, a report which was sent by P.W. 20 the Superintendent of Police to the Police Station for investigation. The concerned Sub-Inspector registered a crime, took up the inves· tigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses, visited the scene of B occurrence, and found the walls of the interrogation room stained with blood. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was laid. The accused were put up for trial before the Sessions Court P.Ws. 4 to 7 figured as eye-witnesses. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they were all innocent D.Ws. 1 to 4 who belonged to the Police staff c were asked to produce certain files. - Three questions arose for determination before the trial court: - (1) whether the injured P.Ws. and the deceased were kidnapped from the Hotel of P.W. 6; (2) whether the accused caused injuries to them, and (3) whether the accused caused the death of the deceased and destroyed the dead body? D The trial court accepted the version of the prosecution only to the extent that the injured P .Ws. and the deceased were kidnapped from the Hotel of P.W. 6 and rejected the rest of the prosecution case and accord· ingly convicted them only under Section 365, I.P.C. ----'. E The High Court in appeal, however, took a different view. It accepted particularly the evidence of PWs 4 to 6 and reached the conclusion that when once it is proved that the injured witnesses along with the deceased - were kidnapped, confined and beaten up and later if the dead body was not to be traced the only inference that could be drawn was that the F accused also caused the death of the deceased. In the case of the constable .J who was waiting out side when the deceased was being interrogated and beaten, it held that being a constable he obeyed the orders of his superior the A.S.I. and that therefore be had no common intention to cause the death of the deceased. In that view of the matter he alone was acquitted of the murder charge but convicted for other offences. G Dismissing the appeals, this Court, • HELD : 1. Both the courts below have accepted the evidence of P.Ws 4 to 6 and 7 and held that the four accused forcibly took away the deceased and P.Ws. 4 to 6 in a jeeR to the C.I.A Staff Room. There are no cogent H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R. A and convincing reasons as to why the Sessions Judge did not accept the rest of the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 who are the injured witnesses is trustw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.