CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus KISHORE SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 25-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 95 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
v. 
KISHORE SINGH & OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2047-2049 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 25, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326, 308, 323, 343 and 1208 -
Grievous injury caused to person in police custody by police 
officials - Allegation that the victim was kept in police lock-
C 
up for 4 days and was subjected to third degree methods -
Accused-constable causing the injury while the accused-AS/ 
holding the victim - Conviction by trial court - High Court 
acquitting the accused AS/ and SHO and reducing the 
sentence of accused-constable - On appeal, plea that the 
D 
injury was caused on sudden provocation, thus attracting s. 
335 /PC and not s. 326 - Held: On facts, no sudden 
provocation and hence case covered uls. 326 - Plea of alibi 
of AS/ not reliable in view of the evidence of the victim-injured 
eye-witness - Accused SHO also guilty as he was aware of E 
the event and was responsible for violating Article 22(2) of 
Constitution and s. 57 Cr. P. C - Accused are also guilty of 
flouting the directions given by Supreme Court in *D.K. 
Basu's1 case - Acquittal of the accused AS/ and SHO set 
aside and conviction of accused-constable affirmed -
Sentence of accused-constable enhanced - Fine imposed on 
F 
the accused - Direction to pay the amount of fine to the victim 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 (2) - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 57 - Sentence/Sentencing. 
Sentence/Sentencing -
Imposition of sentence for G 
commission of criminal acts by policemen - Held: Such 
1. 
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal. 1997 (1) SCC 416. 
95 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A policemen deserve harsher punishment because it is their 
duty to protect and not to break the law themselves. 
The respondents-accused, who were police officials, 
alongwith another accused 'B' were prosecuted for 
8 having caused grievous injury to one person in police 
custody. 
The prosecution case was that the victim was 
employed with accused 'B' and he also used to live in the 
house of the accused. Accused 'B' suspected illicit 
C relation of the victim with his wife and daughter. Accused-
constable was the relative of accused 'B'. There occurred 
a scuffle between the accused-constable and the victim. 
Thereafter, the accused-constable took the victim to the 
police-station, where accused-SHO was present. 
D Accused-SHO assaulted the victim. Accused 'B' also 
came to the police-station. The victim was kept in the 
police lock-up for 4 days. He was beaten up in the lock-
up by accused 'B', accused-constable and accused-AS!. 
The victim admitted his illicit relation with the wife of 
E accused 'B'. At this accused 'B' and accused-AS! caught 
hold of the victim and then the accused-constable 
chopped off the penis of the victim with a barber's knife. 
FIR was registered ulss. 307/326 IPC. The 
investigation wa~ transferred to CID which added the 
F offences of ss. 343 and 1208. Thereafter, at the instance 
of the State, the investigation was transferred to CBI. 
Accused 'B' died during the trial. The trial court 
convicted the accused-constable u/ss. 326, 308, 323 and 
G 343 IPC. Accused-AS! was convicted u/ss. 3261114, 3081 
114 and 1208 IPC. High Court acquitted accused-AS! and 
Accused-SHO and reduced the sentence of accused-
constable. 
H 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. KISHORE 
97 
SINGH & ORS. 
In the instant appeals, the accused-constable 
A 
contended that assault on his part was as a result of 
sudden and grave provocation as the victim admitted his 
illicit relations with the wife of accused 'B' and as such 
his case would be covered u/s. 335 IPC and not u/s. 326 
IPC. Accused-AS! contended that he was not present in 
B 
the Police Station on the day of occurrence. Accused-
SHO contended that he was unaware of the incident and 
the allegation against him was only that he had slapped 
the victim when he was brought to the Police Station. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the High Court acquitting 
accused SHO and ASI and reducing the sentence of 
accused-constable cannot be sustained as it amounts to 
gross travesty of justice. [Para 17) [103-G-H] 
1.2 It cannot be said that there was a sudden grave 
provocation so as to attract Section 335 IPC, rather it was 
a pre-meditated act by accused-AS! and Constable. The 
penis of the victim was cut off by accused-constable by 
a razor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.