LexDALBIR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 824 A DALBIR SINGH V. .+- STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 193 of 2006) B FEBRUARY 3, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Custodial Death - Writ petition alleging custodial death c - Compensation sought - State responding that FIR lodged and erring officials charged u/ss.330, 342 and 306 /PC, sanction for prosecution granted and cognizance of offences taken - Held: In view of the facts, no further direction required at this stage - Prayer for compensation not acceptable as the D issue as to whether the death was custodial, yet to be decided - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 330, 342 and 306. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21, 20(3) and 22 - Custodial violence and torture is defiance of the rights flowing E from Constitution - Increase of such violence raises serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system - universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - Article 5. Criminal trial - Adherence to principle of proof beyond F reasonable doubt - In Police torture cases - Held: Exaggerated and strict adherence to the principle in such cases, often results in miscarriage of justice - Courts to deal with such cases in realistic manner. G The petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court alleging that his son was done to death in police custody and the police officials were giving the death, a colour of suicide, attempting to protect the erring police officials. Petitioner also sought compensation. H 824 DALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 825 On notice, respondent-State stated that FIR had been A registered and certain police officials had been charged for commission of offences punishable u/ss. 330, 342 and 306 IPC. Sanction for prosecution had also been given. Charge-sheet had been filed. Accused had surrendered before Court and their bail had been rejected. B Disposing of the petition, the Court r ·~ HELD:1.1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which marked the emergence of a c worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights stipulates in Article 5 that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Despite this ,Pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilized nation shows its concern and makes efforts for D ,,lo· its eradication. [Para 6] [831-G-H; 832-A-B] 1.2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure E established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee ~ against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries. F Chapter V CrPC deals with the powers of arrest of persons and the safeguards required to be followed by • the police to protect the interest of the arrested person . Articles 20(3) and 22 of the Constitution further manifest the constitutional protection extended to every citizen G and the guarantees held out for making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is therefore difficult .. .'.I\ to comprehend how torture and custodial violence can be permitted to defy the rights flowing from the Constitution. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in custody which have assumed alarming H 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R. A proportions raise serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system. The community rightly gets disturbed. The cry for justice becomes louder and warrants immediate remedial measures. [Para 8) [832-0-H; 833-AJ B 1.3. The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted ... ' peril because guardians of law destroy the human rights by custodial violence and torture and invariably resulting ' c in death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose paramount duty is to protect the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality D perpetrate them. [Para 9) [833-0-E] Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana (1980) 3 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.