GAURI SHANKER SHARMA ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 12-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
GAURI SHANKER SHARMA ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. ETC. 
JANUARY 12, 1990. 
[A.M. AHMADI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
B 
r' 
Indian Penal Code: Sections 201, 218, 304 and 330- Death in 
police custody-To be seriously viewed by the Court. 
Three police personnel were charged with offences arising out of 
the death of one Ram Dhiraj Tiwari in police custody. Rafiuddin Khan c 
(accused No. 1) was the Sub Inspector of Police Station Kure Bhar, 
Shamsher Ali (accused No. 2) was a Beat Constable, and Gauri Shankar 
Sharma (accused No. 3) was the Head Moharrir. 
). 
The prosecution version was that Al directed Al and two police 
chowkidars, to apprehend Ram Dhiraj, deceased, who was a suspect in 
D 
a dacoity case. Pursuant thereto, Ram Dhiraj was arrested from his 
residence on 19.10.1971 at about 11.00 a.m. and brought to the police 
station. The prosecution case against Al was that he was responsible for 
having beaten the suspect Ram Dhiraj in the presence of two other 
constables, whose identity was not established, which resulted in as 
many as 28 injuries to which be ultimately succumbed. It was also 
E 
alleged that Al had demanded a bribe of Rs.2000 to desist from meting 
out third degree punishment to the suspect. The case against A3 was 
that he deliberately and wilfully posted false entries in the General 
Diary to help Al. 
The defence version on the other hand was that the deceased was 
F 
arrested on 20.10.1971 by A2 and his companions from near a culvert in 
the village and he was beaten up by them as he resisted arrest. 
The Trial Court accepted the prosecution version and convicted 
Al under section 304 (Part II) section 330, sections 201 and 218/34 and 
161, !PC, and under section S(l)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Preven-
G 
lion of Corruption Act, 1947. Accused No. 2 was acquitted of all 
' 
charges. Accused No. 3 was convicted under sections 201and218, lPC. 
'!" 
The High Court, however, accepted the defence version that A I 
was not at the police station on 19.10.1971 till 7.30 p.m. The High 
Court found that the three prosecution witnesses were not eye witnesses 
H 
29 
A 
B 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 
to the incident and hence their story about beating in the police station 
and the demand of bribe could not be accepted. The High Court 
accepted the evidence of DW I, Jaswant Singh, Station Officer, 
Machilishahr Police Station, who claimed to have come to Kure Bhar 
Police Station on 19.10.1971 for investigation of another offence. 
According to DWI, Al was not at the police station till about 7.30 p.m. 
While dismissing the appeal filed by accused No. 3, and allowing 
the State appeal against the acquittal of accused No. 1, and restoring his 
, . ./.. 
c 
conviction recorded by the trial court by setting aside his acquittal by 
the High Court, this Court, 
HELD: (1) Both the courts have recorded a concurrent finding of 
fact that the deceased was arrest1~d on 19.10.1971 at about 11.00 a.m. 
from his village Khajapur. That means that the entry in the general 
diary that the deceased was arrested on 20.10.1971 and was brought to 
the police station later can be brushed aside as false. The need to make a 
,.!-, 
D 
false entry speaks for itself. [36E-Fl 
(2) It is true that PW 5 and PW 8 were the brother-in-law of the 
deceased and PW 10 his 'neighbour, but that by itself, without anything 
more, was not sufficient to doubt their tastimony which receives corrob-
oration from medical evidence. Unless there are sound grounds to reject 
their evidence it would not be proper to brush aside their evidence on 
E 
the specious plea that they are interested witnesses. [37F-G I 
(3) It is difficult to understand how the learned Judge could 
persuade himself to accept the evidence of DW 1 on the specious plea 
that if he did not tell the truth he r:an the risk oflosing his job. The High 
Court should have realised that cases are not unknown where police 
F 
officers have given inaccurate accounts to secure a conviction or to help 
out a colleague from a tight situation of his creation. [41B] 
( 4) The High Court should lttave realised that it is generally dif-
ficult in cases of deaths in police custody to secure evidence against the 
policemen responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they 
G 
are in charge of police station rec01rds which they do not find difficult to 
manipulate as in this case. It is onlly in a few cases, such as the present 
one, that some direct evidence i

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