HARICHARAN & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 09-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 3 S.C.R. 769 
HARICHARAN & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS, 
(Criminal Appeal No.· 581 of 2003) 
MARCH 9 , 2011 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Custodial death: Allegation of custodial death against the 
accused-police officials on the ground that detenu-deceased C 
was kept in illegal custody and subjected to third degree 
torture for extracting confession that the deceased was guilty 
of the offence of theft - Conviction ul ss.304 (Part-II), 330 -
On appeal, Held: The fact that deceased was tortured and 
- subjected to electric shock whilst in police custody was Well 
D 
established by medical evidence - Prosecution proved 
beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was taken to the 
police station and upon his release, the police personnel 
terrorized the entire family - This was evident from the fact 
that widow, son and brother of the deceased all fumed hostile 
E 
- However, evidence on the record clearly showed that death 
of the deceased was a direct consequence of the inexcusable 
and inhuman torture by the police - No reason to interfere 
with the order of conviction - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.304 
(Part-II), 330. 
F 
Appeal: A'ppea/ against acquittal - Acquittal by trial court 
- Power of appellate court to interfere with the order of 
acquittal - Held: Appellate court would not interfere with the 
order of acquitt~I, unless the conclusion recorded by the lower 
court is held to be perverse and has resulted in miscarriage 
G 
of justice - Appellate court should also not interfere with an 
order of acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible. 
'' 
Criminal law: Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot be 
769 _ 
,>,, 
H 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A the basis of conviction - Even in cases of custodial death, it 
is for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt 
a proper link between the accused and the commission of 
crime. 
8 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 21 and 22 (1) - Held: 
The expression ·ufe or Personal Liberty" in Article 21 includes 
right to live with human dignity - Therefore, it includes within 
itself guarantee against the torture and assault by the States 
or his functionaries - Custodial death. 
C 
The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased 
was taken into custody and subjected to torture with a 
view of obtain confession from him for the alleged theft 
committed by him. After two days, the deceased was 
released. The condition of the deceased deteriorated and 
D he died. The case was registered against the accused-
police officers for the offence of custodial death. 
The trial court acquitted the accused. The High Court 
convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC and 
E sentenced them to five years R.I. and fJne and further 
convicted them under section 330 IPC and sentenced 
them to three years R.I. The instant appeals were filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellate court would not interfere with 
the order of acquittal, unless the conclusion recorded by 
the lower court is held to be perverse and has resulted 
in miscarriage of justice. The appellate court should also 
G not interfere with an order of acquittal if two reasonable 
conclusions are possible. (Para 20] (786-E-F] 
2. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot form the 
basis of a conviction. Even in cases of custodial death, 
it is for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable 
H doubt a proper link between the accused and the 
HARICHARAN & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA 
771 
PRADESH & ORS. 
commission of crime. Custodial death is perhaps one of A 
the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by rule 
of law. It is aggravated by the fact that crimes in custody 
are committed by persons, who are charged with the 
solemn responsibility to protect the fundamental rights 
of all the citizens. These crimes are committed under the 
B 
shield of uniform and authority within the four walls of 
police station or lock up, the victim being totally helpless. 
The fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the 
Constitution are required to be zealously and 
scrupulously protected. The expression "Life or Personal c 
Liberty" in Article 21 includes right to live with human 
dignity. Therefore, it also includes within itself, guarantee 
against the torture and assault by the States or his 
functionaries. In *D.K. Basu case, the Supreme Court, as 
the custodian and protector
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.