JAWANT P. SANKPAL versus SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 28-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 102 
JAWANT P. SANKPAL 
v. 
SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS. 
(SLP (Criminal) No. 6408 of 2006) 
JULY 28, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, 
JJ.] 
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - s. 12(a) -
C Complaint against police officials - Alleging physical torture 
of complainant's son in police custody - State Human Rights 
Commission held that police personnel were responsible for 
violation of human rights and recommended compensation 
- State Government implementing order of the Commission 
o - Writ petition against order of the Commission dismissed -
On appeal, held: finding by the Commission and High Court 
regarding the torture of the complainant's son in police 
custody, is justified -
There is no material to refute the 
complaint of torture. 
E 
Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before State 
Human Rights Commission against the petitioner and 
respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (the police officials). She alleged 
that when her son had gone to the stall of 'A' a merchant, 
he was assaulted and injured by him. When he took her 
F son to the police station, she was asked to wait. In the 
meantime 'A' and his family came to the police station. 
Police entertained the complaint of 'A' first. Thereafter 
police personnel assaulted the son of the complainant 
and also detained him. Complainant was threatened by 
G the police officials not to reveal the incident to the court 
and not to make any complaint before court. Her son was 
released on bail. But once again he was taken to police 
station and assaulted. The allegations of the complainant 
H 
were fully supported by her son, who was detained. 
102 
JAWANT P. SANKPAL v. SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS. 
103 
The police officials, in reply, denied the allegations. 
A 
In the report submitted by DCP it was mentioned that the 
son of the complainant demanded 'hafta' from 'A' and on 
refusal assaulted him; that he inflicted injuries with razor 
on himself; that he was a habitual offender and 
proceedings under Maharashtra Prevention of B 
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug 
Offenders Act, 1981 were also commenced against him. 
The Commission disbelieved the defence of the 
police personnel and relying on the medical evidence 
C 
opined that there was violation of human rights of the 
son of complainant at the hands of the petitioner and 
respondent Nos. 3, 4. and 5. The Commission 
recommended compensation of Rs. 45,000/-
to 
complainant for police atrocity which was to be later 
recovered from the respondents and the petitioner. The 
D 
petitioner filed writ petition before High Court, which was 
withdrawn on account of the understanding given to him 
by the State Government that it had decided not to 
implement the order passed by the Commission. 
E 
The petitioner further filed subsequent writ petition, 
which was dismissed on the ground that there was no 
necessity tQ entertain the writ petition in view of the fact 
that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn; and that the 
State had not challenged the order and had also complied 
F 
with the same. Therefore, the instant special leave petition 
was filed by the petitioner. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: There is no reason to differ with the order of G 
the State Human Rights Commission which was upheld 
by the High Court. There is sufficient material, which has 
been duly looked into by the Commission and the High 
Court, that the son of the respondent-complainant had 
been physically tortured while in custody in violation of 
H 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A the norms relating to custody of persons arrested or 
detained in connection with any offence. It is not for this 
Court to appraise the evidence further, since two forums 
have had a chance to look into the same. Except for a 
bare denial, there is no material on record to refute the 
8 complaint of torture of the son of the complainant by the 
petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It is clear that 
for whatever reasons, which could also include his 
antecedents, he was treated differently from 'A' against 
whom he had come to make a complaint and ended up 
c being the accused. [Para 14] [110-G-H; 111-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) 
No. 6408 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.8.2006 of the High 
D Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLWP No. 1839 of 2005. 
E 
K.N. Rani for the Petitioner. 
Sushil Karanjakar, Sanjay Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nair 
for the Respondents. 
The Ju

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