LexMANIK & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 724 : 2024 INSC 734 Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1614-1618 of 2012) 25 September 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 330, 331, 342, 343, 348, 354, 385, 387, 201, 202, 193 and 218, all r/w. s.34 – Victim-S was taken into police custody for interrogation – Allegation that he was subjected to third degree torture – Thereafter, a burnt and buried body was found in the forest – Body was unidentified – Prosecution case that appellants-convicts committed the heinous crime and concocted a case to escape the prosecution for custodial death – The Trial Court held that prosecution succeeded only in establishing charge u/s.304-II r/w. s.34 against accused A1, A2 and A3 – Other accused were found guilty under certain other charges – High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences except u/s. 201 r/w. s.34, IPC: Held: [Per C.T. Ravikumar, J.]: Criminal Appeal No.1614/2012 stood abated as the sole appellant who was the first accused (A1) died on 06.03.2022 – In the instant case, the very case of the prosecution is that body recovered from forest area was of victim-S – When once identification of the dead body as that of victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it could not be said that the dead body is that of victim, either for holding the appellant-convicts guilty of the offence u/s. 300, IPC punishable u/s. 302, IPC, or under Part -I / Part-II of s.304, IPC – However, in view of the findings confirming custodial torture, A2, A3, A4, A5 convicted are convicted u/ss. 330, 348 and 387 r/w. s.34, IPC – All the appellant-convicts acquitted of all the other offences for * Author [2024] 9 S.C.R. 725 Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra which each of them was convicted and sentenced – So, further action was required only in respect of A2 to A5 viz., appellants in Crl. Appeal Nos. 1617 of 2012, 1618 of 2012 and, 1616 of 2012, that too in case any sentence remains unserved in view of confirmation of conviction and sentence u/ss. 330, 348 and 387 r/w. s.34, IPC. [Paras 1, 31 and 53] – [Per Sanjay Kumar, J. (dissenting)]: Nothing on record to support and substantiate that Criminal Appeal No. 1614 of 2012 stands abated as accused A1 died on 06.03.2022 – There is a major point of divergence in views regarding the tracing of dead body and proving to be of that person – Permitting the premise that once the dead body is said to have been traced and not proved to be of that person, same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution, such an acceptance would mean that those in the police organization, who resort to such nefarious methods, can take this easy way out to ward off a finding of guilt – When sufficient evidence is available to conclude that victim was in no position to escape from the custody of the appellants, the inevitable corollary that follows is that he died due to their torture while in their custody – Disagreed with the conclusion drawn that in the absence of evidence regarding the homicidal death of victim-S, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge u/s. 304 Part-II IPC r/w. s.34 IPC, by granting them the benefit of doubt – On the contrary, the convictions and sentences of the appellants are maintained, as confirmed by the High Court. [Paras 2, 15, 21] Case Law Cited In the judgment of C.T. Ravikumar, J: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kishore Singh [2010] 14 SCR 95 : (2011) 6 SCC 369; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Anr. [2008] 10 SCR 379 : (2008) 16 SCC 417; V. Venkata Subbarao v. State [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 729 : (2006) 13 SCC 305; Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra [2009] 7 SCR 977 : (2009) 13 SCC 729; Iqbal Moosa Patel v. State of Gujarat [2011] 2 SCR 121 : (2011) 2 SCC 198; Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372; Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar [1993] 2 SCR 137 : (1993) 2 SCC 435; Sevaka Perumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1991] 2 SCR 711 : (1991) 3 SCC 471; Ram Chandra and Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR (1957) SC 381; Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim (2002) 7 726 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.