LexSMT. SHAKILA ABDUL GAFAR KHAN versus VASANT RAGHUNATH DHOBLE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SMT. SHAKILA ABDUL GAFAR KHAN v. V ASANT RAGHUNATH DHOBLE AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARJJJT PASAYAT, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 190(J)(a)-Private complaint-Delay in filing of-Consequences of-Complaint filed alleging death due to custodial violence-Complaint filed more than one year after C the alleged violence-Explanation given that the complainant was unaware of the legal proceedings to be undertaken and that she was representing to the higher authorities-Held, explanation not credible-Indian Penal Code-Section 302. Criminal Trial-Evidence-Discrepancy in-Disbelieving the D evidence-Necessity of-Held, the courts should attempt to separate truth from falsehood-Only when it is not possible to do so or when an entirely new case comes up in doing so, the evidence should be rejected in toto- lndian Penal Code-Section 302. Criminal Trial-Evidence-Discrepancy in-Normal and material E discrepancies-Distinction between-Effect of-Indian Penal Code-Section 302. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 54-Medical examination-Right of the accused to-Duty of the Magistrate in case of F a complaint of torture or maltreatment in police custody-Magistrate should inform the accused about his right to get examined by a medical practitioner. Criminal Trial-Non-supply of documents-Effect of-Held, non- supply of documents to the accused may not per se be prejudical-Courts G must give a definite finding whether prejudice is caused due to non-supply of documents or not. Criminal Trial-Cross-examination-Denial of opportunity of-Effect of-Court examines few police-witnesses as court-witnesses-Said witnesses H not examined in respect of the facts of the case-Accused not given 426 SHAKILA ABDUL GAF AR KHAN v. VASANT RAGHUNA TH DHOBLE 427 opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses-Court permitting the accused A to lead his own evidence-Held, the mere denial of cross-examination cannot per se be a vulnerable factor. Criminal Trial-Custodia/ violence-Proof of-Courts should not be swayed by technicalities-Attempt should be made by the courts to probe B the case and arrive at the truth-True evidence from /el/ow police officers not normally forthcoming-Insistence on proof beyond reasonable doubt not required-Courts should take realistic approach. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142-Compensation-Grant a/- Custodial violence-16 simple injuries on the body of the deceased-No C F.l.R. registered by po/ice-Complainant filing criminal complaint against a police officer-Police officer acquitted-Acquittal upheld but compensation granted to the family of the deceased-Direction issued to make an inquiry and take action against the erring officials. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21-Right to life and liberty-- Meaning of-Held, such right includes right to live with human dignity-- Custodial violence violates that right. The deceased-husbaud of the petitioner was arrested on 14.10.1983 D on allegation of causing grievous hurt. On 15.10.1983, at around 8.30 E a.m., the complainant (PWl) allegedly noticed that her deceased- husband was being dragged out of a police van near his house by the accused-respondent, along with some other police officers. The complainant noticed that the deceased was being beaten by a hockey stick by the accused while the other police officers were holding the F deceased and pulling hair of the deceased. The assault allegedly continued for more than an hour and when one hockey stick broke, another hockey stick was brought from the van and the assault continued. The occurrence was also witnessed by PW 2 and PW 5. The complainant complained about the incident to the higher G police authorities but no action was taken. The deceased was taken to the hospital on 15.10.1983. On 16.10.1983, the deceased was produced before the Remand Magistrate allegedly in a pathetic condition and was granted bail on 16.10.1983 itself. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in a hospital. The history sheets recorded by the <toctor did H 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A not mention the name of the accused. The deceased died while he was in the hospital. The complainant alleged that before dying, the deceased made an oral dying declaration before the pros~cution witnesses implicating the accused. The doctor conducting post mortem found 16 simple injuries on the body of the deceased. B The complainant made representation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.