Custodial Death and Police Accountability: Supreme Court Partially Upholds Convictions in Manik & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (25 September 2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused police officers were guilty of custodial death and related offenses.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, specifically relating to custodial death and police misconduct.

Case Name: Manik & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra

Judgment Date: 25 September 2024

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 734
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J.
Can police officers be held accountable for a death that occurs while a suspect is in their custody? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Manik & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra. The case involves allegations of custodial torture leading to the death of a suspect, Shama @ Kalya, and the subsequent attempts by the accused police officers to cover up the crime. The judgment highlights the complexities of proving custodial death and the importance of holding law enforcement accountable for their actions. This case was decided by a division bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar, who authored the main judgment, and Justice Sanjay Kumar, who provided a differing opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Shama @ Kalya, who was taken into police custody on 07.12.1995 in connection with a house-breaking incident. The prosecution alleged that Shama was subjected to severe torture during interrogation at the Gondia City Police Station, which ultimately resulted in his death on 22.12.1995. To cover up the custodial death, the accused police officers allegedly staged an escape of Shama from custody. They also created false records and contrived evidence to mislead the investigation. The prosecution contended that the police officers made one Dipak Lokhande disguise himself as Shama and made him run away from a vehicle to make it appear as if Shama had escaped.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), and other offenses related to torture and fabricating evidence. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, upheld most of the convictions, except for the charge under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which related to causing disappearance of evidence by destroying the dead body. The State did not appeal the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused under Section 302 of IPC (murder) or the acquittal under Section 201 of IPC. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court against their convictions.

Legal Framework

The case involves multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Key sections include:
✓ Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
✓ Section 304, IPC: Punishment for culpable homicide, divided into Part I and Part II, depending on the intent and knowledge of the offender.
✓ Section 330, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property.
✓ Section 331, IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property.
✓ Section 348, IPC: Wrongfully confining a person to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property.
✓ Section 387, IPC: Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.
✓ Section 201, IPC: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
✓ Section 202, IPC: Intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform.
✓ Section 203, IPC: Giving false information respecting an offence committed.
✓ Section 218, IPC: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to cause injury.
✓ Section 34, IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of evidence law and the burden of proof in criminal cases. The Court noted that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, while the accused is only required to establish a defense by a preponderance of probabilities.

Arguments

The appellants (accused police officers) argued that there was no direct evidence to prove that Shama died in their custody due to their actions. They also contended that Shama had escaped from their custody and that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They also argued that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s finding on the fingerprint test and the consequent identification of the dead body as that of Shama.

The prosecution argued that Shama was subjected to custodial torture, which resulted in his death. They presented evidence of injuries sustained by Shama while in custody and argued that the accused police officers had attempted to cover up the crime by staging his escape and creating false records. The prosecution also argued that the High Court correctly upheld the convictions for custodial torture and other related offenses.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the defense’s attempt to use the lack of conclusive identification of the dead body and the staged escape to create reasonable doubt. The prosecution innovatively argued that the police had created false records and contrived evidence to escape prosecution for custodial death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the trial court’s finding on the fingerprint test and the consequent identification of the dead body as that of Shama.
2. Whether the prosecution had successfully established that Shama died due to custodial torture.
3. Whether the accused police officers were guilty of the offenses for which they were convicted, including Section 304 Part II of IPC.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC in respect of causing disappearance of body by mutilating it.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

¹ (2011) 6 SCC 369
² (2008) 16 SCC 417
³ (2006) 13 SCC 305
⁴ (2009) 13 SCC 729
⁵ (2011) 2 SCC 198
⁶ (1947) 2 All ER 372
⁷ (1993) 2 SCC 435
⁸ (1991) 3 SCC 471
⁹ AIR 1957 SC 381
¹⁰ (2002) 7 SCC 157
¹¹ 2007 SCC OnLine Del 255
¹² (2003) 3 SCC 353
¹³ (2010) 6 SCC 493
¹⁴ (2004) 13 SCC 174
¹⁵ (2010) 10 SCC 439
¹⁶ [AIR 1984 SC 1622]
¹⁷ [(1975) 2 SCC 326]
¹⁸ (1985) 1 SCC 552
¹⁹ (1992) 3 SCC 249

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict. Justice C.T. Ravikumar, writing for the majority, held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the recovered dead body was that of Shama, and that there was no medical evidence to support the claim that his veins were cut. He also held that the High Court correctly acquitted the accused under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC in respect of causing disappearance of body by mutilating it. Justice Ravikumar concluded that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt on the charge of custodial death under Section 304 Part II of IPC. He, however, upheld the convictions under Sections 330, 348 and 387 read with Section 34, IPC, related to custodial torture.

Justice Sanjay Kumar, in his dissenting opinion, held that the custodial torture was proven and that the police had tried to cover up the crime. He stated that the police version of Shama’s escape was improbable and that the fabricated story of Shama’s conviction at Raipur was not believable. Justice Kumar concluded that the accused were guilty of custodial death and that the convictions and sentences of the appellants, as confirmed by the High Court, should be maintained.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kishore Singh [(2011) 6 SCC 369]*: Followed by the Court to establish that the deceased was under arrest when he was in police custody.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2008) 16 SCC 417]*: Followed by the Court to emphasize that suspicion cannot substitute legal evidence.
• V. Venkata Subbarao v. State [(2006) 13 SCC 305]*: Followed by the Court to clarify that the burden of proof on the accused is not as high as that on the prosecution.
• Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra [(2009) 13 SCC 729]*: Followed by the Court to reiterate that the prosecution must prove the commission of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Iqbal Moosa Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 2 SCC 198]*: Followed by the Court to clarify that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.
• Miller v. Minister of Pensions [(1947) 2 All ER 372]*: Followed by the Court to define the degree of proof required in criminal cases.
• Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar [(1993) 2 SCC 435]*: Followed by the Court to establish that death must be caused by the assailant under circumstances mentioned in the exceptions to Section 300, IPC for conviction under Section 304, IPC.
• Sevaka Perumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1991) 3 SCC 471]*: Followed by the Court to state that it is not essential to establish corpus delicti, but the factum of death must be established.
• Ram Chandra and Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 381]*: Followed by the Court to state that conviction does not necessarily depend on finding the dead body if there is reliable evidence of murder.
• Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim [(2002) 7 SCC 157]*: Followed by the Court to state that the factum of death must be established like any other fact, even if the corpus delicti is not traceable.
• State v. Sushil Sharma [2007 SCC OnLine Del 255]*: Followed by the Court to state that there is no room for conjectures and surmises in criminal cases.
• State of Karnataka v. M.V. Mahesh [(2003) 3 SCC 353]*: Followed by the Court to state that commission of murder can be established even in the absence of corpus delicti.
• Utpal Das & Anr. v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 6 SCC 493]*: Followed by the Court to state that statements under Section 164, Cr.PC., can be used to cross-examine the maker.
• Shri Gopal & Anr. v. Subhash & Ors. [(2004) 13 SCC 174]*: Followed by the Court to state that omission to state a fact amounts to contradiction.
• Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2010) 10 SCC 439]*: Followed by the Court to state that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and the stricter the proof required for serious crimes.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622]*: Followed by the Court to state that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, and cannot derive strength from the weakness of the defense.
• Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326]*: Followed by the Court to state that belief regarding the existence of a fact may be founded on a balance of probabilities.
• State of U.P. vs. Ram Sagar Yadav and others [(1985) 1 SCC 552]*: Followed by Justice Sanjay Kumar to highlight that police officers often remain silent about custodial injuries and pervert the truth.
• Bhagwan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab [(1992) 3 SCC 249]*: Followed by Justice Sanjay Kumar to highlight that when a person is in police custody, what has happened to him is within the knowledge of the police.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence linking the recovered body to Shama and the absence of medical evidence supporting the claim that Shama’s veins were cut. Justice Ravikumar emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish the identity of the dead body and that the High Court was correct in reversing the trial court’s finding on the fingerprint evidence. He also highlighted the contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Justice Sanjay Kumar, on the other hand, emphasized the evidence of custodial torture and the attempts by the police to cover up the crime. He found the defense’s claim of Shama’s escape to be improbable and the story of Shama’s conviction in Raipur to be fabricated.

The following table shows the ratio of fact to law that influenced the Court’s decision:

*Fact is defined as “percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case” and Law is defined as “percentage of legal considerations”.

Logical Reasoning

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that in cases of custodial death, the prosecution must prove the identity of the deceased and the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the court cannot convict based on suspicion or conjecture. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to establish all the essential elements of the offense. However, if custodial torture is proven, the police officers can be held accountable for such torture, even if the custodial death is not proven.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta of the judgment include the observations regarding the importance of police accountability and the need for thorough investigations in cases of custodial death. The court also emphasized the need for the police to maintain accurate records and avoid fabricating evidence. The dissenting opinion of Justice Sanjay Kumar highlighted the need to hold police officers accountable for custodial deaths, even in the absence of a body, if the circumstances point towards the commission of the crime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manik & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra highlights the challenges in proving custodial death and the importance of holding law enforcement accountable. The split verdict reflects the complexities of the case and the differing interpretations of the evidence. While the majority opinion acquitted the accused on the charge of custodial death due to lack of conclusive evidence, it upheld the convictions for custodial torture. The dissenting opinion, on the other hand, emphasized the need to hold police officers accountable for such deaths. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving allegations of police misconduct. The case underscores the importance of not only proving the commission of an offense, but also the identity of the victim and the causal link between the actions of the accused and the death of the victim.