Supreme Court Enhances Punishment for Custodial Torture: Yashwant vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 04 September 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 792
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. (authored by N.V. Ramana, J.)

Can police officers escape accountability for custodial torture by claiming they were following orders? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the critical issue of custodial violence and the extent of police accountability. The Court examined whether the death of an individual in police custody was a result of the injuries inflicted by the police and whether the defense of ‘superior orders’ could be used to justify such actions. The judgment highlights the importance of ‘democratic policing’ and the principle that ‘the law is always above you.’

Case Background

On June 23, 1993, Police Inspector (P.I) Narule (A-1) was on duty when Head Constable Telgudiya (PW-48) informed him that three individuals staying at India Sun Hotel had been robbed eight days prior but had not filed a complaint. Later that night, a patrolling party including P.I Narule (A-1) and other officers, along with the three complainants, went to the residence of H.C.P Telgudiya (PW-48). Telgudiya informed them that a Christian male named ‘Anthony’ was responsible for the looting, but later stated that there was no ‘Anthony’ and instead identified Joinus (deceased), a known suspect from a previous robbery case, who lived nearby.

Around 1:00 AM on June 24, 1993, the police party reached Joinus’s residence. Joinus, who had already slept after consuming alcohol, was taken into custody. His residence was searched, and it is alleged that some officers molested his wife, Zarina (PW-1). Joinus was then tied to an electric pole outside and beaten with sticks. He was subsequently taken to various locations and beaten intermittently. At approximately 3:55 AM, he was brought back to the police station and locked up.

On the morning of June 24, 1993, at 7:30 AM, police constables found Joinus motionless and not breathing. A magistrate was requested to conduct an inquest, and the case was handed over to the State CID for investigation. A complaint against one Anthony was registered at 10:20 PM on the same day, after Joinus’s death. Post-mortem and further investigation were conducted, leading to charges against ten police officers.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but convicted them under Sections 330, 354, 355, and 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fines. The trial court reasoned that the medical evidence did not correlate the injuries with the cause of death, which was likely due to asphyxiation.

Aggrieved by the trial court’s order, both the accused and the State of Maharashtra filed appeals in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the State’s appeals but partly allowed the accused’s appeals, acquitting accused no. 1 to 9 of the offenses under Sections 354, 355, and 342 read with 34 of the IPC, while upholding the conviction under Section 330 of the IPC. Accused no. 10 was acquitted of all charges. The High Court reasoned that the benefit of doubt as to the cause of death should be given to the accused and that the evidence for offenses under Section 355 was not reliable.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the accused and the State of Maharashtra filed appeals in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued show cause notices for enhancement of sentence to the accused.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
  
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 299, IPC: This section defines culpable homicide, which is a necessary precursor to murder.
  
  “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”
• Section 330, IPC: This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property.
  
  “Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security, or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 354, IPC: This section defines assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
  
  “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 355, IPC: This section defines assault or criminal force with intent to dishonor a person.
  
  “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonor that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 342, IPC: This section defines wrongful confinement.
  
  “Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 34, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  
  “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 76, IPC: This section provides defense for an act done by a person bound by law or by mistake of fact.
  
  “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.”

These legal provisions are interpreted within the framework of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights including the right to life and personal liberty, and protection against illegal detention and torture.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused Police Officers):

• The concurrent opinion of the lower courts regarding the non-applicability of Section 302 of the IPC should not be disturbed.
• The defense of superior orders should apply to the subordinate officers who were following the orders of their superior, A-1.
• The charge under Section 330 of the IPC was not applicable in this case.
• Alternatively, only Section 323 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) may be applicable, for which the punishment already undergone would be sufficient.
• The acquittal of Accused A-10 should not be interfered with.

Arguments by the State of Maharashtra:

• The evidence of PW-49 (the doctor who conducted the post-mortem) categorically stated that the death was a result of the cumulative effect of the injuries caused.
• The number of injuries was sufficient to prove a causal connection between the injuries and the death.
• Custodial torture should be taken seriously and punished appropriately.
• Alternatively, if Section 302 of the IPC is not applicable, charges under Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) should be pressed.

The appellants argued that they were merely following orders, while the State contended that the injuries inflicted by the police directly led to the death, and that custodial violence must be punished severely. The State also highlighted the medical evidence suggesting the death was a result of cumulative injuries and sought to press charges under Section 304 Part II of IPC as an alternative.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument regarding superior orders was a strategic attempt to deflect responsibility, while the State’s emphasis on cumulative injuries and the need to punish custodial torture highlighted a critical issue of police accountability.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key questions:

1. Whether the incident amounted to murder, attracting Section 302 of the IPC?
2. Whether the defense of superior orders is applicable to the subordinate officers?
3. Whether the acquittal of Accused A-10 (Raghunath Bhakte) was justified?
4. What is the appropriate punishment under Section 330 of the IPC?

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:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Causal Link: The Court emphasized the lack of a direct causal link between the injuries inflicted by the police and the death of Joinus. The medical evidence suggested that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to vomiting, which was an independent event.
• Evidence of PW-1: The Court noted that the testimony of PW-1 (Zarina) was not entirely reliable and that she had been overzealous at times. The Court was cautious in accepting her evidence.
• Concurrent Findings: The Court acknowledged that both lower courts had concurrently concluded that the cause of death was not directly due to the injuries, and it was not inclined to disturb these findings unless they were perverse or unreasonable.
• Defense of Superior Orders: The Court rejected the defense of superior orders, stating that the accused officers did not prove they believed the orders were legal and were fully aware of their actions.
• Custodial Torture: The Court took a serious view of the custodial torture and highlighted the need for stringent punishment to deter such acts. The Court emphasized the responsibility of police officers to protect and uphold the law.
• Public Confidence: The Court noted that incidents of police excessiveness tend to deplete public confidence in the criminal justice system and must be addressed with appropriate punishment.

Final Order

The Supreme Court issued the following orders:

1. The appeal against the conviction under Section 330 of the IPC was dismissed.
2. The sentence under Section 330 of the IPC was enhanced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.
3. The acquittal of Accused A-10 (Raghunath Bhakte) was upheld.
4. All other appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case can be summarized as follows:

1. Causal Link in Homicide: For a charge of murder under Section 302 of the IPC to succeed, there must be a clear and direct causal link between the act of the accused and the death of the victim. If the cause of death is an independent event not directly linked to the injuries, the accused cannot be convicted of murder.
2. Defense of Superior Orders: The defense of superior orders under Section 76 of the IPC is not applicable unless the subordinate officer can prove that they believed in good faith that the orders were legal. Mere obedience to orders without a genuine belief in their legality is not a valid defense.
3. Stringent Punishment for Custodial Torture: Custodial torture by police officers is a serious offense that requires stringent punishment to act as a deterrent. The punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense and the breach of public trust.
4. Separation of Truth from Falsehood: Indian courts must separate truth from falsehood in evidence and not apply the maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court made the following obiter dicta (observations and recommendations):

• Need for Amendment to the Evidence Act: The Court reiterated the need for an amendment to the Evidence Act to include Section 114-B, as recommended by the Law Commission. This provision would address the issue of custodial deaths and make it easier to establish culpability in such cases.
• Importance of Democratic Policing: The Court emphasized the importance of democratic policing and the principle that ‘the law is always above you.’ Police officers must act within the bounds of the law and are not above it.
• Deterrent Punishment: The Court stressed that the punishment for custodial torture should be deterrent in nature to prevent future occurrences.

Flowchart of Decision Making

Conclusion

The case of Yashwant vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) is a landmark judgment that highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to addressing custodial violence and ensuring police accountability. While the Court did not find the accused guilty of murder due to the lack of a direct causal link between the injuries and the death, it took a stern view of the custodial torture and enhanced the punishment under Section 330 of the IPC. The judgment underscores the principle that police officers are not above the law and must be held accountable for their actions. It also emphasizes the importance of democratic policing and the need for stringent measures to prevent custodial torture. The Court’s observations regarding the need for amendment to the Evidence Act further demonstrate its proactive approach towards safeguarding human rights and upholding the rule of law.