Supreme Court Enhances Sentence in Custodial Death Case: State of Maharashtra vs. Sanvlo Naik & Anr. (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 7th September 2017

Citation: 2017 INSC 754

Judges: Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha

Can a High Court’s acquittal in a criminal case be overturned by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment that had acquitted two police officers convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding a custodial death, ultimately enhancing the sentence of the accused.

This case involves an appeal by the State, through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), against the acquittal of two police officers by the High Court of Bombay. The officers were initially convicted for an offense under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), related to the death of a person in police custody. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court’s decision to acquit the officers was correct and whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was adequate.

The bench consisted of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha. The judgment was authored by Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Case Background

On the night of May 16, 1994, two police officers, Accused No. 2 (S.V. Caeiro) and Accused No. 5 (Sanvlo Naik), who were Inspector In-charge and Police Constable respectively at Margao Town Police Station, apprehended a person (the deceased) who was an accused in another case. During the arrest, there was a minor scuffle, resulting in superficial injuries to the deceased. The deceased was then taken to the police station. According to police records, the arrest was recorded at 00:20 hours on May 17, 1994. Witnesses stated that the deceased was in good physical condition when he arrived at the police station.

The deceased was then taken to the cabin of Accused No. 2, where Accused No. 5 was also present. Later, at around 1:30 a.m., the deceased was placed in the female lockup. At 2:00 a.m., a General Diary entry was made stating that the deceased needed to be moved to the hospital. The deceased was declared dead on arrival at the hospital at approximately 2:40 a.m. on May 17, 1994.

Both Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 5 claimed they had left the police station around 1:25 a.m., providing an alibi for their absence during the time the deceased’s condition deteriorated. The prosecution, however, presented evidence suggesting that the police records were manipulated to support this alibi.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 5 under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to simple imprisonment of three years and two years respectively, along with a fine. The accused appealed to the High Court of Bombay, which allowed their appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted them.

The State, through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. No appeal was filed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It states, “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “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.”
• Article 136 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (State through CBI):

• The Solicitor General, appearing for the State, argued that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 136 of the Constitution is plenary and discretionary, allowing it to examine the merits of an acquittal order, even if not directly challenged, to ensure justice.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC.
• The State argued that the accused were responsible for the injuries that caused the death of the deceased, who was in their custody.
• The State argued that the plea of alibi was not tenable as the General Diary register was fudged.

Arguments by the Respondents (Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 5):

• The accused maintained their plea of alibi, stating they were not present at the police station when the deceased’s condition deteriorated.
• They argued that the entries in the General Diary, though manipulated, were trivial and should be considered in light of the oral evidence of witnesses who saw them leaving the police station.
• The accused contended that there was no direct evidence to prove their involvement in the death of the deceased.

Innovativeness of the argument: The State’s argument that the Supreme Court has the power to examine the merits of an acquittal order, even if not directly challenged, to ensure justice is a significant point.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. If the respondent Accused No. 2 is to be held responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased which, according to the report of the postmortem, was responsible for his death, what should be the extent of liability of the said accused?
2. Whether the offense committed would amount to one punishable under Section 302 IPC, and if so, whether this Court would be empowered in law to pass such an order in the present appeals?
3. Alternatively, if the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC is to be maintained, whether the sentence should be enhanced to a period of ten (10) years?

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:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Article 136 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court referred to Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham and another [(1979) 2 SCC 297]* and P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam and another [(1980) 3 SCC 141]* to emphasize that its appellate power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is far wider than an appellate Court’s power under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The deceased was in police custody and was healthy when brought to the station.
• The deceased sustained fatal injuries while in custody.
• The police records were manipulated to create a false alibi.
• The accused failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the death.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the deceased was in police custody and died with unexplained injuries. The legal aspects, while important, played a secondary role in this case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that when a person dies in custody, the burden of proof shifts to the custodians to explain the cause of death. The Court found that the accused failed to discharge this burden.

The Court considered the High Court’s view that the manipulations in the General Diary were trivial. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating, “The plea of alibi for the reasons mentioned is wholly unacceptable. It cannot be said that the aforementioned facts are trivial, as found by the High Court.” The Court also noted, “True it is that in the present case there is no eye-witness. The test, therefore, would be whether the circumstances culled out above would be sufficient to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that it is the accused respondents and nobody else who are responsible for the injuries on the deceased.” The Court further observed, “The accused respondents having been found guilty of commission of the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC should suffer the maximum sentence awardable under the said Section.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the judgment and the enhancement of the sentence.

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the responsibility of law enforcement officers to protect the lives of those in their custody. It also underscores the importance of maintaining accurate records and the consequences of manipulating them. The judgment has implications for future cases involving custodial deaths and the accountability of police personnel.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. However, it reaffirmed the principle that the burden of proof shifts to the custodians in cases of custodial deaths.

Key Takeaways

• Police personnel are responsible for the safety of individuals in their custody.
• Manipulation of official records to create a false alibi is a serious offense.
• In cases of custodial death, the burden of proof shifts to the custodians to explain the cause of death.
• The Supreme Court can overturn a High Court’s acquittal if it finds the decision to be legally unsustainable.
• The maximum sentence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC is 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

This judgment sets a precedent for holding law enforcement officers accountable for custodial deaths and emphasizes the importance of transparency and integrity in police procedures.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused respondents, Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 5, shall forthwith surrender and serve out the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. If they fail to surrender, they will be taken into custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of custodial death, the burden of proof shifts to the custodians to explain the cause of death. The Supreme Court’s decision to enhance the sentence to the maximum permissible under Section 304 Part II of the IPC indicates a stricter approach towards custodial deaths and the accountability of police personnel. This case reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court has the power to review and overturn High Court judgments, especially in cases where there is a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order of acquittal, and convicted the accused respondents under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court enhanced the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, emphasizing the gravity of custodial deaths and the responsibility of police personnel. This judgment underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in law enforcement.