Supreme Court Upholds Compensation for Custodial Abuse, Emphasizes Police Accountability: Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 18, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 232
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can a police officer, who has abused his power, be let off with a mere warning? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving custodial abuse. The Court has upheld the High Court’s decision to award compensation to the victim, while also emphasizing the need for strict action against such high-handed behavior by the police. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of citizens against abuse of power by law enforcement.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on June 12, 2015, when Mr. Madhukar Vikram Gayake reported a theft of Rs. 30,000 at the Nath Temple in Paithan, Aurangabad. Following this, the appellant, Somnath, was arrested on June 14, 2015, based on CCTV footage that allegedly showed his involvement. He was then remanded to police custody.

On June 17, 2015, the police claimed to have recovered the stolen money from the appellant’s house. On June 19, 2015, while still in police custody, the appellant was allegedly paraded half-naked with a garland of footwear around his neck and verbally abused and physically assaulted by the respondent no. 2, the then officiating Inspector of the Paithan Police Station. Despite being granted bail on June 20, 2015, the appellant was not released immediately and was instead taken back to the police station before finally being released later that day.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings against the respondent no. 2, along with compensation. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, awarding Rs. 75,000 to the appellant, payable by the respondent no. 2 from his own pocket. However, the High Court declined to direct any criminal action under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines and punishes theft. It states, “Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts.
• Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery. It states, “If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: This section provides a limitation period for suits or prosecutions against police officers for acts done under the color of duty. It states, “In any case of alleged offence by the Revenue Commissioner, the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Revenue Commissioner, Commissioner, Magistrate, Police officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein, it shall appear to the Court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained, or shall be dismissed, if instituted, more than six months after the date of the act complained of: Provided that, any such prosecution against a Police Officer may be entertained by the Court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the State Government within two years from the date of the offence.”
• Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the proclamation of a person as an offender.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the respondent no. 2’s actions were a blatant violation of his personal liberty and an abuse of authority.
• The appellant contended that the respondent no. 2 should not be let off with a mere “strict warning” and that a major punishment was warranted.
• The appellant highlighted that the High Court’s reliance on Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, to deny criminal prosecution was unjust, given his disadvantaged position.
• The appellant cited the judgments in D K Basu v State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 and Sube Singh v State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178, emphasizing the guidelines for treating detainees in custody.

State’s Submissions:

• The State submitted that departmental proceedings had been initiated against the respondent no. 2, and a punishment had been awarded.

Respondent No. 2’s Submissions:

• The respondent no. 2 claimed that the allegations were false and intended to demoralize the police.
• The respondent no. 2 argued that the complaint was lodged much after the time prescribed under the Police Act.
• The respondent no. 2 stated that he had already paid Rs. 1,75,000 to the appellant, including Rs. 1,00,000 as directed by the Supreme Court.
• The respondent no. 2 pointed out that the appellant did not mention any ill-treatment when produced before the Magistrate on June 20, 2015.
• The respondent no. 2 argued that the Sub Divisional Police Officer’s report was biased due to a strained relationship.
• The respondent no. 2 stated that the Special Inspector General of Police found his explanation satisfactory, leading to a “strict warning” as punishment.
• The respondent no. 2 highlighted that the appellant was declared a proclaimed offender in another case under Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the main issue was whether the High Court was correct in not directing criminal prosecution against the respondent no. 2 under the SC/ST Act and whether the compensation awarded was adequate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• D K Basu v State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416: The Court reiterated the principles and directions laid down in this case, emphasizing the need to adhere to guidelines for treating detainees in custody.
• Sube Singh v State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178: The Court reiterated the guidelines for treating detainees in custody.
• Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746: The Court referred to this case to highlight the High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to award compensation.
• Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526: The Court referred to this case, which expressed concern about safeguarding the dignity of the individual.
• Bhim Singh, MLA v State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1985) 4 SCC 677: The Court referred to this case, noting that police officers must exhibit the greatest regard for the personal liberty of citizens.
• Sunil Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990) 3 SCC 119: The Court referred to this case, reiterating that police officers must exhibit the greatest regard for the personal liberty of citizens.
• Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406: The Court referred to this case, which came down heavily on the excess use of force by the police.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the dignity and rights of citizens against abuse of power by law enforcement. The Court strongly condemned the high-handed actions of the respondent no. 2, emphasizing that such behavior brings shame to the justice delivery system. The Court also considered that the respondent no. 2 had superannuated and paid a substantial amount in compensation, which led them to refrain from directing criminal proceedings under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court’s emphasis was on ensuring that such acts are not repeated and that there is accountability for those in power.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court emphasized the need for a zero-tolerance approach towards high-handed acts by the police, stating, “A zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts needs to be adopted as such acts, committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen, who is in a non-bargaining position, bring shame to the entire justice delivery system.”

The Court also noted that, “in such matters the Courts need to take a very strict view.”

The Court further added that, “justice ought to be tempered with mercy.”

Key Takeaways

• Police officers must adhere to all constitutional and statutory safeguards when arresting and detaining individuals.
• Custodial abuse will not be tolerated, and strict action will be taken against perpetrators.
• The High Court’s power to award compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is reaffirmed.
• Even if a police officer has superannuated, they can still be held accountable for their actions.
• The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting the personal liberty and dignity of every citizen.

Directions

The Court issued a general direction to all police forces in all States and Union Territories, as well as all agencies with the power of arrest and custody, to scrupulously adhere to all constitutional and statutory safeguards and the additional guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court when a person is arrested and/or remanded to their custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while compensation may be an adequate remedy in cases of custodial abuse, the courts must take a strict view of such acts and ensure that there is accountability for those in power. The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in D K Basu v State of West Bengal and other related cases, emphasizing the need for police accountability and the protection of citizens’ rights. This case does not introduce a new principle of law but rather reinforces existing principles and provides a reminder of their importance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra upholds the High Court’s decision to award compensation to the appellant for custodial abuse, while also emphasizing the need for strict action against such high-handed behavior by the police. This ruling serves as a strong message that abuse of power by law enforcement will not be tolerated, and that the rights and dignity of every citizen must be protected. The judgment reinforces existing legal principles and provides a reminder of their importance in ensuring a fair and just legal system.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Custodial Abuse
  • Police Accountability
  • Compensation
  • Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 161, Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
  • Section 82(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
  • Section 161, Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 82(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra case?

A: The main issue was whether a police officer who had abused his power during custody should be let off with a mere warning, and whether the compensation awarded to the victim was adequate.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to award compensation to the victim of custodial abuse. While they refrained from directing criminal proceedings due to the officer’s retirement and payment of compensation, they emphasized the need for strict action against such high-handed behavior by the police.

Q: What is custodial abuse?

A: Custodial abuse refers to the mistreatment of individuals while they are in the custody of law enforcement or other authorities, which can include physical assault, verbal abuse, and other forms of mistreatment.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment for ordinary citizens?

A: The key takeaways are that police officers must adhere to all constitutional and statutory safeguards when arresting and detaining individuals, custodial abuse will not be tolerated, and there is accountability for those in power. The judgment also reaffirms the High Court’s power to award compensation in such cases.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the police’s responsibility?

A: The Supreme Court emphasized that police officers must exhibit the greatest regard for the personal liberty of citizens and must scrupulously adhere to all constitutional and statutory safeguards when arresting and detaining individuals.