Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Police Custody Rape Case: Charanjit & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (2013)

Date of the Judgment: July 4, 2013
Citation: (2013) INSC 497
Judges: A. K. Patnaik, J. and Gyan Sudha Misra, J.

Can police officers be convicted for raping a woman in their custody? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where police officers were accused of raping a woman while she was detained at a police station. The court upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of individuals against abuse of power by law enforcement officials. This case highlights the serious consequences of custodial violence and the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability.

This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. Justice A.K. Patnaik authored the judgment.

Case Background

On February 9, 1989, Shankar Dass, a school principal, was murdered. Following this, the police picked up a woman, the complainant, and Kamaljit Kaur from their homes for questioning. The complainant alleged that, despite denying any links to terrorists, she and Kamaljit Kaur were taken to the Balachaur Police Station.

The complainant further stated that while Kamaljit Kaur was released, she was detained and tortured. She claimed that on the night of February 9, 1989, the police officers raped her. She was released the next morning, February 10, 1989, following intervention by village leaders.

After no action was taken on her complaint to the Governor of Punjab, the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers in court. This led to a series of legal proceedings, culminating in the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the complainant sought to add charges under Sections 366, 342, 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Magistrate was directed to conduct an inquiry into these allegations.

The case was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, who summoned the accused under Sections 323, 342, 366, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was then committed to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge initially framed charges under Sections 366, 504, 342, and 323 of the IPC, but later reframed the charges under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The accused were tried on these charges.

The accused were convicted by the trial court under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 376(2)(a), and 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The High Court dismissed their appeals, upholding the conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 342, IPC: Addresses wrongful confinement.
• Section 366, IPC: Concerns kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage.
• Section 504, IPC: Covers intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506, IPC: Deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 376, IPC: Pertains to the offence of rape. Specifically, Section 376(2)(a) and Section 376(2)(g) deal with rape committed by a police officer.
• Section 34, IPC: Explains the concept of acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

These sections of the IPC are designed to protect individuals from physical harm, unlawful detention, and sexual assault. The case is also under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which protects the right to life and personal liberty.

Arguments

The appellants, the police officers, argued that the complainant’s allegations were false. They claimed that she had links with terrorists and was pressured to implicate them. They also argued that the complainant was released on February 9, 1989, and not detained overnight. Further, they contended that there was no medical evidence to support the rape allegation.

The state argued that the complainant’s testimony was consistent and credible. They highlighted the corroborating evidence from the complainant’s husband and neighbor, who testified that she was in distress when released and narrated the ordeal. The state also pointed out that the police failed to produce records to support their claim that the complainant was released on February 9, 1989.

The most innovative argument made by the appellants was that the complainant was under the influence of terrorists and had falsely implicated the police officers. However, the court found no evidence to support this claim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellants.
2. Whether the evidence of PW-3 was credible.
3. Whether the High Court was right to rely on the corroboration of PW-1 and PW-2.
4. Whether the defence evidence was rightly rejected by the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the cross-examination of a witness regarding previous statements. The court noted that the previous statement of PW-3 to the Superintendent of Police could not be used to contradict her testimony in court, as the proper procedure for cross-examination was not followed.
• Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows for the corroboration of a witness’s testimony by earlier statements. The court used this section to uphold the trial court and High Court’s reliance on the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, which corroborated the complainant’s testimony.
• Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that an entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, is itself a relevant fact. The court used this section to highlight the importance of maintaining records in the police station.
• Sri Sambhu Das and Another v. State of Assam [(2010) 10 SCC 374]: This case was cited by the court to reiterate that the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of facts in criminal appeals, except in exceptional circumstances where there has been a grave miscarriage of justice.
• Punjab Police Rules: The court referred to the Punjab Police Rules which mandate the maintenance of Register No. II and the entries to be made in it, especially regarding the arrival and departure of police officers and persons in custody.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants. The court found that the complainant’s testimony was consistent and credible. The court also relied on the corroborating evidence provided by the complainant’s husband and neighbor.

The court rejected the defense’s arguments, noting that the police failed to produce records to support their claim that the complainant was released on February 9, 1989. The absence of medical evidence was not considered a sufficient reason to disbelieve the complainant’s testimony.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent testimony of the complainant and the corroborating evidence from her husband and neighbor. The court also heavily weighed the fact that the police failed to produce the relevant records from the police station. The court emphasized that the absence of medical evidence was not sufficient to disregard the complainant’s testimony. The court also considered the fact that the complainant made the allegations of rape within a few days of the incident.

The court’s reasoning process is summarized in the flowchart below:

The court considered the defense arguments and rejected them. The court stated:

“This statement of PW-3 is not substantive evidence before the Court and at best can be treated as a previous statement to contradict the substantive evidence of PW-3 given in Court.”

“Thus, even if PW-3 was not arrested as contended by Mr. Parekh, records were required to be maintained in Police Station, Balachaur with regard to both the arrivals of the appellants and PW-3 and their departure giving the exact hour of arrival and departure.”

“The High Court, however, has held that as PW-3 was not a young woman, medical examination was not significant and absence of medical examination may not be sufficient to disbelieve PW-3 if her story stands on its own.”

There was no minority opinion in this case as the bench was comprised of two judges only.

Key Takeaways

• Police officers can be convicted for custodial rape.
• The testimony of a victim is crucial, even in the absence of medical evidence.
• Police must maintain proper records, and failure to do so can be detrimental to their case.
• Corroborating evidence from family members or neighbors can be used to support a victim’s testimony.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of a victim of custodial rape is crucial, even in the absence of medical evidence, provided it is consistent and credible and is corroborated by other witnesses. This case reaffirms the importance of maintaining official records by the police and highlights the judiciary’s commitment to holding law enforcement accountable for their actions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the police officers for custodial rape. The court relied on the consistent testimony of the complainant, the corroborating evidence from her husband and neighbor, and the failure of the police to produce relevant records. This judgment underscores the importance of protecting individuals from abuse of power by law enforcement and emphasizes the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability.