JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. The short question for consideration is about the guidelines required to be observed in granting Police Custody Remand. 2. The petitioners/accused have approached this Court challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Criminal Revision Application No. 242 of 1991, preferred by the State the learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, granting the Police Custody Remand of the present petitioners for three days, settings aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, granting Magisterial Custody Remand to the present petitioner. The petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2 and both are Medical Practitioners at village Kasoda, tq. Erandol, District Jalgaon. 3. The events, which have led to their arrest on 5-9-1991 can be elucidated as follows. The deceased Shobhana, the daughter of Ganpati Kashiram Naval was married to petitioner No. 1 Dr. Ajay Soni in December, 1985. She was also doctor having acquired the degree of D.H.M.S. At the time of marriage petitioner No. 1 was promised Television Set and Refrigerator, but the father of Shobhana by name Ganpati Naval could not give those articles because of the financial constraints. It is alleged that being aggrieved by this non-compliance of the promise, Ajay was repeatedly demanding these articles from Shobhana. In consequence, before three years of this incident, Ganpati Naval purchased those articles on credit and gave them to petitioner No. 1. Despite this offerings the petitioners, namely petitioner No. 1 the husband of the deceased, petitioner No. 2 the father-in-law of the deceased and the mother-in-law of the deceased gave cruel treatment to Shobhana. In consequence, Shobhana had become physically weak and she used to go to her parents. She used to complain to her parents that petitioners and her mother-in-law were consistently treating her with cruelty. They were also suspecting her and also used to neglect her in the matter of food, etc., and further often sent her to her parents. Now, coming to the incident, it is to be noticed that on 4-9-1991 at about 7.30 a.m. one Dr. Bhandore's son Dr. Sanjeev informed Ganpati Kashiram Naval that Shobhana was in serious condition. Ganpati and his son, therefore, started for Kasoda. At that time, one Nitin Naval informed them that one Madan Biyani had given a telephone call to him that Shobhana was already dead. Bhandore's son Dr. Sanjeev informed Ganpati Kashiram Naval that Shobhana was in serious condition. Ganpati and his son, therefore, started for Kasoda. At that time, one Nitin Naval informed them that one Madan Biyani had given a telephone call to him that Shobhana was already dead. On receipt of this news, Ganpati and other members proceeded by Matador Vehicle to Kasoda. On way at village Pimpalsona, Ramesh Kabra, J. Bakkad and others met this party and told Ganpat Naval that whatever had happened should now be forgotten, that the matter should not be stretched further, that the daughter was already lost, meaning thereby that these persons told Ganpat that he should not now try to exaggerate the matter but hush it up. After reaching Kasoda, these persons came to know that the dead body was forwarded for postmortem examination. At about 12.00 noon Naval and others visited the room of the house of the petitioners where Shobhana was found dead. There, they spotted one stool being kept on the cot and one rope tied to the fan and at the end of the rope there was knot. The distance between the fan and the stool was hardly four feet. They learnt from petitioner No. 2 that Shobhana committed suicide by hanging on the fan. The complainant- Ganpati felt that this was the result of continuous ill-treatment inflicted by the petitioners on his daughter Shobhna. Not only that he felt that this was a case of murder committed by the petitioners after hatching conspiracy to that effect. The offences under sections 302, 304-B, 201 and 334 Indian Penal Code were registered as Crime No. 33 of 91 on 5-9-1991 at about 7.15 p.m. 4. It will have to be stated here that prior to that petitioner No. 2 had approached the Police Station and had made a statement that in the night of 3-9-1991 all the members of the family including Shobhana took food. Petitioner No. 1 and Shobhana went to sleep in their room, whereas petitioner No. 2 and daughter of petitioner No. 1 Gauri were sleeping in the front room. The daughter of the petitioner No. 2, who had come for delivery and petitioner No. 3 were sleeping in the middle room. On 4-9-1991 at about 7.00 or 7.30 a.m., he heard the cries of petitioner No. 3. The daughter of the petitioner No. 2, who had come for delivery and petitioner No. 3 were sleeping in the middle room. On 4-9-1991 at about 7.00 or 7.30 a.m., he heard the cries of petitioner No. 3. He, therefore, rushed to the backside room and found that Shobhana was hanging by the rope. This was a case of suicide according to petitioner No. 2 It should be pointed out that this statement was recorded on 4-9-1991. The inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama were recorded on 4-9-1991. Some of the statements, namely statement of Sunita Govind and others were also recorded on 4-9-1991. 5. In consequence of the complaint, by the father of the deceased, the petitioners were arrested by the police on 5-9-1991. The petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate on 6-9-1991 and the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant Police Custody Remand in respect of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for three days i.e., upto 9-9-1991. The Police again sought for extension of Police Custody Remand on 9-9-1991, but the learned Magistrate was pleased to decline the Police Custody Remand on the ground that although the P.C.R. was granted for discovery for sharp weapon used during the incident, no efforts were made by the Police to trace out that weapon and accordingly, the request for P.C.R. was rejected. 6. Being aggrieved by this order, the State preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 242 of 1991 wherein grievance was made that during the three days of the P.C.R., the police were busy, attending the law and order problems. There was marchas against the suicidal death, that there was Pola festival on 8-9-1991 and hence the police could not utilise the period of P.C.R. for interrogation of the accused and for further progress in investigation. According to the Police, the period was too short and in such serious offence, interrogation of the accused was absolutely necessary. In case not granted, the entire investigation was likely to be frustrated and serious incidents of murder would go unpunished. Hence further Police Custody was necessary. The learned Sessions Judge was satisfied with the grievance made by the Police and was pleased to grant further P.C.R. for three days. However, the learned Judge declined to grant P.C.R. in respect of original accused No. 3 the mother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court challenging the said order. Hence further Police Custody was necessary. The learned Sessions Judge was satisfied with the grievance made by the Police and was pleased to grant further P.C.R. for three days. However, the learned Judge declined to grant P.C.R. in respect of original accused No. 3 the mother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court challenging the said order. The submissions made by the learned Advocate or the petitioners can be summarised as follows. There was absolutely no ground to grant P.C.R. when once the petitioners were put in Magisterial Custody, that the law laid down by the courts is also against granting P.C.R. and further that no steps were taken by the Police to interrogate the accused during the four days of P.C.R. There is, therefore, absolutely no ground to grant P.C.R. The Police cannot put-forth the ground that Police were busy attending law and order problems when they had obtained P.C.R. of the petitioners. 7. My attention has also been drawn to the Remand Application preferred before the learned Trial Magistrate and the Revision Memo before the learned Session Judge. It has been urged that no grievance has been made by the Police, that although no remand was sought for discovery of the weapon still the learned Trial Judge referred only that ground for granting P.C.R. to enable to Police to recover the weapon. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had stoutly opposed this Revision Application. He has contended that this is a serious case of murder where the petitioners have systematically conspired and have committed the murder by throttling the deceased. My attention is also drawn to the spot panchanama, wherein there is a reference to blood stains lying outside the room where the deceased was found hanging. My attention is also drawn to the opinion of the Doctor Choudhary, the Medical Officer, incharge of Primary Health Centre, Kasoda. In that opinion letter, dated 5-9-1991, Dr. Choudhary has stated that the legature marks found on the neck of the deceased were not caused by the rope found tied to the fan. According to him, the legature marks indicated that the rope that, was used was thicker than one inch diameter. In that opinion letter, dated 5-9-1991, Dr. Choudhary has stated that the legature marks found on the neck of the deceased were not caused by the rope found tied to the fan. According to him, the legature marks indicated that the rope that, was used was thicker than one inch diameter. He has, therefore, contended that something substantial has been kept back by the petitioners and the same needs disclosure by granting P.C.R. He has urged that in case the P.C.R. is not granted the entire investigation would be frustrated, and the real culprits may escape. It is also submitted by him that if the remand applications are perused, they would clearly show that there was no demand for search of any weapon. If the learned Magistrate was pleased to make those observations, they were his own and they could not be ground for denial of further P.C.R. P.C.R. was not asked for that limited purpose but to unearth the diabolical conspiracy on the part of the petitioners to commit murder of Shobhana by dubious way and in that light original P.C.R. for three days was hopelessly inadequate. 9. It would be, therefore, appropriate to traverse through the Remand Applications dated 6-9-1991 and 9-9-1991 presented by Police before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Now, in the first Remand Application, it is contended that the petitioners have concealed the real facts regarding the systematic commission of murder, that the concealed articles have to be discovered, that the petitioners should be shown to the witnesses of Jalgaon and other places, that since the marriage between Shobhana and petitioner No. 1 there was continuous demand on the part of the petitioners about Television, Refrigerator, etc., that the petitioners may have connections with other persons regarding this murder, that the mother-in-law was required to be kept at Erandol being lady and that continuous time was spent in travelling from Kasoda to Erandol, that this offence needs detailed scrutiny as it relates to dowry death and that the postmortem report was awaited about the injuries which may have been caused by the instrument and that instrument, therefore, needed search and recovery at the hands of the petitioners. 10. 10. The learned Magistrate, in his order, dated 6-9-1991 observed that further evidence was to be collected and that a sharp weapon which was used for committing the said murder is yet to be recovered and it was, therefore, necessary to grant P.C.R. of the petitioners. Accordingly the Court was pleased to grant three days P.C.R. At this juncture, it will have to be assumed that some papers about investigation must have been availed of by the prosecution. It cannot be lost sight that when the first Remand Application was presented, the inquest and spot panchanama were available to the Court for perusing, because as indicated they are dated 4-9-1991. Now, if one peruses the spot panchanama, one would find that blood stains were found outside the room and it is conceded by the learned A.P.P. that the scrappings of the blood have been seized by the police. Possibly this motivated the learned Trial Judge to observe that the sharp weapon was required to be discovered and attached and the same could be done only by committing the accused to P.C.R. 11. It has been vehemently urged by the learned A.P.P. that the Remand Application really does not indicate any submission to that effect, but all the same, it cannot be lost sight that the Court must have been prompted to think in that direction because the blood stains were found at the spot. If that be so, it cannot be said that could not be the ground for P.C.R. After all when remand orders are passed, on perusing police papers, it can be suitably presumed that the Court peruses all the papers and comes to the conclusion in the shape of final order. The fact remains that the blood stains were noticed in the panchanama and that was such a salient circumstances that the same must have attracted the attention of the learned Judge and that could be, therefore, the very sound ground for granting P.C.R. At the same time, the other circumstances, namely, the further investigation was in the offing and the Court was, therefore, fully justified in granting P.C.R. Much cannot be said against these observations. On the other hand, it can be safely assumed that same could be the part of the arguments on the part of the State. On the other hand, it can be safely assumed that same could be the part of the arguments on the part of the State. The same having been in the mind of the Court the order of P.C.R. dated 6-9-1991 was fully sustainable in the background of the fact that further investigation was necessary and that sharp edged weapon had to be recovered and the same could be done only by granting the P.C.R. of the petitioners. 12. When one turns to second application dated 9-9-1991, submitted on behalf of the State, one finds that the extension of P.C.R. is asked for only on the apprehension that the important evidence in relation to the co-accused who might have hand in this murder would be done away with if the P.C.R. is not granted of the petitioners. It is averred in that application that the petitioners and the mother-in-law of the deceased had committed the murder and that the articles which were given by the father of the deceased namely Television, Refrigerator, etc. were recovered by that time. Now, if the prayer for P.C.R. is scrutinized, it would be found that it is totally vague, it does not spell out as to who could be the co-accused and what evidence was being suppressed by the accused. It would be also pertinent to refer to the Police diary and the learned A.P.P. has stated that on 5-9-1991 the statements of S.C. Naval and other 12 witnesses were recorded; on 6-9-1991 statements of Nanasaheb Deshmukh and seven other persons were recorded; on 7-9-1991, statements of Shamsundar Naval and one more were recorded, whereas on 8-9-1991 statements of Dr. S. Choudhary and three others were recorded. On that day, accused No. 1 discovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act, Television, Godrej Refrigerator and two types of ropes. It is also admittedly by the learned A.P.P. that during these four days, the accused were interrogated. The interrogation took place on 6-9-1991 and also on 7-9-1991, and the net result of this interrogation was that on 8-9-1991 accused No. 1 discovered the above items in pursuance of the statements. It seems that although petitioner No. 2 and mother of petitioner No. 1 were committed to P.C.R., they were not interrogated. One fails to understand as to what prevented Police from interrogating these petitioners. It seems that although petitioner No. 2 and mother of petitioner No. 1 were committed to P.C.R., they were not interrogated. One fails to understand as to what prevented Police from interrogating these petitioners. The fact remains that petitioner No. 1 was only interrogated on all the days during which he was under Police Custody. 13. In Criminal Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge, the grievance was made that on 7-9-1991, there was a problem of law and order at Kasoda and hence the Police could not interrogate the accused. On 8-9-1991 there was Pola Festival and that is why the Investigating Officer could not interrogate the accused. It was also contended that the P.C.R. for three days was too short in such a serious offence. The opinion of the Medical Officer was also to be obtained regarding the cause of death and that false story of hanging was to be exposed by further investigation. It was also contended that as per the postmortem notes, the death was found to be totally unnatural, because the eyes of the deceased were open and the tongue was in between the teeth and this could not be the symptoms of hanging. These are the grounds, on which the State sought for revision of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the affidavit, filed before this Court, it has been contended that on 7th and 8th Police were busy with the Bandobast duty. 14. In the first instance, it would be crystal clear that the entire incident is completely brought to the fore in the evidence that has been collected by the Police so far. The deceased was found hanging by the rope tied to the fan. The deceased had legature marks on her neck, that the so-called persons behind this scene, namely the husband and his parents were already under arrest, they have been under P.C.R. for more than three to four days and whatever investigation has been done does not reveal that any further substantial evidence had to be gathered. The deceased had legature marks on her neck, that the so-called persons behind this scene, namely the husband and his parents were already under arrest, they have been under P.C.R. for more than three to four days and whatever investigation has been done does not reveal that any further substantial evidence had to be gathered. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners ought to have been interrogated by the Police during the P.C.R. The vague allegation that some conspiracy has to be discovered, some more persons who are connected with this crime are to be traced do not appear convicing and if that be so, one cannot gather the justification of granting P.C.R. Now, in this behalf, it will have to be stated that the Supreme Court has taken a consistent view that once the trial or enquiry begins, the detenu should not be submitted to police interrogation. 15 In A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 1025, in the case of (Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and another)1, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe (Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Court)), that, "Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the phrase 'compelled testimony' must be read as evidence procured not merely by physical threats or violence but by psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring interrogative prolixity, overbearing and intimadatory methods and the like-not legal penalty for violation. So, the legal perils following upon refusal to answer, or answer truthfully, cannot be regarded as compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3). The prospect of prosecution may lead to legal tension in the exercise of a constitutional right, but then, a stance of silence is running a calculated risk. On the other hand, if there is any mode of pressure, subtle or crude, mental or physical direct or indirect, but sufficiently substantial, applied by the policeman for obtaining information from an accused suggestive of guilt, it becomes 'compelled testimony', violative of Article 20(3)". These observations would clearly indicate that custody of the accused with the Police is abhorred by the Supreme Court unless it is established that some substantial investigation remains to be undertaken. 16. These observations would clearly indicate that custody of the accused with the Police is abhorred by the Supreme Court unless it is established that some substantial investigation remains to be undertaken. 16. In A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 711, in the case of (Gauri Shankar Jha v. State of Bihar and others)2, the Supreme Court has generally observe, "the custody which flows from section 167 is jail custody, the object being that once an inquiry or a trial begins, it is not proper to let the accused remain under police influence." 17. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order dated 21st September, 1991, has expressed opinion about the intriguing circumstances, which have really no foundation in the investigation. The responsibility is not cast on the accused to explain those circumstances and this ignorance has possibly led the learned Judge to the order of committing the accused to P.C.R. In his judgment, he has observed that this could not be the case of suicide by hanging because the blade of the fan near which the rope was tied has not been bent down. He has also denied the possibility of Shobhana standing on the stool, tying rope around her neck and tying other end with the motor of the fan, by observing that there was only a distance of 4 ft. between the upper end of the stool and the motor end of the fan. This could be relatable to the weight of the deceased, and further the deceased might have pushed aside the stool to commit suicide. 18. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has contended that such an inference was not at all warranted unless it was established that Shobhana was a weighty woman and that her hanging would have brought about the bend in the blade of the fan. The learned Sessions judge has also observed that this could not be the case of suicide because Shobhana was a Medical Practitioner and it was unlikely that she would not leave behind any writing about the proposed suicide. I feel that these observations are really not warranted whole considering the P.C.R. It is also observed in the order that the use of the rope which was found tied to the fan was not used because the breadth of the legature marks was more and this was in terms of opinion of Dr. Choudhary. I feel that these observations are really not warranted whole considering the P.C.R. It is also observed in the order that the use of the rope which was found tied to the fan was not used because the breadth of the legature marks was more and this was in terms of opinion of Dr. Choudhary. In this background, one fails to understand as to what has to be recovered or that further investigation has to be made, when as a matter of fact, accused No. 1 has already discovered two more ropes. Again, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also dwelt on other circumstantial evidence that the deceased was found sleeping in the company of petitioner No. 1 and on that basis a conclusion is drawn that all the accused are behind this murder. The learned Judge has also observed in favour of the Police that on 7th and 8th no investigation was possible because the Police were busy attending law and order problems. There were several morchas against the suicidal death of Shobhana. The learned Judge has, therefore, found what it was wholly legitimate for the Police to be busy with those morchas and in that light if no further investigation takes place, no fault could be found with the Police. For these reasons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to grant further P.C.R. for three days. 19. Now, in the first instance, it has become imperative to make certain observations when police asks for P.C.R. P.C.R. is normally asked when some substantial fact has to be recovered or investigated into to establish nexus between the accused and the crime. It is granted only for furthering the investigation in proper direction and if no such remand is granted, there is every likelihood of the entire investigation being set at naught. It is only in this background that the Police are supposed to ask for the P.C.R., but once they ask for it, it becomes their bounden duty to attend to this investigation in preference to other problems of the Police Station. It becomes necessary for the Superior Authority in the Police Department to isolate those incharge of the investigation of crimes in which P.C.R. is asked for, from other police at Police Station. It becomes necessary for the Superior Authority in the Police Department to isolate those incharge of the investigation of crimes in which P.C.R. is asked for, from other police at Police Station. The I.O. incharge of the investigation should be asked to concentrate on the investigation of offences in which the accused are committed to P.C.R. and the Investigating Officer and other necessary skeleton staff should not be given other duties during the period of P.C.R. If the Police neglect to perform these functions and comfort with a case that the Police were busy with law and order problems, I feel that such contentions cannot be countenanced by the courts. It is the duty of the Police to investigate those cases on priority basis, wherein the accused are committed to P.C.R. They should try to interrogate the accused as frequently as possible within the time granted by the courts and not side-track this work under the garb of law and order problems at the Police Station. These are the considerations which should be upper most in the mind of the Court. The Court should not dwell on the assumptions of guilt and thus embarass the accused in his future defence. 20. In this case, it is clearly indicated that the Police have interrogated the accused within this time. Therefore, their grievance that they were busy with the law and order problems also cannot be considered in view of the fact that the statements of as many as 27 witnesses have been recorded during this time. It is also noticed that in consequence of interrogation of petitioner No. 1 some articles have been discovered and if that be so, the contention of the Police that time was not enough, cannot be entertained at this stage. I feel that sufficient time was at the disposal of the Police to interrogate the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has dwelt on those aspects, which have really no bearing on the fact of prayer for extension of P.C.R. He should have dwelt on those aspects, which needed investigation at the hands of the Police. On the other hand, he has dwelt on such aspects which go to show that the offence has been committed by the petitioners. I feel that in such Revision Application the Judge should not have directed this efforts in that direction. On the other hand, he has dwelt on such aspects which go to show that the offence has been committed by the petitioners. I feel that in such Revision Application the Judge should not have directed this efforts in that direction. He should have confined himself only to find out as to what investigation was to be made by the Police by committing the accused to the P.C.R. The circumstances, indicated above, do not at all show that anything substantial worth the name was to be recovered. On the other hand, the entire picture had become clear. Number of witnesses have been examined. I, therefore, feel that the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. 21. Accordingly, Rule made absolute. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, is hereby set aside. Rule made absolute. -----