Judgment :- Followed: 1995 SCC (Crl.) 715 S. Krishnan Unni, J, Defendants in O.S.695/1987 on the file of Fist Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam are the appellants. The seventh defendant State of Kerala is the first appellant and other defendants are arrayed as appellants 2 to 7 herein. Plaintiff-respondent filed the suit claiming damages from the defendants to a total tune of Rs. 35,000/-. Plaintiffs case is that on 2.2.1987, when he was a pre degree student, he along with his mother went to Abad Plaza Shopping Centre at M.G. Road, Ernakulam at about 4.30 p.m. in a Maruthi car bearing registration No. KCF 75 belonging to his mother. Mother purchased some eatables and other provisions for domestic purpose worth Rs. 300/- and kept them in the car. He was driving the car from Abad Plaza towards Kacheripady through the Banerji road. He was driving cautiously observing all the traffic regulations and rules. When the car reached Kacheripady at 6 p.m. third respondent signalled him to stop the car and plaintiff stopped it. When he enquired with the third respondent he was informed by him that he had instructions from his Boss to seize the car wherever it is found and produce the same before the traffic police station. Soon after the car was stopped a Police Constable in mufti opened the back door of the car and got inside it asking the plaintiff to drive the vehicle to the traffic police station. As plaintiff s mother was seated in the front seat of the car he told third respondent and the policeman in mufti that he will drive to the traffic police station after dropping his mother at his father's shop which was just 50 yards away at Kacheripady junction. He drove and stopped the car before his father's shop (lab agencies ). Third defendant vas following him. Immediately first defendant reached the place in a police jeep with some Police Constables. When the plaintiff stopped the car in front of his father's shop his mother got down and when she tried to pick up the parcels she was prevented by the third defendant and other Police Constables. When plaintiffs mother attempted to take out them 4th defendant pulled her by hand violently and she had to struggle to get out of his grips. Seeing this plaintiff rushed to her side to rescue her. When plaintiffs mother attempted to take out them 4th defendant pulled her by hand violently and she had to struggle to get out of his grips. Seeing this plaintiff rushed to her side to rescue her. The police personnel including defendants 1, 3,4 and 6 attacked the plaintiff, beat him and by the time second defendant also came in a jeep and the plaintiff was thrown into the jeep and taken to the police station. Plaintiffs car was also taken by the first defendant and driven to the traffic police station. Plaintiff was mercilessly beaten at Police Station by defendants 1 to 6 and other Constables whose names are not known to him. Defendants 1 and 2 remarked that if the plaintiffs vehicle overtakes the vehicles of top police officers this will be the consequence. Plaintiffs father and some of his friends went to the Police Station to get the plaintiff released on bail. None of the officers in the Police Station gave any information to plaintiffs father or his friends who were prepared to execute bail bonds. They refused to release him on bail because he had marks of fresh violence all over his body. Plaintiff was illegally detained in Police Station though solvent and respectable sureties were present to take him on baill. He was produced before the Magistrate on 3.2.1987 at 4 pm and the Circle Inspector of Police Mr. C.J. Money made a request to the court that the plaintiff must be remanded to custody for 14 days. Plaintiff complained to the Magistrate about the behaviour of the Police and he was released on bail and as directed by the Magistrate he was sent to the Government Hospital where he was examined by the Doctor who noted 7 external injuries in his body and issued a wound certificate. Even after the plaintiff was discharged from the Hospital he could not attend to his studies and did not write the final examination. In order to cover up the illegal arrest and torture a crime was registered against the plaintiff under Ss.279 and 332 of Indian Penal Code. Due to illegal arrest and detention in police custody and brutal manhandling by defendants 1 to 6 plaintiff suffered severe pain and mental agony. He developed fever and cough. He had also lost one year in his career and could not write the pre-degree examination. Plaintiff claimed Rs. Due to illegal arrest and detention in police custody and brutal manhandling by defendants 1 to 6 plaintiff suffered severe pain and mental agony. He developed fever and cough. He had also lost one year in his career and could not write the pre-degree examination. Plaintiff claimed Rs. 9,000/- for illegal custody in the Police Station and Rs. 9,000/- as damages for manhandling and causing bodily injuries. He claimed Rs. 300/- as damages for the valued of food items destroyed, Rs. 2,700/-for medical treatment and Rs. 3,000/- towards damages caused to the seat cover of the car, to talling to Rs. 35,000/-. 2. Defendants 1 to 6 contended that on the day of the incident plaintiff was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner at top speed likely to cause danger to the life of the public, that he disobeyed the instructions of the Police Officers to stop the car, that when the Police tried to take him into custody he beat the with an iron rod causing injuries to 4th defendant and that he was overpowered and removed to the Police Station and produced before the Magistrate. Defendants contended that they have taken into custody the plaintiff under law and as authorised by law in the discharge of their official duties, that they have not committed any offence or tort and that they were not liable for the plaint claim. 3. Exts. Al to A12 and B1 to B10 were marked. PWs.1 to 7 and DWs.1 to 5 were examined. The trial court found that the incident as Spoken to by the plaintiff is true and decreed the suit for damages to the extent of Rs. 24,000/-. It denied damages for illegal arrest expressing an opinion that the connected 'criminal case was pending before the Magistrate's Court and, therefore, the plaintiff would be free to prefer a separate claim on that basis after the disposal of that case.? Defendants have come up in appeal. 4. Plaintiff was examined as PW1. His mother was examined as PW2. PW3 is an Advocate practising at Ernakulam. He was examined to provide that he approached the Police to bail out the plaintiff and the police refused to release him on bail. PW. Defendants have come up in appeal. 4. Plaintiff was examined as PW1. His mother was examined as PW2. PW3 is an Advocate practising at Ernakulam. He was examined to provide that he approached the Police to bail out the plaintiff and the police refused to release him on bail. PW. 4 is plaintiff's father who says that he tried to get his son out on bail and went along with PW3 counsel and PWS Joseph Miranda and that the Police refused to release him on bail. PWs 6 and 7 are the Doctors who treated the plaintiff. PW7 has issued Ext. A7 wound certificate. PW6 is an Ayurvedic Physician who has treated the plaintiff subsequently and issued Ext. A7 receipt for Rs. 2,700/- towards cost of treatment. The Deputy Superintendent of Police who charged the criminal case against the plaintiff was examined as D W 1. He has not witnessed the incident and is only a formal witness. First defendant was examined as DW2, second defendant as DW3 and 3rd defendant as DW4. DWS is an autorickshaw driver who was examined to prove that the plaintiff attacked the Police officers when he was attempted to be arrested. 5. I have referred to the facts of the case which is discussed in detail in the judgment of the court below. PW1 is the plaintiff who has given evidence about the incident. There is no doubt that the incident happened in the evening of 2.2.1987 at 6 p.m. at Kacheripady. Plaintiff and his mother PW2 were proceeding from Banerji road to Kacheripady in their car. At the junction where M.G. Road joins Banerji road plaintiff was signalled to stop the car by the third defendant who asked him to drive to the traffic police station. He wanted to drop his mother at his father's shop named Lab Agencies near Kacheripady and the car was stopped there. All the above facts are not in dispute. When the car was stopped PW2 got out of it and tried to pick up the food articles purchased by her. She was then stopped by the 4th defendant who caught hold of her both hands and then plaintiff tried to rescue her. All the above facts are not in dispute. When the car was stopped PW2 got out of it and tried to pick up the food articles purchased by her. She was then stopped by the 4th defendant who caught hold of her both hands and then plaintiff tried to rescue her. PW1 has sworn that defendants 1,3, 4 and 6 and second defendant who came later on there in a police jeep beat him mercilessly and threw him into the police jeep and removed him to the Traffic Police Station. First defendant drove his car and on reaching the Station he was manhandled by defendants 1 to 6. He suffered severe pain and contusions all over the body. Ext. B2 is the remand report filed by the Police on 3.2.1987 and the order of the First Class Magistrate, Aluvain C. C. 97/1989. The police had a case that the plaintiff committed offence under Ss.279 and 332 IPC and requested remand for 2 weeks. The Magistrate's order shows that he was released on bail and directed to be examined by the Doctor in the Government Hospital. This document also makes it clear that the plaintiff complained to the Magistrate that he was removed to the North Traffic Police Station on the previous day evening and Sis. named Das and Lakshmanan, Constable 4847 and other constables beat him and that he was suffering from bodily pain. Therefore, he was produced before the Doctor who had examined him and issued Ext. P3 wound certificate. The Doctor was examined as PW7. This Certificate shows that plaintiff had contusions all over his body and he complained of pain. PW7 has proved this certificate. Ext. A4 is the Discharge Certificate issued by PW7 which shows that he was discharged on 10.2.1987. The evidence of the plaintiffs mother examined as PW2 corroborates the version given by PW1 substantially. She has particularly stated that defendants 1 to 6 beat the plaintiff in front of her husband's shop, she was prevented by the 4th defendant when she tried to remove the parcels from her car, that the 4th defendant caught hold of her both hands and when she tried to get out of his grips the pocket of his shirt was torn. DW5 John an autorickshaw driver was examined to prove that the plaintiff tried to beat the police officer with an iron rod and he was wounded. DW5 John an autorickshaw driver was examined to prove that the plaintiff tried to beat the police officer with an iron rod and he was wounded. No doubt, defendants have produced the Wound Certificate (Ext. B5) issued by Dr. Koshy Jacob after examining Gopinatha Chettiar, the 4th defendant. But they have not examined the Doctor and the suggestion of plaintiff is that the wounds in the body of the 4th defendant were self-inflicted. We need not dwell much on this aspect because defendants have not tried to prove the Wound Certificate and as to how he (the defendant) sustained the injuries. Therefore, we have to accept the version spoken to by PW1 and his mother PW2 as against the interested versions of defendants 1 to 3 that 4M respondent sustained injuries due to the attack of by the plaintiff. It is very significant to note that the 4th defendant Police Officer who sustained the injury on the alleged attack by the plaintiff has not chosen to go into the box and swear to his case. In other words, the injured Police Officer was not examined. The Doctor who examined him and issued Ext. B5 wound certificate was also not examined. This circumstance speak volumes about the versions of the Police Officers regarding the alleged attack on 4th defendant by the plaintiff with an iron rod. Naturally the lower court choose to accept the version of PWs 1 and 2 that the Police Officer got his short torn when PW2 was trying to wriggle out of his grip. 6. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was in police custody from 6 p.m. on 2.2.1987 till 4.50 p.m. on the next day when he was produced before the Magistrate with the remand report. The charge against him revealed only minor bailable offence. The evidence of plaintiff s father PW4 supported by the evidence of counsel PW3 and PW5 John who went there to bail out the plaintiff clearly establish that the Police refused to release the plaintiff on bail and the version of the Police that nobody approached them to bail out the plaintiff is nothing but total falsehood. The evidence of plaintiff s father PW4 supported by the evidence of counsel PW3 and PW5 John who went there to bail out the plaintiff clearly establish that the Police refused to release the plaintiff on bail and the version of the Police that nobody approached them to bail out the plaintiff is nothing but total falsehood. This is further reinforced by the circumstance that the Police filed remand report requesting two week's remand of the plaintiff which shows the gross prejudice and an attitude of revenge on their part, to see that the plaintiff is detained in the Sub Jail. The plaintiff complained to the Magistrate that he was tortured in the Police Station and he was sent by the orders of the court to the Government Hospital. The Doctor who examined Mm (PW7) has sworn and proved the Wound Certificate as well as the Discharge Certificate as mentioned above. 7. When a person who is produced from police custody complains of torture, one should not expect direct ocular evidence to establish such torture. The Court will have to take a realistic view and assess the evidence. Normally when a person is produced from Police custody with bodily injuries, the Court has to presume that he was subjected to torture unless the Police is able to establish circumstances to rule out such an inference. For example, the Police Officers may explain that the injuries were sustained during the course of an encounter with them when the prisoner tried to escape or resist an arrest. In this case Police has a version that plaintiff tried to resist the arrest and attacked 4th defendant which is not even attempted to be proved by them. 4th defendant has not gone into the box and the Wound Certificate produced by him is not proved by the Doctor concerned. These circumstances strongly suggest that the version put forward by the Police is false. It will not be unreasonable to conclude that the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries while in police custody due to the torture. 8. In this connection I would refer to the decision reported in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995 SCC (crl.) 715) where the apex court dealt with a case of death in police custody and observed: "Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available. 8. In this connection I would refer to the decision reported in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995 SCC (crl.) 715) where the apex court dealt with a case of death in police custody and observed: "Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available. Generally speaking, it would be police officials alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues - and the present case is an apt illustration - as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt, by the prosecution, ignoring the ground realities, the fact situations and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system suspect. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on the increase, receive encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach of the courts because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to them if an odd prisoner dies in the lock-up because there would hardly be any evidence available to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture. The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/ under trial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilized nation and encourages the men in'Khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/ under trial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilized nation and encourages the men in'Khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and the civilisation itself would risk the consequence of heading towards perishing. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself, which will be a sad day. Though Ss.330 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code make punishable those persons who cause hurt for the purpose of extorting the confession by making the offence punishable with sentence upto 10 years of imprisonment, but the convictions as experience shows us, have been very few because the atrocities within the precincts of the police station are often left without any ocular or other direct evidence to prove who the offenders are. Disturbed by this situation the Law Commission in its 113th Report recommended amendments to the Indian Evidence Act so as to provide that in the prosecution of a police officer for an alleged offence of having caused bodily injuries to a person while in police custody, if there is evidence that the injury was caused during the period when the person was in the police custody, the court may presume that the injury was caused by the police officer having the custody of that person during that period unless the police officer proves to the contrary." As observed by their Lordships, torture in custody flouts the basic rights of a citizen recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police officers cannot consider themselves to be above the law of land or become law upto themselves. Stern measures have to be taken to check the violation of basic rights and human dignity by police officers, to sustain the foundations of criminal justice system and public faith init. 9. In the instant case, there are circumstances to clearly show that the police acted with prejudice, vengeance and exceeded and misused their powers. Stern measures have to be taken to check the violation of basic rights and human dignity by police officers, to sustain the foundations of criminal justice system and public faith init. 9. In the instant case, there are circumstances to clearly show that the police acted with prejudice, vengeance and exceeded and misused their powers. The act complained against the plaintiff was a minor traffic violation and I am told that the said case has been thrown out by the criminal court though for reasons best known, both parties have not produced copy of the judgment. Plaintiff was taken into police custody and detained denying bail through proper sureties were offered. This version is proved because even before the Magistrate Police filed a remand report asking plaintiffs remand for two weeks. This clearly establishes their revengeful attitude because the offence alleged against him was only a traffic violation and the police had no case that plaintiff is likely to tamper with evidence of the witnesses or make himself scare for the trial against him. The circumstances discussed above clearly established that the defendants were responsible for inflicting torture and pain on the plaintiff and causing bodily injuries to him. In these circumstances plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for personal injuries suffered by him. 10. As regards the quantum, the lower court has denied Rs. 9,000/- claimed for illegal arrest. No cross appeal is filed by the plaintiff against it and that portion of the impugned judgment has become final. As regards the other claims, one of the claims for Rs. 2.000/- towards taxi charges was also denied by the lower court. Since no appeal is preferred against that finding of the lower court it has become final. The lower court has granted Rs. 3,000/- on the basis of a voucher issued by a car mechanic (Ext. a6 ) for repairing damages to the car (cushion to the seat cover). The person who issued the receipt was not examined. The case of the plaintiff is that seat cover was damaged due to the decayed food materials kept in the car. The case appears to be far-fetched. The damages, if any, caused by such food articles may not warrant the change of seat cover and car mats. Therefore, grant of Rs. 3,000/- on this count by the lower court cannot be sustained. Therefore, out of Rs. The case appears to be far-fetched. The damages, if any, caused by such food articles may not warrant the change of seat cover and car mats. Therefore, grant of Rs. 3,000/- on this count by the lower court cannot be sustained. Therefore, out of Rs. 24,000/- allowed as total compensation this amount of Rs. 3,000/- is liable to be deducted and the plaintiff is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 21,000/- with proportionate costs. 11. Before parting with the case I cannot but observe that this case presents a very sordid version of police behaviour involving violation of human rights. The offence alleged against the plaintiff was only a minor traffic violation for which he was detained in police station, denied bail and subjected to torture. It is also curious that though police came out with the version that the plaintiff inflicted physical injuries on the police officers and prevented them from discharging their official duties, no enquiry was conducted into this case. Police did not try to prove this version. In either case this is a matter which required the attention of the senior superior police officials. If the police officers have violated the citizens' right, the situation demands their exemplary punishment. If, on the other hand, the police officers were doing their lawful duties and were attacked by any law-breaker that is a serious matter which should be nipped in the bud. The court has reason to believe that the police version in this case is not true because they have not attempted to prove it. Probably it was a counterblast to answer their misbehaviour towards PWs 1 and 2. It is also sad to note that the Police Officer misbehaved with PW2 in the public road dragging her hands and pulling her out from her own car and thus outraging her modesty and dignity. In the above circumstances the behaviour of the plaintiff was natural viz., to rush to her rescue. These aspects appear to be lost sight of and it is in the interest of the citizen as well as the police that such incidents are not repeated in future. The police officers ought to have showed a better maturity and exhibited self-control even if the youngsters with less experience and maturity behaves improperly. As guardians of law they should never violate the law. The police officers ought to have showed a better maturity and exhibited self-control even if the youngsters with less experience and maturity behaves improperly. As guardians of law they should never violate the law. I must also offer a remark about the conduct of the Magistrate to whose notice the plaintiff brought the torture he suffered in custody. The Magistrate has sent him to the Hospital but did not pursue the matter further by taking follow up action. It is not necessary to get a written complaint because a prisoner produced from police custody has complained of torture and it will be ideal for the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and take follow-up action against the concerned officials. Only if the magistracy also wakes up to its duties to preserve the law and protect the right and dignity of the citizens, abhorrent police officers will be deterred from violating law. It will also be proper to refer such cases to the Human Rights Commission for action. In the result, I confirm the judgment and decree of the lower court except to the extent of disallowing the claim of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the learned Sub Judge towards the repair charges of the car. These will be a decree against the first appellant State also. But the first appellant State shall recover the decree amount from defendants 1 to 6 ie., the police officers after payment of the same to the plaintiff. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Accountant General, Kerala for this purpose. The appeal is disposed of as above.