Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 369 (GAU)

Srimanta Roy v. State of Assam

2004-05-28

B.LAMARE

body2004
B. LAMARE, J.— Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. P. C. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondents 4 & 5. 2. None appeared for State although the case was taken up for hearing on 22. 9. 2003, 25. 9. 2003, 17. 5. 2004 and 26. 5. 2004 and no affidavit was filed on behalf of the State respondents. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is that the elder brother of the petitioner late Ananta Rai along with 2 persons viz; Raniani Rai and Pradip Nath were arrested by the Police on 22. 10. 99 in connection with Kokrajhar P. S. Case No. 251/99 under Sections 120(B)/121 (A)/122 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act and Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The arrested persons were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar and the police by a petition prayed for 10 (ten) days custody of the accused for the purpose of interrogation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate however, granted 5 (five) days custody, hi compliance of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the 3 accused persons were brought to the Kokrajhar Police Station. 4. On the night of 25. 10. 99 the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSB), Kokrajhar began interrogation of the three accused one by one in Kokrajhar Police Control Room (PCR). The DSP began the interrogation of the accused persons at about 7:15 P. M. At about 8. 05 PM, the Addl. SP of Kokrajhar (respondent No. 3) accompanied by his Personal Security Officers arrived at the Police Station and entered the PCR and began interrogating Ananta Rai the deceased elder brother of the petitioner by beating him up. The Sub Inspector who was present in the police station tried to restrain the respondents 4 and 5 from beating the accused but they did not pay any heed. At about 11 PM the respondent No. 3 left the PCR along with his security personals and directed the Sub-Inspector not to allow the 3 accused persons to sleep or is and to keep them standing and handcuffed until they are sent to court. 5. At about 11 PM the respondent No. 3 left the PCR along with his security personals and directed the Sub-Inspector not to allow the 3 accused persons to sleep or is and to keep them standing and handcuffed until they are sent to court. 5. Due to the beating and torture Ananta Rai, the elder brother of the petitioner became unconscious and died at the lock up after few hours and it was intimated to the respondent No. 3 at about 2:30 AM on 26. 10. 99. The respondent No. 3 then arrived immediately at 5:00 AM and instructed the Investigating Officer to bring in a Doctor from the RNB Civil Hospital. The Doctor arrived at the Police Station and declared the late Ananta Rai dead. The First information Report (FIR) regarding the death of the deceased in the police custody was lodged by the Investigating Officer in the Kokrajhar Police Station and Police Case No. 255/99 was registered under Sections 448/304/34IPC and investigation was started. 6. On the same day i. e. 26. 10. 99, the Investigating Officer of the case informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate about the death of Ananta Rai in the police custody through an application and on receipt of the said application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the Investigating Officer and DSP, Kokrajhar to submit a detailed report to the Court explaining the circumstances under which the deceased Ananta Rai died in the police custody. An inquest report dated 26. 10. 99 was submitted. The post mortem of the deceased was also conducted and the Doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result or injury sustained which were anti-mortem in nature. 7. On 27. 10. 99, when the remaining two accused persons were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar, the Magistrate took notice of the fact that on the body of the two accused persons the Doctor found multiple soft tissues injuries. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also took note of the fact that the deceased Ananta Rail died in police custody due to severe torture. On the basis of the FIR, the respondents 4 and 5 were arrested and produced before the CJM on 28. 10. 99. 8. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also took note of the fact that the deceased Ananta Rail died in police custody due to severe torture. On the basis of the FIR, the respondents 4 and 5 were arrested and produced before the CJM on 28. 10. 99. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the records of GD entry made in the police station shows that during the interrogation of the 3 accused persons by the DSP (DSB), the respondent No. 3 arrived at the police station and entered the PCR and started interrogation of the deceased by beating him along with the respondents 4 and 5. After beating the deceased, he left the police station with a direction not to allow the three accused persons to sleep or sit and to keep them standing and handcuffed until they are sent to Court. The deceased requested for allowing him to sit as he could not stand any more. However, at about 2:10 AM of that night, the deceased complained of pain and few hours thereafter he died. Therefore, it is a clear case of death in police custody due to beating and torture. 9. The respondents 3, 4 and 5 resisted the claim of the petitioner and filed their respective affidavit in opposition. The said respondents in their affidavit in opposition have taken a common plea that neither of them had beaten the deceased Ananta Rai although they admitted that the respondent No. 3 interrogated the deceased Ananta Rai. The respondent No. 3 in his affidavit has stated that although he was the Addl. Superintendent of Police HQ Kokrajhar but on that day he was in-charge Superintendent of Police as the Superintendent of Police was out of station. After completing his office work, in the evening he visited the police station as a matter of routine duty along with his security personnel to supervise the functioning of the police station. On arrival at the police station he found that the interrogation of the three accused persons was going on by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He also questioned and interrogated the three accused persons including the deceased about their involvement in various killings and extortions in the town and also about their other associates. The respondents in their affidavit have also stated that as per the inquest report, no injury was caused to the deceased. He also questioned and interrogated the three accused persons including the deceased about their involvement in various killings and extortions in the town and also about their other associates. The respondents in their affidavit have also stated that as per the inquest report, no injury was caused to the deceased. The respondents 3, 4 and 5 therefore stated in their affidavit that they cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased in police custody. 10. From the order dated 22. 10. 99 passed by the CJM, Kokrajhar it is seen that the three accused persons including the deceased Ananta Rai were remanded for 5 (five) days police custody with a direction that the Investigating Officer shall comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter of interrogating the accused persons. The GD entry No. 800 recorded at 7:15 PM it is seen that the deceased Ananta Rai was first interrogated and brought to the PCR and the Dy. S. P (DSB) began the interrogation, at 8:05 PM. the respondent No. 3 arrived at the police station and entered the PCR and began interrogation of the deceased Ananta Rai. The respondents 4 and 5 also entered the PCR and in short while thereafter, one S. I. M. M. Deka entered the PCR. The GD entry also shows that the resondent No. 3 after torturing the deceased had directed that the accused should not be allowed to sleep or sit and to keep them standing and handcuffed until they are sent to Court. 11. The GD No. 811 entered on 26. 10. 99 shows that the three accused parsons remained standing but on being said that they could not do so, they were allowed to sit. The GD entry No. 812 shows that at about 2:10 PM of that night, the deceased complained of stomach pain. The GD entry No. 814 shows that at 2:30 AM the respondent No. 3 was informed regarding the condition of the deceased in the lock-up. The GD entry No. 815 shows that at 2:35 AM the respondent No. 3 arrived at the police station and he left at about 2:55 AM. The Doctor was called to the police station and only on his arrival he declared Ananta Rai dead and left the police station. 12. The GD entry No. 815 shows that at 2:35 AM the respondent No. 3 arrived at the police station and he left at about 2:55 AM. The Doctor was called to the police station and only on his arrival he declared Ananta Rai dead and left the police station. 12. The above GD entry was denied by the respondent No. 3 in his affidavit in opposition as concocted and manipulated at the instance of some vested interest. But in his affidavit in opposition he has also annexed the FIR dated 26. 10. 99 submitted to the Officer-in-Charge, Kokrajhar Police Station praying for registering the case of unnatural death of Ananta Rai on the basis of which the Kokrajhar P. S. U/d Case No. 28/99 was registered. It is also not denied that the respondents 4 and 5 were arrested in connection with the said case and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 13. From the order dated 26. 10. 99 passed by the CJM, Kokrajhar in Police Case No. 251/99 (GR-807/99) it is seen that the 1. 0. has submitted an Inspection Memo which shows that the accused persons were physically fit on 25. 10. 99 at 11. 05 AM when the Inspection Memo was recorded. However, from the post-mortem report dated 26. 10. 99 the Doctor found the injuries as follows : "II-Cranium and spinal canal (1) Scalp, skull, vertebra : Haematoma found on (Extradural) Td. Temporal region, size 2" DLT 2" Subcutanceous Haematoma found on left Temporal region size 2"x2" skull - Depressed fracture of the right temporal bone vertebrae: Healthy. (2) Membrane: Healthy. (3) Brain and Spinal Cord : Laceration of the brain on the right temporal lobe. Spinal Cord -Healthy. III-Thorax: Thorax part all are healthy. IV-Abdomen 1) Walls : Healthy. 2) Peritoneum: Healthy. 3) Mouth, Pharynx Oesophagus: Healthy. 4) Stomach and its contents : Undigested food matter and fluid present. 5) Small intestine and its contents: Faceal matter present. 6) Large intestine and its contents: Faceal matter present. 7) Liver: Faceal matter present. 8) Spleen: Healthy 9) Kidneys : Rupture of the left kidney on its posterior surface transversely. Size 1" in length and 1" in breadth. Clotted blood seen in an around the ruptured area. The Rt. Kidney-Healthy. 10) Bladder: Healthy. 11) Organs of generation, external and internal: Healthy. " 14. 7) Liver: Faceal matter present. 8) Spleen: Healthy 9) Kidneys : Rupture of the left kidney on its posterior surface transversely. Size 1" in length and 1" in breadth. Clotted blood seen in an around the ruptured area. The Rt. Kidney-Healthy. 10) Bladder: Healthy. 11) Organs of generation, external and internal: Healthy. " 14. On the basis of the above injuries the Doctor opined that the caused of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained and which were antimortem in nature. 15. From the facts as narrated above, it is a clear case that the deceased Ananta Rai died in the police custody on the night of 257 26th October 1999. According to the Inspection Memo he was found physically fit on 25. 10. 99. Therefore, there is no room for doubt that the deceased died due to torture in the police custody as a result of injuries caused to him during the course of torture. The post-mortem report is also clear that due to the injuries and the injuries were antimortem in nature. 16. The next question to be examined is as to what quantum of compensation the petitioner is entitled to. The record shows that at the time of his death, the deceased was 38 years of age as per the police record as well as the age in the postmortem report. The deceased was at the prime of his age when he died. It is also a clear case that the police who are the custodian of law are to maintain peace and tranquility in the society. But in the instant case, the police have taken the law into their hands and caused the death of the deceased. 17. From the order passed by the CJM on 22. 10. 99 the I. O. was directed to comply with the order of the Apex Court in respect of the police custody. But the police instead of restraining themselves from such illegal act has caused the death of the deceased. It is clear violation of the human right and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of this nature on the part of the police needs condemnation by one and all and should not be repeated in any society. But the police instead of restraining themselves from such illegal act has caused the death of the deceased. It is clear violation of the human right and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of this nature on the part of the police needs condemnation by one and all and should not be repeated in any society. Otherwise, instead of feeling safe in the hands of the police citizen shall be put into fear psychosis in the hands of the police and as such exemplary compensation should be given as a deterent to such activity by the police. 18. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees Four lakhs) to the petitioner. The same shall be paid jointly and severally by the respondents within a period of 3 (three) months from the date a copy of this order is served on the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of.