Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 147 (ORI)

Rabindranath Deo v. State of Orissa

2017-02-06

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. “Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law-breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights’ jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'No'. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.” (Ref:-D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 13 OCrR(SC) 214) The petitioner Rabindranath Deo who was Ex-Circle Inspector of Police, Talcher has challenged the impugned order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher in G.R. Case No. 72 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 342, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of Vikrampur P.S. Case No.08 of 2004. 2. On 3.2.2004 on the First Information Report submitted by Bijaya Kumar Mohanty, Inspector of Police, HRPC, Orissa, Cuttack-cum-Addl. C.I., Talcher, the aforesaid Vikrampur P.S. Case No. 08 of 2004 was registered under sections 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code against A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli and S.I. of Police Sobha Patnaik. 2. On 3.2.2004 on the First Information Report submitted by Bijaya Kumar Mohanty, Inspector of Police, HRPC, Orissa, Cuttack-cum-Addl. C.I., Talcher, the aforesaid Vikrampur P.S. Case No. 08 of 2004 was registered under sections 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code against A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli and S.I. of Police Sobha Patnaik. It is stated in the First Information Report that while conducting inquiry into Vikrampur P.S. U.D. Case No. 03 of 2003 on the strength of office order no.501/HRPC dated 31.12.2003 and S.P. Angul D.O. No.1741 dated 31.12.2003, it came to light that A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli of Kalinga Beat House and Sub-Inspector of Police Sobha Patnaik, who was the officer in charge of Vikrampur Police Station brought the deceased Narayan Behera to Kalinga Beat House in connection with Vikrampur P.S. Case No. 70 of 2003 registered under sections 147, 148, 302, 149 of the Indian Penal Code at about 03.30 a.m. on 29.12.2003. The deceased was kept at Kalinga Beat House from 29.12.2003 at about 03.30 a.m. till his death on 31.12.2003 at about 10.45 a.m. While the deceased was at Kalinga Beat House, he committed suicide by hanging himself from a ceiling fan by a rope in the inspection room of the said Beat House. The Medical Officers who conducted autopsy opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and mode of death was suicidal and there is no sign of any injury on the body of the deceased. As per the First Information Report, the detention of the deceased Narayan Behera at Kalinga Beat house from 29.12.2003 to 31.12.2003 till his death amounts to wrongful confinement which revealed a case under sections 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code against A.S.I. of Police Dwari Muduli and Sub-Inspector of Police Sobha Patnaik. During course of investigation, the family members of the deceased Narayan Behera were examined and they stated that the deceased was wrongfully confined in Kalinga Beat House from 3.45 a.m. on 29.12.2003 to 10.45 a.m. on 31.12.2003 by S.I. of police Sobha Patnaik, A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli and the petitioner in connection with Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003 without any break and without any arrest in the case and subjected to mental torture in furtherance of their common intention. The deceased was mentally shocked as a result of which he committed suicide in police custody in absence of proper measures for his safety. Finding sufficient materials against the petitioner as well as S.I. of police Sobha Patnaik and A.S.I. of Police Dwari Muduli, charge sheet was submitted on 05.05.2008 under sections 342, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri Rabindranath Mohapatra, Inspector of Police, HRPC, Cuttack. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate perused the F.I.R., chargesheet, documents submitted by the Investigating Officer and the sanction order of DG/IG of police, Orissa, Cuttack in respect of the petitioner and was pleased to take cognizance of offences under sections 342, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioner which is impugned in this revision petition. 3. Mr. Satyabrata Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order contended that even accepting the entire prosecution case for the sake of argument, the ingredients of the offences under sections 342 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer of the case sought for sanction for prosecution of the petitioner only for the offence under sections 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code from DG & IG of Police, Orissa, Cuttack who is the appropriate authority to accord sanction and accordingly, sanction was granted to file charge sheet and therefore, the Investigating Officer was not justified in submitting charge sheet by adding offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code along with sections 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that there having been no sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the submission of charge sheet for such offence and consequential order of taking cognizance is vitiated in the eye of law. It is contended that there having been no sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the submission of charge sheet for such offence and consequential order of taking cognizance is vitiated in the eye of law. It was further urged that so far as the offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, since the offence prescribes punishment for one year, charge sheet having been filed four years after the lodging of the First Information Report, the order of cognizance could not have been taken in view of the bar under section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased Narayan Behera was brought to the Kalinga Beat House under Vikrampur police station by the Officer in charge of Vikrampur police station along with Beat House in charge in connection with Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003 at about 3.00 a.m. on 28/29.12.2003. The petitioner was the Circle Inspector of Police, Talcher and he was the Investigating Officer of the said case having office at Talcher which is around 25 kms. away from Vikrampur police station. After getting information about the detention of the deceased at Kalinga Beat House, the petitioner reached there at about 11.30. a.m. on 29.12.2003, interrogated and examined the deceased and then the deceased was taken to village Kantribida to the house of one Tikan Pradhan in police jeep for verification of his statement. All the police officials along with the deceased returned to Kalinga Beat House at about 4.00 p.m. on 29.12.2003. The petitioner specifically instructed A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli who was the in charge of the outpost to allow the deceased to go to his house if the driver of Marshal jeep in which the deceased allegedly helped the accused persons of Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003 to escape, did not turn up for confrontation. The petitioner then returned back to Talcher and remained busy in other law and order duty as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police. The learned counsel Mr. The petitioner then returned back to Talcher and remained busy in other law and order duty as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police. The learned counsel Mr. Pradhan further contended that the materials available on record further indicate that on 31.12.2003 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased was moving inside the Kalinga Beat House campus and at about 10.00 a.m. the brother of the deceased had come to meet him with tiffin which the deceased took and then the deceased approached the A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli to leave him who told him that after confrontation with Marshal jeep driver, he would be allowed to go home in the afternoon and then at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased suddenly entered inside the inspection room of the Beat House, bolted the door from inside and committed suicide. Hearing some sound, A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli and others came near that room, knocked the door and when the deceased did not respond, they broke open the door and found that the deceased had hanged himself in a ceiling fan. The rope was cut and the deceased was brought on the floor of the room. Intimation was immediately given by A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli to different Senior Officers including the petitioner who arrived at the spot. Mr. Pradhan further contended that Vikrampur P.S.U.D. Case No.2 of 2003 was registered in connection with the unnatural death of the deceased. The inquest over the dead body was conducted and it was sent for post mortem examination and the post mortem report clearly reveals that it is a case of suicidal hanging. Learned counsel further submitted that a month after the deceased committed suicide, First Information Report was lodged on 03.02.2004 against A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli and S.I. of police Sobha Patnaik. Learned counsel further submitted that a month after the deceased committed suicide, First Information Report was lodged on 03.02.2004 against A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli and S.I. of police Sobha Patnaik. The learned counsel further urged that in view of the fact that the deceased was brought to the Beat House in connection with investigation of an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner being the investigating officer of the murder case, after making necessary interrogation of the deceased had asked the A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli to leave the deceased if the driver of the Marshal Jeep did not turn up for confrontation and the petitioner having played no role in the detention of the deceased at the Kalinga Beat House which was allegedly done by the other two police officials against whom the F.I.R. was lodged and in absence of any specific overtact attributed to the petitioner either in the wrongful detention of the deceased at Kalinga Beat House or in the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased, submission of charge sheet in a mechanical manner is unjustified and therefore, this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the cases of M. Mohan Vs. State reported in (2011) 48 OCrR(SC) 961, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat report in (2010) 8 SCC 628 , Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2001) 21 OCrR(SC) 667. Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani, learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the deceased could not have been detained for the purpose of investigation/interrogation at Kalinga Beat House and the petitioner being the Investigating Officer of Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003 has not followed the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 . The learned counsel further submitted that there was no justification for detention of the deceased for a period of three days in the Beat House and the plea taken that the deceased was detained for the purpose of confrontation with the driver of the Marshal Jeep and that there was no wrongful detention, cannot be accepted at this stage. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no justification for detention of the deceased for a period of three days in the Beat House and the plea taken that the deceased was detained for the purpose of confrontation with the driver of the Marshal Jeep and that there was no wrongful detention, cannot be accepted at this stage. It is further contended that it was due to the wrongful detention for about three days that there was lot of mental pressure on the deceased and due to non-taking of preventive steps by the Beat House in charge, the deceased who was in mental agony could be able to commit suicide and therefore, when the petitioner being the superior authority of the A.S.I. and S.I. of police having not verified about the wrongful detention of the deceased in the Beat House beyond the period of twenty-four hours, he is squarely liable for abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned counsel for the State while placing the statements of the relevant witnesses as well as the sanction order contended that sanction order under section 197 of Cr.P.C. was obtained from the competent authority not only for offence under section 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code but also for any other offence punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the said acts and since prima facie case under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, there was no bar on the part of the investigating officer in submitting charge sheet for such offence. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there was no bar in taking cognizance of offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code as the F.I.R. was lodged within two months of the commission of offence and moreover chagesheet was submitted also for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for which there is no limitation period for taking cognizance in view of the punishment prescribed for such offence. Learned Counsel for the State placed reliance in the cases of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 , Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 and S.A. Azeez Vs. Pasam Hari Babu and another 2003 CrLJ 2462 . 4. Learned Counsel for the State placed reliance in the cases of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 , Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 and S.A. Azeez Vs. Pasam Hari Babu and another 2003 CrLJ 2462 . 4. The learned counsel for the State first placed statements which were recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 of Cr.P.C. during investigation of the case. The statement of Ranjan Behera indicates that he was the driver of a Marshal Jeep which was engaged in Kalinga Beat House since October 2003. He further stated that during the intervening night of 28/29.12.2003, on the instruction of the officer in charge of Vikrampur Police Station, the deceased was brought to Kalinga Beat House by the police officials including Sobha Pattnaik and Dwari Muduli, against whom the first information report was lodged. He further stated on 30th as well as 31st December 2003, he accompanied A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli on patrolling duty and returned at about 5.00 a.m. to Kalinga Beat House and went to sleep but he had not seen the deceased and came to know about the suicide of the deceased at about noon on 31.12.2003. The statement of Sujata Pradhan who is the wife of Tikan Pradhan indicates that the petitioner along with other police officials and the deceased had come to her house on 29.12.2003 during day time and the petitioner gave his identity as Circle Inspector of Police, Talcher and interrogated her about the whereabouts of the accused persons of the murder case of Badajoroda and since she expressed her ignorance, the police officials along with the deceased left that place. The statement of Durlabha Prusty indicates that on 29.12.2003 at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner along with other police officials came to Kalinga Beat House where the petitioner interrogated a person whom he subsequently knew to be the deceased and then the petitioner along with the deceased and other police officials went to the house of village Sarpanch and all of them returned to Kalinga Beat House and then the deceased was left at Kalinga Beat House and the petitioner proceeded to Talcher. The learned counsel for the State further placed the case diary of Bikrampur P.S. U.D. Case No.03 of 2003 which indicates that while inquiring into the said U.D. Case, Inspector of Police, HRPC, Orissa, Cuttack-cum-Additional C.I., Talcher found that A.S.I. Dwari Muduli and S.I. Sobha Pattnaik had brought the deceased Narayan Behera to Kalinga Beat House in connection with Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003 in the night on 28/29.12.2003 at about 3.30 a.m. as per the instruction of the petitioner and he was kept in the Beat House till his death i.e. 31.12.2003 at about 10.45 a.m. and while the deceased was at Beat House, he committed suicide by hanging himself by means of a plastic rope tied in the ceiling fan of the inspection room of the Beat House and during post mortem examination, no sign of injury on the body of the deceased was noticed and the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to hanging. The statement of one Sanjay Behera, who is the younger brother of the deceased was recorded during U.D. case inquiry which indicates that on 31.12.2003 in the morning hours, he came to Kalinga Beat House and met the deceased who talked with him but did not state anything regarding any torture on him by the police. He further stated that A.S.I. of Police Muduli Babu intimated him subsequently that the deceased had committed suicide. The statement of one Rajballava Pradhan recorded in U.D. case inquiry indicates that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 31.12.2003 when he came to Kalinga Beat House at about 9.00 a.m., he met the deceased and A.S.I. Muduli Babu who told him to come at about 4.00 p.m. to take back the deceased. The statements of Kastu Behera and Smt. Bilash Behera, the parents of the deceased also indicate that the deceased was taken to Kalinga Beat House on 29.12.2003 by S.I. of police Sobha Pattnaik and A.S.I. of Police Dwari Muduli. The statement of one Golak Pradhan indicates that the door of the inspection room was broke open on the date of occurrence and it was found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself in the ceiling fan with a rope. The statement of Narasundar Mishra indicates that the deceased committed suicide in Kalinga Beat House where inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The statement of Narasundar Mishra indicates that the deceased committed suicide in Kalinga Beat House where inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The statement of Sitakant Dash who was the Officer in Charge of Colliery Police Station, Angul indicates that he had accompanied the petitioner to Kalinga Beat House on 29.12.2003 and reached there at about 11.50 a.m. and after interrogation of the deceased was complete, the deceased was taken to the house of one Tikan Pradhan, Sarpanch of Kantribida Grampanchayat and then they returned to Kalinga Beat House with the deceased where they reached at about 4.15 p.m. He has further stated that the petitioner inquired from A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli as to whether the driver of Marshal Jeep had turned up to the Beat House and when Dwari Muduli denied that the driver had not turned up, the petitioner instructed him to leave the deceased if the driver did not turn up. The inquest report of the deceased in Bikrampur P.S. U.D. Case No.03 of 2003 indicates that the inquest was held in the inspection room of Kalinga Beat House and the post mortem report indicates that there was ligature mark over the upper part of the neck above the thyroid cartrilage and cause of death was opined to be asphyxia as a result of suicidal hanging. The statements of the witnesses and other documents which were placed by the learned counsel for the State either from the case records of Vikrampur P.S. Case No.08 of 2004 or from Vikrampur P.S. U.D. Case No.03 of 2003 and on perusal of the inquest report as well as the post mortem report, the following facts are borne out:- (i) The S.I. of Police Sobha Pattnaik who was the officer in charge of Vikrampur Police Station and A.S.I. of Police of Kalinga Beat House namely, Dwari Muduli brought the deceased to Kalinga Beat House in the intervening night of 28/29.12.2003 as per the instruction of the petitioner in connection with Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003 under sections 147, 148, 302, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) The petitioner who was the Circle Inspector of Talcher was the Investigating Officer of Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003. (ii) The petitioner who was the Circle Inspector of Talcher was the Investigating Officer of Vikrampur P.S. Case No.70 of 2003. He came to Kalinga Beat House on 29.12.2003 at about 11.30 a.m. along with the other police officials getting information about the detention of the deceased and interrogated him. The deceased was then taken by the petitioner and other police officials to the house of one Tikan Pradhan where the wife of Tikan Pradhan namely Sujata Pradhan was interrogated and then they returned back to Kalinga Beat House. (iii) The deceased was left at Kalinga Beat House on 29.12.2003 in the afternoon and the petitioner left to Talcher. (iv) The petitioner after interrogation of the deceased and conducting investigation in connection with the murder case had instructed A.S.I. of Police Dwari Muduli to leave the deceased from the Beat House if the driver of the Marshal Jeep did not turn up. (v) The deceased was in the Kalinga Beat House from 29.12.2003 at about 3.30 a.m. till 31.12.2003 when he died. (vi) The deceased committed suicide in the inspection room of the Kalinga Beat House by hanging himself in a ceiling fan by a rope closing the door from inside. (vii) The inquest report as well as post mortem report indicates that it was a case of suicidal hanging. (viii) During course of U.D. case inquiry, finding materials of wrongful confinement against S.I. of Police Sobha Pattnaik, the officer in charge of Vikrampur Police Station and A.S.I. of Police Dwari Muduli of Kalinga Beat House, F.I.R. was lodged against them. 5. Law is well settled that an order taking cognizance under sec. 190 of Cr.P.C. can be the subject-matter of a revisional jurisdiction under section 401 read with section 397 of Cr.P.C. as well as of an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The true contours of the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under section 401 read with section 397 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or where there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it. When illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to the notice of the High Court at any stage of the criminal proceeding, it can certainly call for the records and examine them even on its own motion, if it so desires. 6. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties as to whether the ingredients of the offences are made out against the petitioner or not, in case of M. Mohan Vs. State reported in (2011) 48 OCrR(SC) 961, it is held as follows:- “45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. x xxx x 49. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation, there are even no allegations against the Appellants. There is also no proximate link between the incident of 14.1.2005 when the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18.1.2005. 50. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. But the question remains to be answered is whether the Appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident in any manner? 51. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. But the question remains to be answered is whether the Appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident in any manner? 51. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the Appellants are not even remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. x xxx x 71. In the light of the settled legal position, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charges under Section 306 I.P.C. against them. The High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings so that the Appellants who were not remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. should not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a criminal trial”. In case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujurat reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 , it is held as follows:- “12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. 13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. In fact, there is no nexus between the so called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 659 , this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.” In case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2001) 21 OCrR(SC) 667, it is held as follows:- “23. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out……..” In case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 13 OCrR (SC) 214, it is held as follows:- “29. Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminals and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does nor permit use of third degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.” In case of S.A. Azeez Vs. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.” In case of S.A. Azeez Vs. Pasam Hari Babu and another 2003 CrLJ 2462 , it is held as follows:- “12. Under Section 76, Cr. P.C. the police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall subject to the provisions of Section 71 as to security without unnecessary delay bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person, provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court. This provision mandates that the arrested person should be produced within twenty-four hours exclusive of the time taken for journey before the Court which issued the warrant. When such is the law, petitioner should not have detained the 1st respondent beyond twenty-four hours in any case. Petitioner detained the 1st respondent illegally for nearly one week in the police station. It was not a part of the discharge of the official duty of the petitioner to detain the 1st respondent in the police station beyond twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest. This can never be a case of excess of discharge of public duty. It is clearly a violation of mandatory provisions provided under law. So also it was not the duty of the petitioner to beat the 1st respondent. Though the arrest of the 1st respondent made by the petitioner was lawful, because the arrest was made in pursuance of execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned Magistrate, the detention of the 1st respondent beyond twenty-four hours from the time of this arrest for a week is clearly an utter violation of law and there was no nexus between the discharge of the duty by the petitioner and the acts complained against him.” In case of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 , it is held as follows:- “21. State of Uttaranchal and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 , it is held as follows:- “21. Bearing in mind the above legal position, we are convinced that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the afore-stated ground. In our opinion, in order to arrive at a conclusion, whether or not the appellant had made out a case for quashing of the chargesheet against him, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material which was placed before the Magistrate. For dismissal of the petition, the High Court had to record a finding that the uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the appellant. In our judgment, the decision of the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it is not permissible for it to look into the materials placed before the Magistrate is not in consonance with the broad parameters, enumerated in a series of decisions of this Court and briefly noted above, to be applied while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code for discharge and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.” 7. In view of the materials available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner has not played any role in the wrongful detention of the deceased in the Kalinga Beat House from 29.12.2003 till 31.12.2003. Even though the deceased was brought to the Beat House on the instruction of the petitioner by the two co-accused persons in connection with the investigation of the murder case but after he was interrogated by the petitioner and taken into the house of the Sarpanch for the purpose of investigation, he was left at Kalinga Beat House by the petitioner with specific instruction to A.S.I. of police Dwari Muduli to leave the deceased in the event the driver of the Marshal Jeep did not turn up to the Beat House. There is no also material on record that after the completion of interrogation on 29.12.2003 till the death of the deceased, the petitioner had ever come to Kalinga Beat House or had given any instruction anybody to detain the deceased in the Beat House. The petitioner at that point of time was working as Circle Inspector of police at Talcher. There is no also material on record that after the completion of interrogation on 29.12.2003 till the death of the deceased, the petitioner had ever come to Kalinga Beat House or had given any instruction anybody to detain the deceased in the Beat House. The petitioner at that point of time was working as Circle Inspector of police at Talcher. Even the ASI of Police Dwari Muduli was ready to leave the deceased on 31.12.2003 in the afternoon after confrontation with the driver of the Marshal Jeep. There is no material on record that the petitioner instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide. There is no nexus or proximate link between the suicide of the deceased and any of the alleged acts on the part of the petitioner which appears to have been performed in due discharge of official duty. No third degree method was adopted against the deceased during his interrogation by the petitioner or during his detention at the Beat House. He was allowed to meet his brother and friend and move freely in the Beat House campus and allowed to take food brought by his brother. In view of the materials on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner had shared common intention in wrongfully confining the deceased at Kalinga Beat House or abated the commission of suicide of the deceased so as to attract the ingredients of the offences under sections 342 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the learned counsels for both the sides addressed this Court on the point of sanction for prosecution and also on limitation period for the Magistrate in taking cognizance of offences but since I am satisfied that the ingredients of the offences are not attracted against the petitioner, I do not think it proper to discuss on those points. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and in order to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, the same needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. in taking cognizance of the offence under sections 342, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against the petitioner stands quashed. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. in taking cognizance of the offence under sections 342, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against the petitioner stands quashed. Before parting with the matter, it is made clear that any observation made by me while adjudicating the criminal revision petition is for the limited purpose of deciding as to whether the ingredients of the offences against the petitioner are made out or not and I may not be understood to have expressed any opinion one way or the other on the merits of the case in respect of the co-accused persons and the case against the co-accused persons shall be decided strictly on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced/inhibited by the above observations.