NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The content of Art. 21 of our Constitution, read in the light of Art. 19, is similarly elevating. But romance about human rights and rhetoric about constitutional mandates lose credibility if, in practice, the protectors of law and minions of the State become engines of terror and panic people into fear. We are constrained to make these observations as our conscience is in consternation when we read the facts of the case which have given rise to the order challenged before us in this petition for special leave.

(2.) The petitioner, who has appeared in person, is the complainant in a criminal case where the accused are 2 Sub-Inspectors and 8 Constables attached to the City Police Station, Ahmednagar. The charges against them, as disclosed in the private complaint, are of murder and allied offences under Ss. 302, 341, 395, 404 read with Ss. 34 and 120B of the Penal Code. The blood-curdling plot disclosed in the complaint is that pursuant to a conspiracy the brother of the complainant was waylaid by the police party on August 27, 1978 as he was proceeding to Shirdi. He had with him some gold ornaments and cash. He was caught and removed from the truck in which he was travelling, tied with a rope to a neem tree nearby, thus rendering him a motionless target to a macabre shooting. One of the Sub-Inspectors fired two shots from his revolver on the chest of the deceased at close range and killed him instantaneously. The policemen, having perpetrated this villany, vanished from the scene. No action was taken by the State against the criminals. How could they, when the preservers of the peace and investigators of crime themselves become planned executors of murders The victim's brother was an Advocate and he filed a private complaint. The learned Magistrate ordered an inquiry under S. 202 Cr. P. C., took oral evidence of witnesses at some length and held:"Thus taking on overall survey of evidence produced before me, I am of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against all the accused for the offences under Ss. 302, 323, 342 read with S. 34 I.P.C." Non-bailable warrants were issued for production of the accused and the Magistrate who refused bail, stayed the issuance of the warrants although we are unable to find any provision to enable him to do so. The police accused moved the Sessions Court for bail and in an elaborate order the Sessions Court granted bail subject to certain directions and conditions. The High Court, which was moved by the complainant for reversal of the order enlarging the accused on bail, declined to interfere in revision but added additional conditions to ensure that the bail was not abused and the course of justice was not thwarted.

(3.) It is fair to state that the case in the complaint, verified under S. 202 Cr. P. C. to have some veracity, does not make us leap to a conclusion of guilt or refusal of bail. On the contrary, the accused policemen have a version that the victim was himself a criminal and was sought to be arrested. An encounter ensued, both sides sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to a firearm shot even as some of the police party sustained revolver wounds but survived. May be, the defence case, if reasonably true, may absolve them of the crime, although the story of encounters during arrest and unwitting injuries resulting in casualties, sometimes become a mask to hide easy liquidation of human life by heartless policemen when some one allergic to authority resists their vices. The police have the advantage that they prepare the preliminary record which may 'kill' the case against them. This disquieting syndrome of policemen committing crimes of killing and making up perfect paperwork cases of innocent discharge of duty should not be ruled out when courts examine rival versions. Indeed, we must emphasise that the trial Judge shall not be influenced by what we have said and shall confine himself to the evidence in the case when adjudging the guilt of the accused. We were constrained to make the observations above because the Sessions Judge, quite unwarrantedly, discussed at prolix length the probabilities of the police party's exculpatory case and held: