Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hallu @ Imrat Singh Lodhi on 12 May, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Maninder S Bhatti
1 MCRC-3229-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
th
ON THE 12 OF MAY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3229 of 2022
Between:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION TEJGARH,
DISTRIC DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
HALLU @ IMRAT SINGH LODHI S/O DAYAL
SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE MADANKHERA, POLICE STATION
TEJGARH, TEHSIL TENDUKHEDA,
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE
MANINDER S BHATTI passed the following:
2 MCRC-3229-2022
ORDER
This is an application on behalf of the prosecution seeking leave to prefer an appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) in S.T. No.121/2018 whereby respondent
- Hallu @ Imrat Singh Lodhi has been acquitted of the charges u/Ss. 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The prosecution story reflects that deceased Arjun Singh on 14.05.2018, went to village Karondi Imliya Padariya to attend some ceremony at his relative's place and then he proceeded for his house at Madhankheda at around 08.00 p.m. on 14.05.2018, but, did not reach back. Thus, efforts were made to trace the deceased and eventually dead-body of the deceased was found behind the bushes near Madhankheda Talab (pond).
2.1 The prosecution proceeded to investigate the matter and during course of investigation, the police implicated the respondent herein and filed the challan before the Trial Court. A full fledged trial was conducted and the Trial Court upon conclusion of trial came to a categorical finding that in the present case the prosecution subjected the accused (respondent herein) and number of persons to torture. They were mercilessly beaten and to extort confession, unlawful efforts were made by the prosecution and the present respondent was ultimately projected as an accused, who was also subjected to severe manhandling and torture, and since the relatives of the deceased like his wife as well as his father instead of supporting the prosecution story, in fact, supported the present respondent while submitting inter alia that in the present case there were atrocities at the instance of the police and number of innocent persons of the 3 MCRC-3229-2022 village were beaten mercilessly and some of them even sustained grievous injuries like fracture.
2.2 Thus, the Trial Court while taking into consideration the testimony of each and every witness resultantly acquitted the respondent while seriously condemning the conduct of B.P. Dubey (PW-14) i.e. the Investigating Officer and recommended in para 47 of the judgment that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Investigating Officer - B.P. Dubey.
3. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, present application has been filed by the prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for applicant/State submits that it's a case where there was a seizure from the respondent and the seized article i.e. axe (Kulhadi) had blood stains and since the doctor opined that the injuries which were found on the person of the deceased, could have been inflicted with the aid of an axe (Kulhadi) as well as any hard and blunt object, there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Dr. Ashwani Patel (PW-16). The counsel also submits that in the Panchayat, the respondent herein admitted the guilt which is evident from the perusal of the testimony of B.P. Dubey (PW-14) and thus submits that the Court below erred in arriving at the ultimate finding of acquittal. It is submitted by applicant/State that it escaped the attention of the Trial Court that there was motive to commit the offence. This fact has been ignored by the court below.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/State and perused the record.
5.1 The case in hand reveals a very sorry state of affairs on the part of the prosecution. It is unfortunate that with the aid of power the police authorities resorted to barbaric approach in extorting confession and the prosecution mercilessly subjected number of persons to torture. The atrocities at the instance of the prosecution were so apparent and thus, resulted in an atmosphere of terror 4 MCRC-3229-2022 in the entire vicinity, which is evident from perusal of the testimony of the wife as well as father of the deceased. It's a peculiar case where relatives of the deceased who are considered to be interested witnesses in the criminal jurisprudence came forward to depose in favour of the accused. 5.2 The wife of the deceased, namely, Saddo Lodhi (PW-1) in para 8 of her testimony clearly stated that the police took into custody brother of the deceased, namely, Govind and he was taken to Police Station, where he was beaten mercilessly. Thereafter, she states that during the course of period of 1 - 1 1/2 month, number of persons were called at Police Station and were tortured. Saddo Lodhi (PW-1) specifically states that her Devar Govind and residents of the village, namely, Bhallu, Dalsingh, Jaggu Raikwar, Gulab, Amar and other persons were mercilessly beaten. She further states in para 9 of her testimony that even the relatives from her maternal house, namely, Prem Singh, Guddu, Ranu and Madhav Singh were taken to Police Station and they were also tortured at the Police Station. Saddo Lodhi (PW-1), thus, nowhere stated in her testimony that the respondent herein committed murder of her husband. 5.3 Now, if the testimony of Vindrawan (PW-2) who is father of the deceased is taken into consideration, the same further portrays the plight of the poor and helpless, who were subjected to serious atrocities and were mercilessly tortured by the prosecution. The father of the deceased in para 9 states that the police came to the village with a sniffer dog and the sniffer dog after the spot of incident went to the house of Gulab and Amar, whereupon those two persons, namely, Gulab and Amar were taken to Police Station kept there for number of days and they were mercilessly beaten by the police and the police used to call them off and on for number of days and whenever they came to police station, they were mercilessly beaten till evening and they were only permitted to go back by evening. Thereafter, in para 10, this witness further ventured upon to 5 MCRC-3229-2022 demonstrate the manner in which the police tortured the innocent residents of the area. The description of hooliganism at the Police Station in para 10 is despotic and it is lamentable that instrumentality of the State who is obliged to provide safeguard to the society, in a totally vindictive manner resorted to heinous techniques to torture the innocents. Even the police tortured the brother of the deceased, namely, Govind then again to one Dheeraj, Jittu, Prem Singh, Guddu, Ranu, Lokendra, Vikky, Bhallar etc. They were mercilessly beaten by the police and in this course of continuous torture, the present respondent was also tortured on number of occasions. In para 11 of his testimony Vindrawan (PW-2) further states that the respondent herein was pressurized by the police to confess the commission of crime and resultantly the respondent in the presence of the Panchayat confessed that he committed the murder of the deceased. 5.4 No doubt, in a civilized society, such conduct of the police is intolerable and it is further unfortunate that the department/employer of the Investigating Officer did not take any remedial and/or penal steps against the erring police personnel.
5.5 Pertinently we have been informed that challenging the directions contained in para 47 of the judgment, Investigating Officer - B.P. Dubey has filed M.Cr.C. No.58339/2021 before this Court in which vide order dated 29.11.2021 the Single Bench has stayed further proceedings as mentioned in para 47 of the judgment. Since the directions issued by the Trial Court in para 47 of its judgment are now to be dealt with in pending M.Cr.C. No.58339/2021, we refrain from making any comments/directions on the said issue. However, while taking into consideration the barbaric act and the period of custody suffered by the respondent from 27.06.2018 to 12.01.2019 (199 days), the respondent deserves compensation.
6 MCRC-3229-2022 5.6 The horrifying effect of torture at the instance of those who are in power was dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416. The impact and repercussion on the person, who was subjected to torture were taken note of in following paragraphs :
"10. "Torture" has not been defined in the Constitution or in other penal laws. "Torture" of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the "strong" over the "weak" by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilisation.
"Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.'
-- Adriana P. Bartow
11. No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many Conventions and Declarations as "torture" -- all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread now than ever before. "Custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward -- flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast.
12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape 7 MCRC-3229-2022 in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law."
5.7 It is no doubt that there is a constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of liberty to every citizen and thus, in the matter of unlawful arrest and custodial torture, again the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (1991) 4 SCC 406 held as under:
"39.... The main objective of police is to apprehend offenders, to investigate crimes and to prosecute them before the courts and also to prevent commission of crime and above all to ensure law and order to protect the citizens' life and property. The law enjoins the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure fair investigation and fair trial to an offender. The purpose and object of Magistracy and police are complementary to each other. It is unfortunate that these objectives have remained unfulfilled even after 40 years of our Constitution. Aberrations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this Court as well as from other courts but it has failed to have any corrective effect on it. The police has power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. The amplitude of this power casts an obligation on the police ....[and it] must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated."
5.8 The Apex Court in the case of Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2006) 3 SCC 178 even considered the aspect of awarding compensation to an aggrieved person, whose fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 were infringed at the behest of a public servant and thus, the Court in Sube Singh (supra) held as under :
8 MCRC-3229-2022 "38. It is thus now well settled that the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
5.9 Again, in the case of S. Nambi Narayanan Vs. Siby Mathews and others, (2018) 10 SCC 804 where an ISRO scientist was subjected to unlawful arrest at the instance of the prosecution agency and was humiliated and harassed, the Apex Court directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to the person concerned. The relevant para 43 is quoted below :
"43. In the instant case, keeping in view the report of CBI and the judgment rendered by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223, suitable compensation has to be awarded, without any trace of doubt, to compensate the suffering, anxiety and the treatment by which the quintessence of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution withers away. We think it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant and, accordingly, it is so ordered. The said amount shall be paid within eight weeks by the State. We hasten to clarify that the appellant, if so advised, may proceed with the civil suit wherein he has claimed more compensation. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit."
9 MCRC-3229-2022 5.10 Thus, in view of above narration of facts, it is crystal clear that an innocent man had not only been subjected to torture and had to undergo incarceration for a long period of 199 days. Thus, we deem it proper to refer this order to the State Human Rights Commission with a request to assess the circumstances, suffering and hardship suffered by respondent - Hallu @ Imrat Singh Lodhi and thereupon consider and decide the quantum of compensation to the respondent.
6. Accordingly, the leave sought is declined and the instant application is dismissed.
6.1 It is further lamentable that in a case like this, the State instead of punishing its own employees chose to prefer an application for grant of leave assailing acquittal, which is grossly misconceived. Thus, the applicant-State is directed to pay a cost of 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of Secretary, M.P. State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur within a period of 30 days. The MPSLSA shall donate this amount to the Permanent Artificial Organ Transplantation Centre, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur.
6.2 The applicant-State is directed to file a compliance report of deposit of cost, with the Registry within 45 (forty five) days.
6.3 On failure to pay the cost, this case be listed under the caption of "Direction" as PUD for execution qua cost.
(SHEEL NAGU ) (MANINDER S BHATTI )
JUDGE JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2022.05.18
11:50:23 +05'30'