Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.99 seconds)People'S Union For Civil Liberties And ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 23 September, 2014
(viii) As far as the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 635 (People's Union for Civil Liberties and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others) is concerned, the said Judgment is in respect of police encounters and therefore, the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Siluvairajan, Parthiban, Desingu ... vs State By Inspector Of Police, ... on 22 April, 2002
(iv) Fourthly, the learned counsel would submit that the appellant is justified in doubting the fairness of the State machinery in conducting investigation as death had occurred when the said Ramkumar was in judicial custody. In this regard, he referred to the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission dated 21.11.2001 wherein it has been stated that a Local Doctor succumbs to Police pressure, which leads to distortion of facts and therefore, postmortem examination, to be done, in cases of custodial death, and the same should be videographed. Therefore, the appellant seeks the presence of his nominee Doctor, namely, Dr.P.Sampathkumar, Head of Department, Forensic Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Hospital, Porur, at the time of autopsy. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P. NO. 1541 of 2015 (Parthiban V. State and three others) to contend that Dr. Sampathkumar, Vice Principal, Sri Ramachandra Medical College had earlier been permitted to conduct postmortem by this Court.
Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors on 10 March, 1980
In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Niranjan Singh and Another V. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 559. Therefore, he would submit that to find out the cause of death, an expert of appellant's choice should be present, which will assist the prosecution also.
Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978
(iii) Thirdly, the learned counsel would submit that even while in custody, the said Ramkumar was not allowed to mingle with other remand prisoners and was kept in isolation continuously and harassed. In this context, he relied upon paragraph Nos. 46 and 121 in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration and others etc. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1675 to contend that under-trials were allowed to mingle with each other. The said paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
P. Murugesan And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 3 February, 1993
(ix) Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Additional Advocate General relying on the Judgment reported in 1992 (1) MWN (Cr.) 156 (P. Murugan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 3 others) would contend "that the post mortem to be conducted by the Doctors and the report of the Sub Collector, who conducts enquiry in the case are enough to know the cause of the death, which may be useful for proper and fair investigation to bring out the truth.
Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed on 17 October, 1944
16. The privy council in King Emperor V. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad reported in Indian Appeals Vol. LXXI 203 held that the statutory duty of the police to investigate the case cannot be interfered with and the relevant paragraph is extracted as follows:-
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
Another judgment which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is the one rendered in Nilabati Behera V. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960 to contend that convicts, prisoners or under-trials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons and that there is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life.
Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996
121. Condemned prisoners like Batra shall be merely kept in custody and shall not be put to work like those sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. These prisoners shall not be kept apart or segregated except on their own volition since they do not come under S. 30(2). They shall be entitled to the amenities of ordinary inmates in the prison like games, books, newspapers, reasonably good food, the right to expression, artistic or other, and normal clothing and bed. In a sense, they stand better than ordinary prisoners because they are not serving any terms of rigorous imprisonment, as such. However, if their gregarious wishes induce them to live in fellowship and work like other prisoners they should be allowed to do so. To eat together, to sleep together, to work together, to live together, generally speaking, cannot be denied to them except on specific grounds warranting such a course such as homosexual tendencies, diseases, violent proclivities and the like. But if these grounds are to be the basis for revocation of advantages to the prejudice of the sentencee he should be given a hearing in brief in essential compliance with the canons of natural justice.
The learned counsel would further contend that even at the time of arresting the said Ramkumar, the guidelines given in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in D.K. Basu V. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 were not followed.
1