1.“…but what happens after a person is arrested or detained? His troubles begin then. When he is detained or arrested and he is in the clutches of the police, he is alone in the world, and the forces of the police, the forces of the Crown and all other forces combine against him The above excerpt is from a Constituent Assembly Debate on 15th September, 1949 wherein Pandit Thakur D. Bhargava was flagging concerns to protect the detained individuals from the tyranny of police while debating amendments to the rights of detained persons. Even though the said concern was expressed almost 76 years ago, the trepidation surrounding police custody and the helplessness that it entails still echo as true as ever. The case at hand unfortunately is a precise example of uncertainty and vagaries that might follow once a person is taken into custody. Even though our Constitution and procedural laws stipulate sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of detainees, there comes every now and then a case such as instant one which leads to a plethora of unanswered questions, unending misery of aggrieved persons for decades and is enough to shake the public confidence in police force. In such a regrettable state of affairs, it becomes the solemn duty of the Courts of law to uncover the truth, take to task every offending individual and ensure that the basic rights of every human are preserved, be it a detainee, an accused or a convict. However, the set of events that unfold here woefully depict how the judiciary also has failed in its commitment to uphold justice and gave a clean chit to the accused persons before a trial could even begin, in an offence as gruesome as custodial death.
2.The present appeals have been preferred by the respective original complainants against the common impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Revision Petitions being Crl. R.C. No. 656 of 2007 and Crl. R.C. No. 1402 of 2009.
3.The two appeals arise from different factual matrix and involve distinct parties but were heard and disposed of together by the High Court since they involved the similar issue relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the police officials in matters of custodial death. For the sake of clarity, the facts giving rise to both the appeals and submissions extended by the parties in each of the matters are narrated distinctively in the following paragraphs:
4.Criminal Appeal No. 1358/2024
4.1 In the instant case, the accused-respondents were
working as police officers in the Governorpeta Police
Station, Vijayawada. The appellant herein is the
original complainant and the paternal aunt of K.
Srinivasa Rao @ Budda Santhan (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the deceased’). It was alleged by the complainant
that the Accused No. 1, the then Commissioner of
Police, Vijayawada, without conducting any enquiry,
declared before the press that the deceased and
another person are responsible for the killing of one
Edupuganti Satyanarayana of Telugu Desam Party,
which took place on 09.07.2002. The deceased was
declared as a rowdy sheeter by the Accused No. 1 and
on 13.07.2002, the Accused No. 1, after holding the
press conference, paraded the deceased and two other
persons as murderers of Satyanarayana. Soon after the
press conference, they were produced before the
concerned Magistrate who took them in judicial
custody and directed the accused persons to produce
them before the Magistrate on 15.07.2002. The
accused persons kept the deceased and others in police
lock-up and at around 8.00 p.m. on 13.07.2002, the
Accused No. 5, i.e. the ASI of Governorpeta Police
Station, Vijayawada, went to the house of the deceased
and obtained the signatures of the mother of the
deceased on blank papers.
4.2 Thereafter, on the morning of 14.07.2002, at around
5.30 a.m., the Accused No. 5 came to the house of the
deceased and informed his kith and kin that the
deceased was shot dead by the police and his body was
in a Government Hospital. The appellant-complainant,
mother and sister of the deceased rushed to the
hospital and found that the body of the deceased had
two bullet injuries, one on the head and the other on
the chest of the deceased.
4.3 Subsequently, the appellant-complainant filed a
private complaint before the V Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada under Sections 190 and 200 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 19731 against the then Commissioner
of Police, Vijayawada (A1), Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Vijayawada (A2), Sub-Inspector of police,
Governorpeta Police Station (A3), Sentry (A4), and the
ASI of Governorpeta Police Station (A5) under Sections
302, 201, 149, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 18602. Upon filing of abovesaid complaint,
the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in CF No.
10113 of 2002 in P.R.C. No. 13 of 2003 vide its order
dated 02.05.2003, took the case on the file against all
the accused persons for the offences under Sections
302, 201,149,120B read with Section 34 of IPC, got
issued non-bailable warrants against the accused
persons and directed the DGP to execute the said
warrants.
4.4 Aggrieved by the above order, A1 and A2 filed a
Revision Case before the High Court, being Crl. R.C.
No. 699 and 700 of 2003. The High Court, vide an order
dated 27.05.2003, granted an interim stay on all the
1 Cr.P.C.
2 IPC
proceedings in C.F. No. 10113 of 2002 in P.R.C. No. 13
of 2003. Subsequently, the High Court, while disposing
both the Revision Petitions, vide its order dated
21.04.2006, had confirmed the cognizance order dated
02.05.2003 against A2 but set it aside against A1, as
no prima facie case was found to be made against A1.
4.5 Consequently, the 1st Additional CMM, Vijayawada
passed a committal order dated 01.12.2006, thereby
committing the case to the Court of Sessions,
Vijayawada under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C., against A2
to A5. This order of committal was challenged by A3 by
preferring Revision Petition being Crl. R.P. 29 of 2007.
Similarly, against the said committal order, A4 and A5
also preferred Crl. R.C. No. 656 of 2007.
4.6 The High Court, in the above-said Revision Petition No.
656 of 2007, vide order dated 13.06.2007, granted an
interim stay on the proceedings.
4.7 In the meanwhile, the appellant-complainant had
preferred SLP No. 451 of 2007 before this Court against
the order dated 21.04.2006. This Court passed an
interim order dated 21.07.2008 directing the Central
Bureau of Investigation3 officials to conduct an enquiry
considering the allegations made by the appellant-
complainant. Accordingly, the CBI investigated into the
death of the deceased, involvement of A1 in that case
3 CBI
and filed a report before this Court. Based upon the
report submitted by the CBI, this Court, vide order
dated 04.08.2009, refused to interfere with the order
passed by the High Court in Crl. R.C. 699 and 700 of
2003 dated 21.04.2006.
4.8 It was also stated by the appellant that she came to
know about the CBI report for the first time in 2011
through print media and, consequently, filed a petition
before the Court of the Ist Metropolitan Magistrate at
Vijayawada seeking a copy of the report to enable her
to file her objection.
4.9 The High Court, vide the impugned order, allowed Crl.
R.C. No. 656 of 2007 filed by the accused-respondents
being A4 and A5, and set aside the committal order
dated 01.02.2006 passed by the Magistrate in taking
cognizance of offence against the respondents in P.R.C.
No. 13 of 2003. The High Court held that the earlier
investigations conducted by the officials of CID, RCIU,
Vijayawada and re-confirmed by the CBI clinchingly
establish that the occurrence took place in exercise of
right of self-defence, and thus revision stood allowed.
4.10 Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High
Court, the complainant-appellant is before us.
4.11 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
4.12 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the High Court failed to apply its judicious mind to the
facts of the present case while dismissing it without
even considering the individual facts of the appellant’s
case. It was further contended that the Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate had, on a proper appreciation
of evidence and on evaluation of the statement of
witnesses, rightly formed a prima facie case against A4
& A5 which ought not to be quashed by the High Court
at this stage. The appellant also submitted that the
accused-police officials killed the deceased while he
was in judicial custody in order to suppress the truth
about the murder of Edupuganti Satyanarayana of
Telugu Desam Party and to protect the real culprits
behind the killing. Lastly, the appellant had pleaded
that a proper trial ought to have been conducted to
uncover the truth wherein the ground of self-defence
which has been adopted by the accused persons could
have been assessed based on evidence and witness
statements, and therefore, the High Court’s
interference with the FIR at the threshold was highly
unwarranted.
4.13 Before moving to the respondents’ arguments before
us, we find it pertinent to recount herein the chain of
events which led to the killing of the deceased as per
the accused-police officials and the same have been
submitted by them before the investigating agency, i.e.
the CBI. It was claimed by the Sub-Inspector of Police
(A3) that at about 03.00 am on 14.07.2002, A3 had
taken the deceased K. Srinivasa Rao from the lock up
to elicit more information about the murder of
Edupuganti Satyanarayana. It was alleged that while
A3 was questioning the deceased, the deceased
snatched the Service Revolver of A3 which was kept on
the table and fired two rounds at A3. Then as per
orders of A3, A4 fired two rounds from his 303 Rifle on
the deceased to save A3 and resultantly, the deceased
died of the injuries sustained due to the firing.
4.14 As such, it has been pleaded by the accused-
respondents that the deceased person was killed in the
police firing in an act of self-defence. The said act being
committed in due discharge of their official duty as
public servants and in exercise of the right of private
defence, the Magistrate was barred under law from
taking cognizance of the alleged offence without there
being any prior sanction from the competent authority
as contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
4.15 Further, it was submitted that the complainant is not
an eye-witness to the alleged case of fake encounter
and the CBI, in its final report, had conclusively
observed that occurrence took place in exercise of right
of self-defence, therefore, the High Court had rightly
allowed the revision petition and set aside the
committal order against accused-respondents.
5.Criminal Appeal No. 1359/2024
5.1 In this matter as well, the accused-respondents were
working as police officers in Vijayawada at the time of
the alleged incident. The appellant herein is the original
complainant and sister of V. Durga Prasad @ Pilli
Durga Prasad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’).
It was alleged in the written complaint filed by the
complainant under Sections 190 and 200 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, hereinafter)
before the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada that her brother, Durga Prasad (the
deceased), was shown as an accused in Cr. No. 75 of
2001 under Section 302 of IPC before Vuyyuru Police
Station and also in Cr. No. 165 of 2001 under Section
302 of IPC before Machavaram Police Station. It was
alleged that in both these cases, the police vigorously
tried to take forcible confessional statements from the
deceased and as a part of it, on 14.05.2002,
Krishnashila Police took away the appellant’s father
and the younger brother i.e. one Naveen to the police
station and wrongly confined them. As a consequence,
the deceased, apprehending danger to his own and his
family members’ life, decided to surrender before police
on his counsel’s advice.
5.2 Thereafter, on 15.05.2002, the deceased was taken into
police custody and was taken to Machavaram Police
Station, and his father and brother were consequently
released. The deceased was produced before the
Magistrate for judicial remand in Cr. No. 75 of 2001 of
Vuyyuru Police Station and he was remanded to
judicial custody at Gannavaram sub-jail.
Subsequently, the Accused No. 2, i.e. the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Machavaram Police Station, moved
an application for Prisoner in Transit (P.T.) warrant
against the deceased under Section 267 of Cr.P.C.
which was issued by the Court on 28.05.2002. The
deceased was accordingly remanded for judicial
custody to District Jail, Vijayawada in relation to Cr.
No. 165 of 2002 of Machavaram Police Station.
5.3 The Accused No. 2 had also filed the memo for
requisition under Section 167(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking
police custody which was granted by order dated
03.06.2002 and the deceased was permitted to be
taken to police custody for two days on 04.06.2002 and
05.06.2002. Earlier on 31.05.2002, when the brother
of the deceased Naveen had visited him in jail, the
deceased had shared his apprehension regarding being
physically tortured by the police officials. It was further
alleged that at around 9.30 p.m. on 05.06.2002, the
Accused No. 2 along with the police constables
(Accused Nos. 4 and 6) came to the appellant’s house
and enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased
under the pretext of search.
5.4 On the morning of 06.06.2002, news was flashed to the
media by the police officials stating that the deceased
has escaped from Machavaram Police Station while he
was being taken to attend nature’s call and that a
search has been launched to find the deceased after
registering a case in Crime No. 444 of 2002 under
Section 224 of the IPC against the deceased. However,
at around 6 a.m. on 08.06.2002, the Accused No. 5,
who was working as a Police Constable at Machavaram
Police Station, informed the family members of the
appellant that the police have killed the deceased and
have thrown his body near Gunadala Railway Track.
The appellant along with her family members rushed
to the spot and found the body of the deceased lying
near a shed in the fields. There were no blood stains
found at the spot but there were multiple bullet injuries
on the body of the deceased – one on the left side of the
chest below the level of the rib, one on the right side of
the back of the chest and another on the back of the
left side of chest and an abrasion on the root of the
nose. The M.R.O. and other Revenue Officials visited
the spot and recorded the statements from the
appellant and other family members.
5.5 Thereafter, the appellant, with assistance from the
Bezawada Bar Association and Human Rights Forum,
filed the said complaint dated 10.12.2002 before the
Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada
against the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada (A1),
Sub-Inspector of Police, Thotalavalluru Police Station,
Thotalavalluru Vuyyuru Mandal (A2), North Circle
Inspector, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada (A3),
Head Constable, Machavaram Police Station (A4),
Police Constable, Machavaram Police Station (A5) and
another Police Constable, Machavaram Police Station
(A6) under Sections 302, 201, 149, 120B read with 34
of IPC alleging that the deceased was tortured by the
accused persons in long periods of wrongful detentions
and eventually killed him. They created a fake
encounter story to evade criminal liability.
5.6 The Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order
dated 09.12.2005 passed in C.F. No. 4313 of 2003,
took the case on file against A2 and A4 to A6 for the
offences under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with 34
of IPC as prima facie case was found to be made against
them and dismissed the complaint against A1 and A3.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate
refusing to take cognizance against A1 and A3, the
appellant had filed a Revision Petition being Crl. Rev.
Petition No. 88 of 2006 before the Court of Sessions,
Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada which was
dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2006.
5.7 After the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and
committed the case to Sessions Court for trial, A2 filed
a Crl. M.P. No. 567 in P.R.C. 10 of 2005 for dismissing
the complaint as the offence had taken place while
discharging the official duties. The said application was
dismissed by the Magistrate vide order dated
24.01.2007 against which A2 had also preferred a
Criminal Revision Case being Crl. R.C. No. 377 of 2007
which was dismissed by the High Court as well, while
granting the liberty to file an application at the time of
framing charges.
5.8 In the meanwhile, on a complaint by the Bezwada Bar
Association and National Human Rights Commission,
New Delhi, the investigation of the matter was handed
over to CID which submitted its final report dated
31.07.2008 on 11.08.2008 to the Court of III
Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Additionally,
since A4 had not attended the court proceedings and
non-bailable warrants were pending against him since
a long time, the case was split up against him and
renumbered as P.R.C. 39 of 2008 as against A2, A5 and
A6. The case was re-committed to the Court of Sessions
as S.C. No. 248 of 2008 on the file of VII Addl. District
and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. At
the stage of framing of charges, A2, A5 and A6 again
preferred Crl. M.P. No. 174, 106 and 140 of 2009
respectively seeking discharge from the charges.
However, the Sessions Judge, vide order dated
15.07.2009, dismissed all these petitions while
observing that after considering the broad probabilities
of the case, total facts of the evidence and documents
produced before the court, the Petitioners therein (A2,
A4 and A6) were not entitled for discharge.
5.9 Aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2009, A2, A5 and
A6 filed Revision Petition being Crl. R.C. No. 1402 of
2009 before the High Court along with Crl. M.P. No.
1928 of 2009 seeking stay of all further proceedings.
5.10 The High Court, vide the impugned order allowed the
Crl. R.C. No. 1402 of 2009 and set aside the order
dated 15.07.2009 passed by the VII Addl. District and
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada and
accordingly allowed the Crl. M.P. No. 174, 106 and 140
of 2009, effectively discharging the accused-
respondents from the charges. The High Court held
that the earlier investigations conducted by the officials
of CID, RCIU, Vijayawada and re-confirmed by the CBI
clinchingly establish that the occurrence took place in
exercise of right of self-defence, and thus revision stood
allowed.
5.11 Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High
Court, the complainant-appellant is before us.
5.12 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
5.13 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the impugned order has been passed erroneously and
the High Court ought to have considered that at the
time of framing the charges, no meticulous scrutiny is
required and a strong suspicion of commission of
offence alone is sufficient. It was contended that both
the Courts below the High Court had found that there
is a prima facie case against A2 and A4 to A6 after
appreciating all the witnesses and documents
thoroughly, therefore the case deserved to be tried and
should not have been quashed at the outset, especially
when the charges are such grave in nature. Since, the
High Court in the impugned order had observed that
there were no eye-witnesses to the case, it was also
submitted by the appellant that one cannot expect the
direct witnesses to the occurrence which took place at
midnight in the outskirts of the city and such a ground
alone did not warrant discharge of the accused-
respondents altogether. There were also multiple
loopholes pointed out by the appellant in the story put
forth by the police officials, which we find unnecessary
to delve into at this stage.
5.14 However, before moving to the arguments submitted by
the respondents, we find it pertinent to produce the
version of events put forth by the respondent-police
officials leading to the alleged encounter. It was alleged
that while the police officials were interrogating V.
Durga Prasad in the Machavaram Police Station on
05.06.2002, he was taken out from the police lock-up
for answering nature’s call at around 04.30 a.m. and
he escaped from the police station by pushing Sentry
Police Constable on duty aside. Thereafter, a search
party was constituted to find him and in response to
information received at 11.30 p.m. on 07.06.2002, S.I.
Ratna Raju (A2) along with three constables (A4 to A6)
rushed and stopped their jeep at the Deaf and Dumb
School in Gunadala. The police officials put their
torches and found two persons taking liquor in the
nearby fields. When the police party enquired about the
identity about the said persons, one of them took to
heels but the other person attacked the S.I. (A2) with
an 8-inch knife and began to run away. The S.I. alerted
the constables to go back and fired two rounds at the
fleeing person, while also searching for the first person
who had fled the scene. The person who fell on the
ground after such firing was later identified by the
police officials as V. Durga Prasad (the deceased).
5.15 As such, it has been submitted by the accused-
respondents that the High Court has rightly passed the
impugned order as the dispute pertaining to the death
of the deceased was well settled by the reports of the
two investigating agencies by holding the case of self-
defence. It was further submitted that the complaint
was filed by the appellant only six months after the
death of the deceased and that there was no proper
explanation for such inordinate delay.
5.16 The main contention of the respondents hinged on the
submission that A2 opened the fire in order to protect
himself as he had already suffered injuries at the hands
of the deceased and he was left with no other
alternative except to execute the right of private
defence. It was claimed that it was only later that the
accused-respondents identified the deceased as the
accused who fled away from the police station, thereby
establishing that there was no motive or intention of
the accused persons to kill the deceased.
6.Having culled out the facts of both the cases in sufficient detail, it is clear that the instant appellants herein are aggrieved by the setting aside of committal order against the respondents and discharge of the accused-respondents in the respective cases by the High Court and thereby, effectively letting the accusedrespondents go scot-free without even being put through a trial, let alone a fair one.
7.The facts of the cases clearly reflect how the accusedrespondents have attempted to avail every opportunity to seek discharge and the said plea was heeded to by the High Court in the revision petitions.
8.The High Court, while passing the impugned order, has wholly and solely relied on the reports of the investigating agencies and concluded that the complainant has only been able to establish to the extent that the deceased was taken away by the accused-police officials in connection with a crime committed by him. Further, the High Court opined that the dispute regarding the factum of the death of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons was sought to be settled in the light of investigation reports of CID and CBI and plainly held that the occurrence took place in exercise of right of self-defence.
9.To say the least, we are dejected with the approach taken up by the High Court in allowing the revision petitions. It seems that while conclusively asserting that the occurrence took place in the exercise of right of self-defence, the High Court has glaringly lost sight of the fact that it was deciding petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the committal order and grant discharge in respective matters, and not carrying a full-fledged trial so as to conclusively establish the cause of the incident itself.
10.The scope of powers of a High Court when dealing with such matters effectively seeking quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is well-settled and the underlying principle of law that goes into consideration is precisely to assess whether at a prima facie view of the allegations, a cognizable offence is made out or not. Going by the farthest stretch or even the most flexible interpretation of the principles involved in deciding a quashing petition, we fail to see how it can be implied that an offence warranting trial is not made out in the given set of facts and circumstances. How can the plea of self-defence be accepted at face-value by the High Court without having to meticulously prove it during the trial is beyond any logical comprehension that can be drawn by this Court. It cannot be emphasised enough that a plea of self-defence cannot be taken lightly, especially in a grave incident of custodial death, that too in such compelling circumstances. The grounds of defence that are adopted by the accused persons are a matter of trial which ought to be explained and proven in due course of proceedings while following the strict rules of evidence and criminal procedure. The High Court, at the stage of deciding petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing was expected to exercise restraint and not delve into the questions that are to be decided during a criminal trial.
11.We are completely cognizant of the seriousness of the matter, the allegations levied and how even a single incidence of custodial murder is enough to cast an ugly red blotch on the tapestry of human rights and civil liberties that this judicial institution seeks to preserve. It is in light of such conscience that we cannot let the instant matter involving right to life and a fair trial be treated leniently and are thus, appalled by the High Court’s decision in letting the accused-respondents go scot-free. A failure to accord a fair trial in the present case shall irreparably shake the public conscience and sense of justice that form the bedrock of a civilized democracy like ours. The spine-chilling incidents took place more than two decades ago and it is high time already that the dawn of justice sheds some light and a sincere attempt is made to unshroud the reality behind such unfortunate events.
12.In light of the above observations, we have no qualm in holding that the present matters did not at all warrant discharge or setting aside of committal order by the High Court. We, however, refrain from making any further observations on the merits of the case at this stage of the proceedings as the trial is yet to be taken to a logical end. Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings arising out of PRC No. 13 of 2003 on the file of Ld. I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as well as S.C. No. 248 of 2008 on the file of VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada.
13.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matters are remanded back to the respective Trial Courts for trial to resume from the stage where it was left at the time the impugned order was passed. We also hereby direct the respective Trial Courts to conduct the trial expeditiously and conclude it within the period of one year from the date this order is placed before it. It must be ensured that the said trial is not an empty formality or mere reproduction of the reports of the investigation agency. We hereby issue strict directions that the prosecuting agency is to ensure that the evidence is led properly and in time and it is crucial that the Trial Courts to make an honest endeavor to uncover the truth and effectively achieve ends of the criminal justice system. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to recall the wise words of Baron de Montesquieu who said: “There is no tyranny crueller than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” We hope that the above directions sound a clarion call to all the stakeholders involved in the trial for demonstrating utmost diligence, sensitivity and seriousness in the pending trial and remedy any wrong that might have taken place.
14.As such, the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 13 of 2003 are restored to the file of Ld. I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Similarly, the proceedings in S.C. No. 248 of 2008 are restored to the file of VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada.
15.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. [VIKRAM NATH] [PRASANNA B. VARALE] NEW DELHI; AUGUST 07, 2024.