Custodial Torture and Illegal Detention: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence of Convicted Police Officers

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 14, 2018, ruled on an appeal concerning custodial torture and illegal detention. The case, Bhagwan Dass & Anr. vs. State of Haryana, involved two former police officers convicted under Sections 326, 331, 343, and 346 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants were sentenced to two years of imprisonment by the High Court for illegally detaining and torturing a victim in custody. The Supreme Court upheld their conviction but reduced their sentence to the period already undergone.

The judgment highlights the need for accountability in custodial violence cases while also taking into account humanitarian considerations, such as the age of the convicted officers.

Background of the Case

The case pertained to an incident from October 1992, where the appellants, Bhagwan Dass (then a Sub-Inspector/SHO) and Magan Singh (then an Assistant Sub-Inspector), were accused of detaining and torturing Bishamber Dayal at the Dharuhera Police Station, Haryana. The victim was allegedly held in illegal custody from October 7 to October 10, 1992, and subjected to severe physical abuse.

The trial court had initially acquitted the accused officers, citing insufficient evidence. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed this decision and convicted them, imposing a two-year imprisonment term. The officers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants’ senior counsel, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, argued that:

• The incident took place in 1992, and since then, both officers had retired from service.
• Bhagwan Dass was now 80 years old, while Magan Singh was over 70 years old, making imprisonment at this stage highly punitive.
• The victim, Bishamber Dayal, had since been rehabilitated and was given a government job at the District Commissioner’s office in Rewari.
• The appellants had already undergone approximately 15 months of imprisonment and requested leniency in their sentencing.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Haryana, represented by counsel Mr. Deepak Thukral, defended the High Court’s ruling, stating that:

• The appellants were responsible for violating fundamental rights by illegally detaining and torturing a citizen.
• The conviction was based on substantial evidence, including witness testimonies from the victim’s brother (PW-24, Ram Pal) and another witness (PW-26, Mahavir).
• The Supreme Court should uphold the original two-year sentence to serve as a deterrent against custodial violence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court acknowledged the gravity of the offense but also took into account the passage of time and the age of the convicted officers. The Court held:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the occurrence was of the year 1992, interest of justice would be met by reducing the imprisonment of two years to the period already undergone by the appellants.”

The Court clarified that the reduction of the sentence was based on the specific facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent for other custodial torture cases:

“We make it clear that the reduction of sentence is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the same may not be treated as precedent.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The conviction under Sections 326, 331, 343, and 346 IPC was upheld.
• The sentence of two years was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
• The appeal was disposed of, and the officers were not required to serve further imprisonment.

Conclusion

The ruling in Bhagwan Dass & Anr. vs. State of Haryana highlights the complexity of balancing justice for victims of custodial torture with considerations of the passage of time and humanitarian factors. While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, it exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentence, ensuring that the punishment remained proportionate to the circumstances. This case reaffirms the legal principle that custodial torture is a serious offense while also recognizing the need for judicial compassion in exceptional cases.

Petitioner Name: Bhagwan Dass & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Haryana, India.
Judgment Date: 14-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bhagwan Dass & Anr. vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category