Supreme Court Condemns Police Brutality and Awards Compensation in Illegal Detention Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Somnath v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., addressing serious allegations of police brutality, illegal detention, and custodial humiliation. The case revolved around the wrongful arrest of the appellant, his alleged mistreatment by police officers, and subsequent legal battles to seek justice.

Background of the Case

The case began when a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the appellant, Somnath, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged theft of Rs. 30,000 from a complainant at a temple in Paithan, Maharashtra. The FIR was lodged on June 14, 2015, based on CCTV footage purportedly showing the appellant’s involvement in the theft.

The police arrested Somnath on the same day and produced him before the Magistrate on June 15, 2015, where police remand was granted. During custody, he was allegedly subjected to inhumane treatment:

On June 19, 2015, the appellant was allegedly paraded half-naked with a garland of footwear around his neck.
He was verbally abused with reference to his caste and physically assaulted by the police.
Despite being granted bail on June 20, 2015, he was illegally detained for four more hours by the police.

Following his release, the appellant and his family members filed complaints with various authorities, including the National Human Rights Commission, seeking action against the responsible police officer, Inspector C.P. Kakade.

Legal Proceedings

Somnath filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court in 2017, seeking criminal action against the police officer and compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights. The High Court:

Partially allowed the petition.
Ordered Inspector C.P. Kakade to pay Rs. 75,000 from his personal funds as compensation to the appellant.
Declined to order criminal prosecution against the officer, citing time limitations under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued:

The police officer’s actions were illegal, inhumane, and violated constitutional rights.
The compensation of Rs. 75,000 was inadequate given the extent of the abuse suffered.
There was no justification for refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against the officer.
Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act should not shield police officers from accountability for blatant human rights violations.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Maharashtra and the police officer defended their actions:

The arrest was based on valid evidence, including CCTV footage.
The appellant had a history of criminal activity and was being investigated for other offenses.
The allegations of police brutality were fabricated and aimed at demoralizing law enforcement.
The officer had already been disciplined with a “strict warning,” and further action was unnecessary.
Rs. 1,75,000 had already been paid to the appellant as per previous court orders and NHRC directives.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court strongly condemned the police officer’s actions and made the following observations:

Police brutality is unacceptable: The Court emphasized that custodial torture and public humiliation are serious human rights violations.
State authorities failed to protect fundamental rights: The manner in which the appellant was treated violated his dignity and constitutional protections.
Existing legal provisions should not shield wrongful actions: The Court criticized the use of the Maharashtra Police Act to evade criminal liability.
Higher compensation was warranted: The Court found the High Court’s compensation inadequate and increased the amount.

Key Judicial Remarks

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed:

“A zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts needs to be adopted as such acts, committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen, bring shame to the entire justice delivery system.”

The Court further stated:

“Merely issuing a ‘strict warning’ is not an appropriate punishment for custodial torture and illegal detention. Such actions must be met with serious consequences.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

Inspector C.P. Kakade must pay an additional Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the appellant.
The total compensation paid to the appellant (including earlier amounts) now stands at Rs. 2,00,000.
Although the Court refrained from ordering criminal prosecution, it issued a general direction to all police forces to adhere strictly to custodial rights and prevent human rights violations.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces India’s commitment to protecting human rights and preventing police misconduct. It sends a strong message that law enforcement agencies must operate within constitutional limits and that custodial torture will not be tolerated.

Petitioner Name: Somnath.
Respondent Name: The State of Maharashtra & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Place Of Incident: Paithan, Maharashtra, India.
Judgment Date: 18-03-2024.

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

Download Judgment: somnath-vs-the-state-of-maharas-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-18-03-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2024
See all petitions in 2024 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