JAWANT P. SANKPALversusSUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.

                       [2010] 9 S.C.R. 102


A                     JAWANT P. SANKPAL
                                 v.
                    SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.
                (SLP (Criminal) No. 6408 of 2006)
                          JULY 28, 2010
B
    [ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
                                JJ.]

       Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - s. 12(a) -
C Complaint against police officials - Alleging physical torture
  of complainant's son in police custody - State Human Rights
  Commission held that police personnel were responsible for
  violation of human rights and recommended compensation
  - State Government implementing order of the Commission
o - Writ petition against order of the Commission dismissed -
  On appeal, held: finding by the Commission and High Court
  regarding the torture of the complainant's son in police
  custody, is justified - There is no material to refute the
  complaint of torture.
E
       Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before State
  Human Rights Commission against the petitioner and
  respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (the police officials). She alleged
  that when her son had gone to the stall of 'A' a merchant,
  he was assaulted and injured by him. When he took her
F son to the police station, she was asked to wait. In the
  meantime 'A' and his family came to the police station.
  Police entertained the complaint of 'A' first. Thereafter
  police personnel assaulted the son of the complainant
  and also detained him. Complainant was threatened by
G the police officials not to reveal the incident to the court
  and not to make any complaint before court. Her son was
  released on bail. But once again he was taken to police
  station and assaulted. The allegations of the complainant
  were fully supported by her son, who was detained.
H                              102
 JAWANT P. SANKPAL v. SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.               103


     The police officials, in reply, denied the allegations.   A
In the report submitted by DCP it was mentioned that the
son of the complainant demanded 'hafta' from 'A' and on
refusal assaulted him; that he inflicted injuries with razor
on himself; that he was a habitual offender and
proceedings under Maharashtra Prevention of                    B
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug
Offenders Act, 1981 were also commenced against him.

    The Commission disbelieved the defence of the
police personnel and relying on the medical evidence           C
opined that there was violation of human rights of the
son of complainant at the hands of the petitioner and
respondent Nos. 3, 4. and 5. The Commission
recommended compensation of Rs. 45,000/- to
complainant for police atrocity which was to be later
recovered from the respondents and the petitioner. The         D
petitioner filed writ petition before High Court, which was
withdrawn on account of the understanding given to him
by the State Government that it had decided not to
implement the order passed by the Commission.
                                                               E
    The petitioner further filed subsequent writ petition,
which was dismissed on the ground that there was no
necessity tQ entertain the writ petition in view of the fact
that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn; and that the
State had not challenged the order and had also complied       F
with the same. Therefore, the instant special leave petition
was filed by the petitioner.

    Dismissing the petition, the Court

     HELD: There is no reason to differ with the order of      G
the State Human Rights Commission which was upheld
by the High Court. There is sufficient material, which has
been duly looked into by the Commission and the High
Court, that the son of the respondent-complainant had
been physically tortured while in custody in violation of      H
    104      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A the norms relating to custody of persons arrested or
  detained in connection with any offence. It is not for this
  Court to appraise the evidence further, since two forums
  have had a chance to look into the same. Except for a
  bare denial, there is no material on record to refute the
8 complaint of torture of the son of the complainant by the
  petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It is clear that
  for whatever reasons, which could also include his
  antecedents, he was treated differently from 'A' against
  whom he had come to make a complaint and ended up
c being the accused. [Para 14] [110-G-H; 111-A-B]
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal)
    No. 6408 of 2006.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 30.8.2006 of the High
D Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLWP No. 1839 of 2005.

          K.N. Rani for the Petitioner.

          Sushil Karanjakar, Sanjay Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nair
    for the Respondents.
E
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Petitioner herein has
  challenged the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing the
F Criminal Writ Petition No.1839 of 2005, in which he had
  challenged the order dated 19th October, 2004, passed by the
  Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission in Case
  No.1912/2002/3258. The complainant in the said case was one
  Smt. Suman Sriram Gholap, the Respondent No.1 herein. In the
  said complaint, the State of Maharashtra was made the
G Respondent No.1 through the Commissioner of Police, Brihan
  Mumbai. The Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 were police
  personnel attached to Shahunagar Police Station, Mumbai-17.
  The Petitioner herein was made the third Respondent in the

H
 JAWANT P. SANKPAL v. SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.                  105
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
said complaint case. It was the case of the complainant that       A
the Respondents had violated the human rights of one Baban,
the son of the complainant, within the scope of Section 12(a)
of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

     2. The facts revealed in the complaint and which came to      8
light during the hearing thereof by the Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, hereinafter referred to as
"the Commission", indicate that the complainant, who is a
widow, had two sons, one Kisan and the other Baban. She
resides in Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Zopadpatti, Matunga, and            C
works as a domestic servant to earn her livelihood. Her elder
son, Kisan, lives with his family at Vashi at New Mumbai and
the complainant lives with her unmarried younger son, Baban,
at Matunga. In 1998, Baban was arrested by the Dharavi Police
in connection with a case which was tried by the Court of
Sessions and he was acquitted in respect thereof on 2nd May,       D
2002. Thereafter, various cases were lodged against Baban
and after his acquittal in the case filed by the Dharavi Police,
he left Matunga and went to reside with his elder brother at
Vashi where he earned a living by selling fruits as a street
vendor. On weekends he used to come to see the complainant         E
and on 30th June, 2002, he had come to Matunga to meet the
complainant. While he was at his mother's place of residence,
the Respondent No.4 before the Human Rights Commission,
 ASI K.R. Kubel, along with some other police personnel, came
 and asked Baban to accompany them to the police station. He       F
was, however, released on the next day.

     3. On 8th August, 2002, at about 8.00 a.m., Baban had
gone to the stall of one Abbas Bhai. According to the
complainant, he was assaulted and injured by the said Abbas        G
Sayyed Ali Kadri @ Abbas Ali. The complainant took him with
bleeding injuries to the police station where she was asked to
wait by the Duty Officer. In the meantime, the said Abbas Ali
and his three brothers and some women came to the police
station and soon thereafter the police personnel came out and
                                                                   H
    106       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   started assaulting Saban. The petitioner herein told the
    complainant to leave the police station. It is the complainant's
    case that she was also abused and forcibly removed from the
    police premises while Saban was detained. An hour later, the
    police personnel took Saban to hospital while the complainant
s   went home.

         4. It is also the complainant's case that when in the evening
    she went to the police station to enquire about her son, she saw
    that he had been placed in the police lockup. She was
    thereafter informed by Havildar Kubel that her son would not
C   be released from the police station and, accordingly, next day
    she went to the Court of the Magistrate at Sandra, where Saban
    was to be produced for the purpose of remand. It was
    mentioned by the complainant in her complaint that she had
    been threatened by the police officers in question not to reveal
D   the incidents of the previous day, but when Saban was produced
    she noticed that he had bandages all over his body and there
    were injuries on his back and hand. The complainant was
    threatened not to make any complaint to the Court as otherwise
    her son would be involved in other crimes. Subsequently, Saban
E   was released on bail on 6th September, 2002, but was, once
    again, taken to the police station on 30th September, 2002,
    and was assaulted allegedly on the ground that he had
    assaulted Abbas Ali's son. It was the grievance of the
    complainant that instead of recording the complaint made by
F   her or her son against Abbas Ali, the police registered a case
    against her son at the behest of Abbas Ali and illegally detained
    him in policy custody till he was released on bail. She also
    submitted that the police had been harassing her and her sons
    without any cause or justification and appropriate action should,
G   therefore, be taken against them.

         5. The complainant's allegations were fully supported by
    her son Saban who reiterated that he had been ill-treated by
    the police personnel.

H         6. In reply to the charges against the Respondents, all the
 JAWANT P. SANKPAL v. SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.                    107
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

Respondents filed their respective replies denying the              A
allegations, and in particular, in the report submitted by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V, Worli, Mumbai, it was
mentioned that tlie complainant's son, Saban, had gone to the
shop of Abbas Ali on 8th August, 2002, and demanded a sum
of Rs.5,000/- as 'hafta'. On Abbas Ali's refusal to pay the same,   B
Saban assaulted him with a razor and threatened him that he
would come again the next day. After being treated at Sion
Hospital, the said Abbas Ali lodged a complaint with the
Shahunagar Police Station, on the basis of which Crime No.99
of 2002 was registered against Saban under Sections 387 and         C
324 IPC, in pursuance whereof Saban was arrested. The report
of the Deputy Commissioner of Police also revealed that Saban
was a habitual offender against whom several criminal cases
had been initiated under Sections 326, 114, 379, 452, 342 and
even 376 IPC between 1992 and 1995 with the Dharavi Police
                                                                    D
Station. It was also pointed out that proceedings for detention
had also been commenced against Saban under the
Maharashtra Preventive of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers & Drug Offenders Act, 1981.

     7. As far as the police personnel, including the petitioner    E
herein, are concerned, they had only arrested the complainant's
son on the complaint made by Abbas Ali, who is a food grain
merchant at the Gandhi Nagar Labour Camp, Mumbai, under
Sections 387 and 324 IPC and they had acted on the
instructions of their superiors. Reference was also made to an      F
order of detention which had been passed against Saban on
27th February, 2002, and the various other crimes registered
against him and his brother Kisan with the Dharavi Police
Station.

     8. On the basis of the said allegations, a complaint came      G
to be filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Maharashtra
State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, alleging that
instead of recording the complaint made by her or her son
against Abbas Ali, the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.3
                                                                    H
    108      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 9 S.C.R.


A to 5 showed undue indulgence to the said Abbas Ali by
  registering a case against her son at the behest of Abbas Ali
  and illegally detained him in police custody till he was released
  on bail. Upon notice being served, the Petitioner herein and the
  other Respondents appeared before the Commission and filed
B their respective affidavits, which were considered in detail by
  the Commission. The Commission noticed that no affidavit had
  been filed on behalf of Abbas Ali nor was any oral evidence
  adduced on his behalf. Furthermore, no attempt was made by
  any of the police officers, including the Petitioner herein, to
C summon the witnesses to the occurrence according to their
  version. Ultimately, the Commission observed as follows :-

          "On appreciation of the discrepancies and contradictions
          in unfolding the alleged incident either of extortion or
          assault by Baban on Abbas Ali, it seems that the entire
D         version presented in defence is nothing but a concoction."

       9. On the other hand, the complainant and her son Baban
  had stated that when they rushed to the police station to lodge
  a complaint, they were asked to wait outside. After some time,
E Abbas Ali and his brothers and some women came to the
  police station and they were entertained first by the police and
  though Baban was the victim of the assault, he was illegally
  arrested. The Commission also disbelieved the defence of the
  police personnel that Baban inflicted injuries with a razor on
F himself having regard to the medical evidence of Dr. Raju Patel
  of the Lokmanya Tilak General Hospital, which did not support
  such theory. The Commission also took note of the Doctor's
  evidence that Bab.:in had complained of chest pain and had
  been removed to hospital at 2.30 a.m. He was treated for
  tenderness over the left anterior chest, which indicated hairline
G fracture on his ribs. In the said facts, the Commission had no
  hesitation in holding that there had been violation of Baban's
  human rights at the hands of the Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5
  and the Petitioner herein. On account of the above, the
   Commission recommended as follows :-
H
 JAWANT P. SANKPAL v. SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.                      109
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
             "(a)     the State Government shall pay to the            A
                      complainant on behalf of the victim of Pol!ce
                      atrocity a sum of Rs.45,000/- as
                      compensation and recover the same from the
                    · respondents PSI Shri G.G. Navele, PSI Shri
                      J.P. Sankpal, PSI Shri K.R. Kubal equally;       B

             (b)     that the State Government shall submit within
                     six seeks from the receipt of these directions
                     its compliance report to the Commission."

     10. The said order of the Commission was challenged by            C
the Petitioner herein before the Bombay High Court, which
dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 30th August,
2006, indicating that since the State of Maharashtra had not
challenged the order dated 19th October, 2004, passed by the
Commission and had also complied with the same, there was              D
no necessity of entertaining the writ petition, particularly, on
account of the fact that an earlier petition filed by the Petitioner
herein where he had sought relief challenging the said order
came to be withdrawn.
                                                                       E
      11. Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. K.N. Rai, learned
Advocate, submitted that the antecedents of Baban, the son of
the Respondent No.1 herein, would clearly go to show that he
was a habitual offender and had been involved in various
criminal cases registered against him as he was creating a
                                                                       F
reign of terror in the minds of the public in the Matunga Railway
Colony, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kunchi Kurve Nagar, Matunga
Labour Camp and areas adjoining thereto, within the
jurisdiction of Dharavi and Shahunagar Police Stations, and
had even been detained under the Maharashtra Preventive
Detention Act by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai,           G
which order has been confirmed by the Advisory Board. Mr. Rai
submitted that the Commission had overlooked the affidavits
filed by the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 as well
as the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V,
Worli, Mumbai. Mr. Rai submitted that aggrieved by the                 H
    110      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A recommendation made by the Commission, the Petitioner had
  filed Writ Petition No.975 of 2005 in the Bombay High Court
  which was withdrawn on account of the understanding given to
  him on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that it had decided
  not to implement the order passed by the Commission. Mr. Rai
B submitted that the same should not be taken into consideration
  while considering the writ petition which had subsequently been
  filed challenging the order of the Commission, since the earlier
  writ petition was withdrawn on the basis of an occurrence which
  never materialised.
c       12. Mr. Rai lastly submitted that there was nothing on record
  to indicate that Baba.n had actually been assaulted by !!'>e
  Petitioner or the Respondent Nos.3 to 5, except for the
  allegations made by him and the statement made by the doctor
  that he had noticed certain tenderness over certain parts of
D Baban's body. Mr. Rai urged that having regard to the
  antecedents of Baban, the defence taken that he had inflicted
  injuries on himself with a razor in order to implicate the Petitioner
  and the Respondent Nos.3 to 5, could not be ruled out and ought
  not to have been rejected by the Commission.
E
        13. As far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, it has
  been submitted that the recommendation of the State Human
  Rights Commission had since been implemented and since the
  State had chosen not to challenge the order of the Commission,
F no separate submission would be made on behalf of the State.

       14. Having regard to the special emphasis laid by Mr. Rai
  on Baban's antecedents, we have carefully considered the
  order of the Commission which was upheld by the High Court
  and we see no reason to differ with the same. There is sufficient
G material, which has been duly looked into by the Commission
  and the High Court that the son of the Respondent No.1 had
  been physically tortured while in custody in violation of the norms
  relating to custody of persons arrested or detained in
  connection with any offence. It is not for us to appraise the
H
 JAWANT P. SANKPAL v. SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.                    111
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
evidence further since two forums have had a chance to look         A
into the same. Except for a bare denial, there is no material on
record to refute the complaint of torture of Saban by the
Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is clear that for
whatever reasons, which could also include his antecedents, he
was treated differently from Abbas Ali against whom he had          B
come to make a complaint and ended up being the accused.

     15. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere,
either with the order of the Commission or the High Court, and
the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

K.K.T.                      Special Leave Petition dismissed.