Supreme Court of India
KASHMERI DEVIversusDELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 118
- Decided
- 25 April 1988
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the trial court must exercise its powers under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a proper and thorough investigation.
Summary
Kashmeri Devi, the widow of a tonga driver who died in police custody, alleged that two sub‑inspectors and two constables beat her husband to death after arresting him. A complaint was filed and the case was initially registered under IPC Section 302, later converted to Section 304 and subsequently to Sections 323/342, but no action was taken against the police officers. The High Court dismissed her writ petition seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI. On special leave, the Supreme Court held that the police investigation was partisan and aimed at shielding the guilty officers, and that an independent investigation was necessary. The Court directed the trial court, which had received the charge‑sheet, to exercise its powers under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code to order a fresh, thorough investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The appeal was disposed of with this direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the police investigation into the death of Gopi Ram in custody was impartial and adequate.
- Whether the trial court can be directed under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code to order a CBI investigation.
- Whether a fresh independent investigation is required in the interest of justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 173(8)
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 147, s. Section 148, s. Section 149, s. Section 302, s. Section 304, s. Section 323, s. Section 332, s. Section 342, s. Section 353
Subjects
police custody deathcustodial tortureindependent investigationCBI investigationSection 173(8) CrPCcriminal procedurehuman rightsSupreme Court
Judgment
A KASHMERI DEVI
v.
DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR.
APRIL 25, 1988
B
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-Police investigation-
Credibility of-Death in police custody-Allegations of murder and
torture against police officers--Court finding that efforts made to pro-
tect and shield guilty police officers-Trial court directed to have
c thorough and proper investigation by C. B. I.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 173(8)-Death in police
custody-Allegations of torture and murder against police officers-
Supreme Court finding. that efforts made to protect and shield guilty
D police officers-Trial magistrate directed to have proper and thorough
investigation by C.B.l.
The appellant was the widow of a tonga driver who died in police
custody. It is alleged that on the fateful night of 22i23.8.1986 two suh-
inspectors accompanied by two constables visited the house of one
Sudesh Kumar, and started beating him. On hearing his shrieks his
E maternal uncle Gopi Ram, the tonga driver tried to intervene where-
upon the policemen are alleged to have beaten him also. Both of them
were arrested taken to the police station, stripped of their clothes and
beaten with iron rods. The tonga driver succumbed to his injuries at the
-
police station. Thereafter, a post mortem was conducted and the dead
body was cremated without handing it over to the appellant.
F
The aforesaid incident caused consternation in the locality, and a
mob surrounded the police station to lodge its protest against the death
of the tonga driver in police custody. Undaunted the police registered a
case under Sections 147-149 and 353i332 I.P.C. against the brother of
G the deceased and others as they were members of the mob.
Sudesh Kumar filed a written complaint naming the two sub- .~ I
inspectors and the constables as responsible for the death of his
maternal uncle which was registered under Section 302i342 I.P.C.
No action was however taken against those officers. After some time the
H case was converted to Section 304 I.P.C. for purpose of investigation.
700
KASIIMERI DEVI v. DELHI ADMN. 701
·~.
The appellant approached the High Court by a writ petition
A
under Article 226 for transferring the investigation of the case from the
Crime Br~neh of the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investiga-
tion. Thi:' ~)i•1 ision Bench, however, dismissed the petition.
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court,
B
HELD: I. The police have not acted in a forthright manner
in investigating the case registered on the ·complaint of Sudesh
Kumar. [704C-D]
2. The circum5tances available on record prima facie show that
effort has been made to protect and shield the guilty officers of the
police who are alleged to have perpetrated the barbaric offence of C
murdering Gopi Ram by beating and torturing. [7040)
3. The appellant had been crying hoarse to get the investiga-
tion done by an independent authority but none responded to her
complaint. [7040-E) D
· 4. The Additional Sessions Judge while considering the bail
application of one of the Constables-Jagmal Singh, considered the
autopsy report and observed that th~ Doctor had postponed giving his
opinion regarding the cause of death although the injuries were anti-
mortem. [7040-E] E
S. The Sessions Judge referring to a number of circumstances
observed that the investigating officer had converted the case from
Section 302 IPC to 304 IPC on flimsy grounds within hours of the
' registration of the case even without waiting for the post mortem report
;
. and that it was a prima facie case of deliberate murder of an innocent F
illiterate poor citizen of Delhi in police custody and investigation was
partisan. [704E-F] - ' ·
6. In the interest of justice it is necessary to get a fresh investiga-
tion made through an independent authority so that the truth may be
known. {704H] G
7. The trial court before whom the charge sheet has been submit-
ted shall exercise its powers under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. to direct the
Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough investigation
of the case. On issue of such direction the C.B.I. will investigate the case
in an independent and objective manner and submit additional charge H
sheet if any in accordance with law. [70SA-B)
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] 3 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
A
No. 280 of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1986 of the High
Court of Delhi in Crl. W.P. No. 361of1986.
B R.L. Panjwani and R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellant.
S. Madhu Sudan Rao, N.L. Kakkar and Miss A. Subhashini for
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
c ORDER
Special leave granted.
This is an unfortunate case which tends to shake the credibility of
D police investigation and undermines the faith of common man in Delhi
Police which is supposed to protect life and liberty of citizens and
maintain law and order. There has been seriou~ allegations of murder
by torture.against the police and further about the haphazard manner
in which the investigation against the accused police officers was
investigated with a view to shield the guilty members of the Delhi ~-
E Police.
Kashmeri Devi the appellant is the unfortunate widow of Gopi
Ram deceased who was a tonga driver. On the fateful night of
22/23.8.1986 two sub-inspectors accompanied by two constables
-
visited the house of Sudesh Kumar of Prem Nagar. It is alleged that they
F started beating Sudesh Kumar. Hearing his shrieks his maternal uncle
Gopi Ram deceased came to the spot, he tried to intervene whereupon
the police men are alleged to have giving him beating also. Gopi Ram
and Sudesh Kumar both were arrested and taken to the Police Station
Patel Nagar where they were stripped of their clothes and the police
men gave them serious beating with the help of iron rods and iron
G rulers. It is alleged that Gopi Ram succumbed to his injuries at the
police station sustained at the hands of Satish Kumar and Rana sub-
),
inspectors and Jagmal Singh and Romesh constables while in police
custody. It is alleged that thereafter a post mortem was conducted and
the dead body of Gopi Ram was cremated without handing over the
dead body to the appellant. This incident caused consternation in the
H locality and on 23.8.1986 a mob surrounded the police station to lodge
KASHMERI DEVI v. DELHI ADMN. 703
its protest against the death qf Gopi Ram deceased at the police hands,
A
Undaunted the. Patel Nagar police registered a cause under Section
147 /148/149/353/332 of the Indian Penal Code against Shankar brqther
of the deceased who was arrested along with others on 23.8.1986 as
they were members of the mob. Sudesh Kumar who had been taken to
the police station along with Gopi Ram filed a written complaint at the
police Station Patel Nagar on 23.8.1986, making allegations against B
f- the two sub-inspectors and the constables. In that complaint Sudesh
Kumar alleged that as a result of beating by police officers his maternal
- uncle became unconscious and thereafter the police officers kept on
beating him at the police station as ·a result of which he died. He
further alleged that the police officers took the dead body of Gopi
Ram to the hospital from there. they brought it to another hospital,
where he was forced to _sign blank papers. He named the police officers
c
who were responsible of the death of his maternal uncle. On that
complaint a case was registered under Sections 302/342 IPC against the
police officers .of:Patel Nagar Police Station but no action was taken
against those ·officers. After some time case was converted to Section
304 IPC for purpose of investigation. The appellant Kashmeri Devi D
approached the High Court by means of a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution for transferring the investigation of the case
from the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police to Central Bureau of
Investigation. Division Bench of the High Court dismissed. the writ
petition by its order dated 26th September, 1986. Thereupon, the
appellant approached this Court by means of special leave petition. E
- During the pendency of the special leave petition this court
granted time to the respondents twice for filing counter-affidavit but
the respondents failed to file their counter affidavit. Ultimately on
11.4.1988 Kanwaljit Deol, Deputy Commissioner of Police Head
Quarters has filed counter affidavit setting out a totally different story. F
He has stated that on 23.8.1986 the police received information that
one Gopi of Prem N agar was brought dead by Sudesh Kumar from
Prem Nagar to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. On receipt
of the information from the Hospital one sub-inspector of police went
to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and.obtained medical legal certi-
ficate.of the deceased's Gopi Ram. It is alleged that on a personal G
search of the deceased's body the police recovered 5 small packets of
smack from his pocket. In his affidavit an attempt has been made out
to. show that Gopi Ram had died on account of alcohol and marphine
and not on account of any injuries caused to him by the police and in
this connection a story has been set up that Sudesh Kumar had brought
the dead body to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and on receiving H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!988[ 3 S.C.R.
A information from the Hospital the police made recovery of smack from
the the deceased's pocket. The affidavit is completely silent ahm•t the
allegations made by the appellant that the Gopi Ra!!l ~,,c; S·,c. ·Ji
·.Kumar were arrested taken to the police station and Go pi R".h1 was
beaten to death. The affidavit further refers to some medical report
which purports to state that deceased died on account of alcohol and
B marphine. It is further stated that after taking into consideration the
cause of the death given by the Doctor, charges were amended to
Sections 323/342/34-IPC and after completing the investigation challan
was prepared and the same has been put in the Magistrate's Court.
The affidavit of Kruwaljit Deol states that in the absence of evidence
the story'set up by Sudesh Kumar could not be substantiated.
c After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record we are satisfied that prima facie the police have not acted in
a forthright manner in investigating th~ case, registered on the
complaint of Sudesh Kumar. The circumstances available on record
prima facie show that effort has been made to protect and shield the
D guilty officers of the police who are alleged to have perpetrated the
barbaric offence of murdering Gopi Ram by beating and torturing .
. The appellant has been crying hoarse to get the investigation done by
an independent authority but none responded to her complaint. The
Additional Sessions Judge while considering the bail application of
Jagmal Singh, Constable, considered the autopsy report and observed
E that Doctor. had postponed giving his opinion regarding the cause of
death although the injuries were antimortem. The learned Sessions
Judge referring to a number of circumstances observed that the in-
vestigating officer had converted the case from 302 IPC to 304 IPC on
flimsy grounds within hours of the registration of the case even without
'· • waiting for the postmortem report. The learned Sessions Judge further
· F' observed that it was a prima facie case of deliberate murder of an
k
I
innocent illiterate poor citizen of Delhi in police custody and investiga-
tion was partisan.
, We are in full agreement with 1the observations niade by the
. learned Sessions Judge. As already noted during the pendency of the
G writ petition before the High Court and special leave petition before
this Court the case was· further converted from 304 IPC to 323/34 IPC.
Prima facie the police has acted in partisan manner to shield the real
culprits and the investigation of the case has not been done in a proper
an.d objective manner. We are therefore of the opinion that in the
interest of justice it is necessary to get a fresh investigation made
H through an independent authority so that truth may be known.
KASHMERI DEVI v. DELHI ADMN. 705
Since according to the respondents charge-sheet has. already A
been submitted to the Magistrate we direct the trial court before whom
the charge sheet has been submitted to exercise his powers under
Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation
for proper and thorough investigation of the case. On issue of such
direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will investigate the case
B
in an independent and objective manner and it will further submit
additional charge sheet, if any, in accordance with law. The appeal
stands disposed of accordingly.
N.V.K. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "police custody death"Sign in to search