MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS.versusSTATE REP. BY SUPDT. OF POLICE

                      [2011) 3 S.C.R. 1091


               -MEHBOOB BATCHA AND_ ORS.                               A
                                v.
             STATE REP. BY SUPDT. OF POLICE
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2003)
                        MARCH 29, 2011
                                                                       B
 [MARKANDEY KATJU' AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

      Custodial violence - Accused-po/ice personnel
 Wrongfully confined PW-1's husband in police custody and
 beat him to death and also gaf)g-raped PW1 in a barbaric C
'manner within the premises of the Police station - Conviction
 by Courts below - One accused sentenced to 3 years
 rigorous imprisonment, while the other accused were
 sentenced to 1O years rigoroµs imprisonment - On appeal, ·
 held: The accused deserve no mercy and should have been -D
 awarded death sentence - However, non.e of the accused were
 charged under s.302 /PC fJnd instead the lower Court,s treated
 the death of PW-1's husband as suicide- Both trial Court and
 High Court failed in their duty in this connection - In the
 normal course, Supreme Court could ha've issued notice of E ,
 enhancement of sentence, but as no charge under s.302 /PC
 was framed, conviction under that provision cannot be
 straightaway recorde<;J and the punishment cannot be
 enhanced - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302,
       Custodial violence - Offence of - Held: Calls for harsh         F
  punishment - Custodial violence is in _violatio_n of this Court's
- directive in D.K. Basu's case ~ Directive to all police officers
  up to the level of S.H.O. to follow directions given by this Court
  in D.K. Basu's case.
                                                                       G
     Crimes against Women ~-Held: Crimes against women
 are not ordin,ary crimes committe,d in a.fit of anger or for
 property - _They are social crimes - They. disrupt the entire
 social fabric,·- and hence they call for harsh punishment.
                               1091                                    H
    1092    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A     The accused-appellants are policemen who
  wrongfully confined PW1 's husband in police custody on
  suspicion of theft for four days and beat him to death
  there with lathis, and also gang raped PW1 in a barbaric
  manner within the premises of the police station. The
B accuse.d also confined several other persons (who were
  witnesses) and beat them in the police station with lathis.
  Both the trial Court and the High Court found the
  appellants guilty. Hence the instant appeal.

         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
c
      HELD:1. There is no reason to disagree with the
  verdict of the trial court and the High Court. If ever there
  was a case which cried out for death penalty it is this one,
  but it is deeply regrettable that not only was no such
D penalty imposed but not even a charge under Section 302
  IPC was framed against the accused by the Courts
  below. [Paras 1, 5] [1095-E; 1096-B]

      2. To prove the charges the prosecution examined as
E many as 37 witnesses, and they proved the guilt of the
  accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 has given her
  evidence in great detail and there is no reason to
  disbelieve the same. Her evidence discloses the inhuman
  and savage manner in which the accused, who were
  police personnel, treated PW1 and her husband.
F Ordinarily no self respecting woman would come forward
  in Court to falsely make such a humiliating statement
  against her honour. [Paras 5, 6 and 8] [1096-B-C; 1101-
    G]
G      3. Though the accused·appellants referred to some
  discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1, but it is well
  settled that minor discrepancies cannot demolish the
  veracity of the prosecution case. There is no major
  discrepancy in the prosecution case, which is supported
H by the evidence of a large number of witnesses, including
  MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS. v, STATE REP. BY 1093
             SUPDT. OF POLICE
injured witnesses, apart from the testimony of PW-1, who · A
identified the accused in the identification parade.
Although A10 was not identified by her, the High Court.
has given good reasons for holding him guilty too, and
this Court agrees with the same. [Para 9] [1101-H; 1102-
~~                                                               s·
      4. The Medical Officer who examined PW-1 found
  multiple nail scratches on her breasts. She complained
  of severe pain in her private parts. There were multiple
  abrasions on her vagina and cervix with discharge of foul
  smelling fluids. The chemical analysis of her vaginal          C
  smear showed plenty of pus cells and epithetical cells.
  Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes
  committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social
· crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric, and hence
  they call for harsh punishment. The horrendous manner          D
  in which PW-1 was treated by policemen was shocking
  and atrocious, and calls for no mercy; [Paras 10, 11 and
  12] [1102-C-F]

    Satya Narain Tiwari @ Jolly & Anr. v. State of U.P. JT       E
2010(12) SC 154; Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab, SLP
(Criminal) No.8917 of 2010 decided on 12.11.2010 - relied
on.
     5. The injuries (indicated by the pot-mortem report)
show the horrible manner in which PW-1 's husband was            F
beaten and killed in police custody. It is surprising that
the accused were not charged under Section 302 IPC and
instead the Courts below treated the death of PW-1 's
husband as suicide. In fact they should have been
charged under that provision and awarded deat.h                  F
sentence, as murder by policemen in police custody is
in the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death
sentence, but surprisingly no charge under Section 302
IPC was framed against any of the accused. Both the trial
                                                                 H
    1094    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011] 3 S.C.R.

A Court and High Court failed in their duty in this
  connection. [Paras 14, 15) (1103-F-G; 1104-A-BJ
      6. The entire incident took place within the premises
  of police station and the accused deserve no mercy. In
  this appeal the appellant no.1 has been given the
8 sentence of 3 years rigorous Imprisonment and a fine,
  while the other aRpellants have been given sentence of
  10 years rigorous fmprlsonment with a fine. In the normal
  course, this Court could have issued notice of
  enhancement of sentence, but as no charge under
C Section 302 IPC was framed, conviction under that
  provision cannot be straightaway recorded and the
  punishment cannot be enhanced. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
  (1104-C-E]

0      7. Custodlali/iolence in police custody is In violation
  of this Court's directive In D.K. Basu's case. All policemen
  In the country are warned that this will not be tolerated.
  The graphic description of. the barbaric conduct of the
  accused In this case shocks the conscience of this
E Court. Policemen must learn how to behave as public
  servants in a democratic country, and not as oppressors
  of the people. A copy of this order Is directed to be sent
  to Home Secretary and Director General of Pollce of all
  States and Union Territories, who shall circulate the same
  to all pollce officers up to the level of S.H.O. with a
F directive that they must follow the directions given by this
  Court In D.K. Basu's case, and that custodial violence shall
  entail harsh punishment. [Paras 20, 22] [1104-F-G; 1106·
  D·E]
G        D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal 1997(1) SCC 416 -
    referred to.
                       Case Law Reference:
        JT 2010(12) SC 154        relied on           Para 11
H       1997(1) sec 416           referred to         Para 20
 MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY 1095
            SUPDT. OF POLICE
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal                    A
No. 1511 of 2003.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.11.2002 of the High.
Court of JlJdicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 677 of
1997.
                                                                         B
   S. Shunmu ~avelayutham, f<.K. Mani, .A.bhishek Krishna,
Mayur R. $hah for the Appellants.
     R. $1,1nmuga~1,1n~ara,m, Promila, s. Thananjayan for the
Respondent.                                                              c
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
     "Bane. hain ahal-e-hawas muddai bhi munsif bhi                      o
     Kise va~eel karein kisse munsifi chaahen"
                                              ..,.... Faiz Ahmed Faiz
       1. If ever there \\'.as a ~se which cried out for death penalty   E
it is th.is one, but it is deeply regrettable that not only was no
sue~ penalty imposed but not even a charge under Section 302
IPC was framed against the accused by the Courts below.
     2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
                                                                         F
    3. The facts in detail have been stated in the impugned
judgment of the High Court as well as of the trial court and
hence we are not repeating the same here, except where
necessary.
                                                                         G
     4. The appellants are policemen who wrongfully confined
one Nandagopal in police custody in Police Station Annamalai
Nagar on suspicion of theft from 30.5.1992 till 2.6.1992 and
beat him to death there with lathis, and also gang raped his
wife Padmini in a barbaric manner. The accused also confined             H
    1096    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A several other persons (who were witnesses) and beat them in
  the police station withJathis.
       5. Both the trial Court and the High Court have found the
  appellants guilty and we see no reason to disagree with their
  verdict. To prove the charges the prosecution examined as
8
  many as 37 witnesses, and they have proved the guilt of the
  accused beyond reasonable doubt.

       6. PW1 Padmini has given her evidence in great detail and
  we see no reason to disbelieve the same. We have read her
C evidence which discloses the inhuman and savage mann~r in
  which the accused, who were police personnel, treated
  Nandagopal and Padmini. We may quote just parts of her
  testimony which are as follows :

D        ...... ."on Sunday at about 1.00 p.m. two policemen came
         in an auto to my house. They are A3, A6 and AS. All of
        them beat me by lathis on my buttocks. A3 caught hold of
        my leg and pulled me saying get into the auto. I ran
        outside. Two autos came and in one auto Subramaniam
        and Nandagopal were sitting with handcuffs jointly. Unable
E
        to bear pain I sat by their side. The auto went to
        Annamalai Nagar police station and they asked me to go
        inside and I went inside. A6 beat me up. I was surrounded
        by 4, 5 persons who were beating me. At that time my
        jacket (blouse) was torn. Some one tore off my jacket and
F       I do not remember as to who tore off that jacket. They said
        'you will not bear any more and go and sit' I sat in the
        corner where the Head constable was sitting earlier. Some
        time afterwards two women police came there. Thinking
        that I would be let off, I stated to them that I took oleander
G       seeds, for that the women police gave me water mixed
      . with tamarind and soap and asked me to drink it. That night
        myself and the women police were lying down in the room
        where the Sub Inspector of Police was sitting and in the
        early morning the women police went out. My husband's
H       sister's daughter by name Priya gave coffee. I could talk
MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY 1097
 SUPDT. OF POLICE [MARKANDEY KATJU, SJ
   anything. I ate idly. My hus_band told me why you are A
 - coming here; I am being tortured by them. I told_ him that
   they would not do anything and they would let you free. At
   that time a policeman came and told 'what are you talking
   to her', and saying so he ki<?ked him and pushed him
 - dowri. A6, beat my husband and kept him in the lock up. B
   Subramani, Kolanchi and Subramaniam were also in the
   lock up. Then I was given good meals and my husband was
   given waste food. Therefore I gave my food to
   Nandagopal. For that A1 said you should take that food
   and be good and why did you give ithiin, by saying so he c
   beat me by lathi. In the evening all of them jointly discussed
   with themselves saying that each one of them should give
   Rs.50/- for giving a party. One police man asked for what
   purpose you are giving a party and one police man
   whispered some thing in his ear. On hearing that, he asked
                                                                    0
   were you not born with your sisters, and saying so he left
   that place. On Monday at about 8.00 pm night, Nanqagopal
   was brought out from the lock up. A6 told that    tie   ~~ould
   see some one has to remove my saree. He called the
   accused Kolanchi from the lock up and asked him to
   remove my saree. He was holding my palla, but I was E
   holding it tightly without leaving it. The said Kolanchi told
   that he should not pull it. Immediately the first accused beat
   him with a lathi. Then after beating him, he asked him to
   get to the side of the open court yard. Immediately A3
   came to remove my saree. A3 removed the entire saree F
   of mine. At that time I was wearing petty coat and jacket.
   A1, A3, A6, AS and A1O removed my jacket and petty coat
   and made me nude. They asked me to run through the
   court yard and beat me and I fell down. All the five accused
   person one by one embarrassed me and kissed me. Then G
   I fell down. At that t_ime one said 'your private part is big in
   size, cannot you bear this pain'. I cried and asked him to
   stop beating. At that time some one came there in
   connection with a case. They said not to say this to anyone
   outside. I wrapped the saree over the body and sat. At that H
    1098   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A      time two women police came there. I stated to them what
       had happened. They said that no one will beat you
       hereafter, and I went to lie down along with them in a room.
       In the early morning on Tuesday one Senthil came and
       brought coffee. Senthil is the son of my husband's sister.
B      On that evening my husband was taken outside and
       brought to the police station along with Rani, Dandapani.
       Rani is the younger sister of Nandagopal. Oandapani is
       the husband of Rani. When Dandapani was asked about
       the tape recorder, he showed a bill of a shop where he
c      purchased it. For that the police said 'why are you telling
       a lie'. Yesterday we have removed the saree of the wife
       of Nandagopal and saw, and it would be proper if we
       remove the saree of your wife. At that time there were
       bleeding injuries on the back, leg and shoulder of
       Nandagopal and blood was oozing out in strips. Police
0
       stated like that. My husband sustained injury on account
       of beatings by the police A1, A3, A6, AS and A10 beat
       my husband. Then the police asked Rani and Dandapani
       to go to their house. On Tuesday night two women police
       came to the police station. They were talking with each
E      other as to whether any clothes have been brought for
       staying in the night. Along with them one male police came
       and a~;ked whether they had seen Tamil picture
       'Sembaruthi'. I asked them not to leave me alone and
       asked them to take me along with them. They said they
F      would not do anything, by saying so those two women
       police went out. I cannot identify those police properly and
       I do not remember their names. On Tuesday at about 10.30
       pm my husband Nandagopal was brought to the open court
       yard from the lock up. Myself and Nandagopal were
G      brought to a room opposite to the open court yard. My
       husband was kept in a standing position on the wall and .
       beaten up by them. AG Dhass pulled out my saree. A10
       removed my jacket and petty coat and made me to
       become nude and I was beaten and pushed down. My leg
H      had stuck into a bench and I could not remove it. At that
MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY 1099
 SUPDT. OF POLICE [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.)
   time the 2nd accused Sub-Inspector of police came to             A
   Annamalai Nagar police station. He said that he would go
   ~rst. At that time he used rubber loop at the genital organ
   and committed rape on me. A2, A3, A6, AS and A10 also
   raped me forcibly. All of them have used rubber !oop. All
   pf t~em raped me in the presence of my husband. Atthat           a
 . time my husband Nandagopal requested them ·not to do
   harm to my wife, arid leave her. At that time A6 beat
   Nandagopat with lathi on his genital part. He fell down. He
   asked water by gesture. At that time after wrapping the
   saree over my body I took water from the pot. At th~t time       c
   the· said five police men surrounded me and said if you
   want to give water to Nandagopal, you should give a kiss
   to everyone. Then I gave kisses to all the five. When I went
   to take water to my husband, they threw it away. That fell
   down. With an intention to spoil me again, they pulled me
                                                                    0
   and I said I cannot come and leave me, by saying so I sat
   down. When AS came and tried to force me, I fell on his
   leg and bit. On account of the sexual intercourse, I.
   sustained bleeding injuries on the breast and genital organ
   and then I fell unconscious. When I woke up after regaining
   consciousness, the clothes were wrapped halfly. I said I         E
   wanted to S"':e my husband. 1·was brought outside saying
   that my husband was sent to court. One ·of the policemen
   asked me to get into the van. I was kept at Chidambaram
   police station. They offered me idli and coffee. I ate it. One
   lady police was with me. All the other policemen went out        F
   with lathis. The woman police who was with me stated that.
   there was students' agitation and some one was done to
   death at Annamalai Nagar Police Station. I wept and then
   I was left out. I asked the auto man at Mariamman temple
   to take me in the auto. He asked me whether I am the wife        G
   of Nandagopal, I said yes. He said ~hat Nandagopal was
   dorie to death by the police and asked me not to go there.
   Then I went to court in the auto. This occurrence was talked
   in court. Then I went to Tahsildar's office immecliately. I
   stated what had happened there. ·The Officers haye gone          H
    1100   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A      to take action and they asked me to be here. I was sitting
       there. I went to Annamalai Nagar police station in a Jeep.
       There was a crowd there. I cried saying that not only I was
       raped by five persons but they also assaulted my husband
       and done him to death. One of the police men who raped
B      me waii standing there. I beat him with a chappal. He is
       A10. R.D.O. was there. He asked me what had happened
       and I said what had happened. I fell down unconscious.
       Then I was taken to the hospital. At about 1.00 pm one
       male doctor examined me. Then I came to the police
c      station at Annamalai Nagar and gave my statement. That
       was recorded by them. Ex.P.1 is the statement typed by
       R.D.O. and obtained my signature therein. Then I went to
       the house of my mother in law. Nandagopal was lying
       dead. I was weeping. At that time Balakrishnan, Jankirani
       and politicians came there. I stated to them what had
D
       happened. Balakrishnan is the District Secretary of
       Communist Party, Janki Rani is the President of All Indian
       Madhar Sangam at Chidambaram. Janki Rani is the wife
       of Balakrishnan. I gave a petition to the R.D.O. to send me
       to the hospital that is Ex.P.2. I was admitted in the hospital
E      at about 11.00 pm in the night. On the next day at about 7
       or 7.30 am I was examined by a lady doctor. After coming
       from the hospital, on Thursday evening my husband was
       buried. On 5.6.1992 I sent a petition to the District
       Superintendent of Police. After I came to my house, a
F      police officer came to my house. I have stated to him what
       had happened." .........
       7.Padmini also stated :
       .......... .''The two police asked me to come to the rest
G
       room. Then at the same time three police without any
       uniform came inside. Then I cried in front of the lock up
       where my husband was kept inside saying that are calling
       me, but no one to help me. My husband was brought from
       the lock to the open court yard with handcuff. I cried to the
H
 MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY 1101
  SUPDT. OF POLICE [MARKANDEY KA.TJU, J.]
    police by kneeling down. At that time Subramaniam asked           A
    them not to do anything to my sister and not to beat my
    friend. Then they removed the jacket and saree and made
    me to become nude in the open yard and squeezed my
    breast and bit and the old aged police hit against my
    private part with a stick saying that it is very big and I have   B
    to see how long it would go ........ .

     .. . . .. ..Five police men came smelling of Brandy in their
     mouth. My husband was beaten while he was taken from
     the lock up and myself and my husband were kept in a C
     room where the rice bags were kept. I was made to
     become nude. My husband cried to the police with handcuff
     to release him. The police kicked my husband on his chest.
   . You would be alive only tonight and if you want you can
     enjoy. By saying so they hit him with gun. At that time Sub-
     Inspector stated that others can do only if l say because I D
     am the officer here and so I will do first and other can
     afterwards, and by saying so he raped me. I raised a noise
     saying I am having much pain and asked him to leave me
     and the other police men were beating my husband. My
     husband asked them to remove the handcuff put on him. E
     They did not do so. After finishing the work, Sub Inspector
     went away and asked others to do the same and he would
     see whether anybody is coming and asked them to finish
     the work. I was asked to lie facing up, one of them was
     holding my leg and another one was holding the hand and F
     another one was lying on me and had intercourse with me.
     Like that all the five persons spoiled me." ......... .
     8. We see no reason to disbelieve Padmini's evidence.
On.::narily no self respecting woman would come forward in G .
Court l\.' falsely make such a humiliating statement against her
honour.
   · 9. The learned counsel for the accused referred. to some
discrepancies in her evidence, but it is well settled thatminor
discrepancies <:annof demolish the v: :acity of the prosecutron       H
    1102    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A case. In our opinion there is no major discrepancy in the
  prosecution case, which is supported by the evidence of a large
  number of witnesses, including injured witnesses, apart from
  the testimony of Padmini, who identified the accused in the
  identification parade held on 13.8.1992 in Central Jail,
B Cuddalore. Although A1O was not identified by her, the High
  Court has given good reasons for holding him guilty too, and
  we agree with the same.
       10. The Medical Officer who examined Padmini found
  multiple nail scratches on her breasts. She complained of
C severe pain in her private parts. There were multiple abrasions
  on her vagina and cervix with discharge of foul smelling fluids.
  The chemical analysis of her vaginal smear showed plenty of
  pus cells and epithetical cells. The doctors also examined
  Subramaniam and Chidambaranathan who were beaten by 1; 1e
D accused policemen with lathis.
       11. We have held in Satya Narain Tiwari @ Jolly & Anr.
  vs. State of U.P., JT 2010(12) SC 154 and in Sukhdev Singh
  vs. State of Punjab, SLP (Criminal) No.8917 of 2010 decided
E on 12.11.2010 that crimes against women are not ordinary
  crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are
  social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric, and hence
  they call for harsh punishment.
      12. The horrendous manner in which Padmini was treated
F by policemen was shocking and atrocious, and calls for no
  mercy.
         13. The post-mortem report of Nandagopal shows the
    following injuries :
G
        "I. A rope like ligature mark centre of neck encircling
        obliquely upwards. M Right to left neck with knot like mark
        on right neck. (Size about "1/2 in width 0 Rope mark).
        Middle lateral aspect. Underlying skin dry parchment in
        colour.
H
   MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY 1103
    SUPbT. OF POLICE [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.)
       II.    An abrasion 1 x 1 cm left cheek.                     A
       Ill.   An abrasion 3 x 1 cm right hip anterior.
      IV.     Art abrasion 2 x 1 cm left leg middle anterior.
      V.      An abrasion 3 x 1 cm right leg middle anterior.      B

      VI.     An abrasion 2 x 1 cm left arm shoulder posterior
              lower.
      VII. An abrasion 2 x 1 cm right arm shoulder posterior
              lower.                                               C
       VIII. An abrasion 2 x 1 cm left elbow antero,,;medical.
       IX.    An abrasion 2 x 1 cm right elbow posterior lower.
       X.     An abrasion 2 x 1 cm right scrotum lower antero-     D
              lateral. No underneath haemotoma injuries are
              ante-mortem in nature.
       XI.    Tongue bitten iii between the teeth partiafly
              protruded outside.                                   E
      The post~mortem certificate contains the final. opinion of
 the docior that Nandagopal died on asphyxia! death due to
 afypical ha'ngirtg about 10 tb 24 hours prior fo post-mortem."
                                                                   F.
      14~ The above injuries show the horrible manner in which
· Nandagopal was beaten and killed in police custody. In her
  evidence Padmini stated that on the evening Of Sunday, "Four
  policemen beat my husband with sticks. They kicked my
  husband with boots on his chest.· She also stated ·At thattime G
  tiiere Were bleeding injuries on back leg arid shoulder {of
  Nahdagopal) al ,J blood was oozin~fout and found in stnp'fdrm".
  Even when she was being· raped by the policemen· Nandagopal
  was beaten.
                                                                   H
        1104    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A             15. We are surprised that the accused were not charged
        under Section 302 IPC and instead the Courts below treated
        the death of Nandagopal as suicide. In fact they should have
        been charged under that provision and awarded death
        sentence, as murder by policemen in police custody is in our
s       opinion in the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death
        sentence, but surprisingly no charge under Section 302 IPC
        was framed against any of the accused. We are constrained
        to say that both the trial Court and High Court have failed in
        their duty in this connection.
c           16. The entire incident took place within the premises <?f
        Annamalai Nagar police station and the accused deserve no
        mercy.

       17. In this appeal the appellant no.1 has been giv ·, the
D sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine, while
  the other appellants have been given sentence of 1O years
  rigorous imprisonmentwith a fine.

      18. In the normal course, we could have issued notice of
E enhancement of sentence, but as no charge under Section 302
  IPC was framed, we cannot straightaway record conviction
  under that provision and enhance the punishment.

            19. For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed.

F      20. Before pafting with this case, we once again reiterate
  that custodial violence in police custody is in violation of this
  Court's directive in 0. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal
  1997(1) sec 416 and we give a warning to au polis;emen in
  the country that this will not be tolerated. The graphic description
G of the barbaric conduct of the accused in this case shocks our
  conscience. Policemen must learn how to behave as public
  servants in a democratic country, and not as oppressors of the
  people.
    I
            21. In D.K. Basu's case this Court observed :
H
MEHBOOB BATCHA AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY 1105
 SUPDT. OF POLICE [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
  .......... "Custodial violence, including torture and death in the   A
  lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands
  that the powers of the executive should not only be derived
  from law but also that the same should be limited by law.
  Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated
  by the fact that it is committed by persons who are                  B
  supposed to be the protectors of the citizens, It is
  C..w ..~'11itted under the shield of uniform and authority in the
  four.w~!ls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being
  totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture
  and abuse by the police and other law-enforcing officers             c
  is a matter of deep concern in a free society.

         In spite of the constitutional and statutory provisions
  aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and life of a
  citizen, growing incidence of torture and deaths in police
  custody has been a disturbing factor. Experience shows . D
  that worst violations of human rights take place during the
  course of investigation, when the police with a view to
  secure evidence or confession often resorts to third-degree
  methods including torture and adopts techniques of
  screening arrest by either not recording the arrest or E
  describing the deprivation of liberty merely as a prolonged
  interrogation. A reading of the morning newspapers almost
  everyday carrying reports of dehumanising torture, assault,
  rape and death in custody of police or other governmental
  agencies is indeed depressing. The increasing incidence F
  of torture and death in custody has assumed such alarming
  proportions that it is affecting the credibility of the rule of
  law and the administration of criminal justice system. The
  community rightly feels perturbed. Society's cry for justice
  becomes louder.                                                 G
        Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes
 in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. The rights
 inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require
 to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish
                                                                       H
     1106     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A        away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman
         or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of
       . Article 21. of the Constitution, whether it occurs during
          investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries
         of the Government become law-breakers, it is bound to
B         breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness
          and every man would have the tendency to become law
        . unto himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilized
          nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off
        . his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman
c·        arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in
          abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal
        ·cord of human rights' jurisprudence. The answer, indeed,
          has to be an emphatic 'No'." ............. .
                                                 {emphasis supplied}
D
        22. Let a copy of this order be sent to Home Secretary
  and Director General of Polic.e of all States and Union
  Territories, who shall circulate the same to all police officers up
  to the level of S.H.O. with a directive that they must follow the
E directions given by this Court in D.K. Basu's case {supra}, and
  that custodial violence shall entail harsh punishment.
     B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.