THE SECRETARY, HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

          THE SECRETARY, HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION                                  A
                              v.
                   STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

                                   MAY 9, 1996

                 [A.M. AHMADI, C.J. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.]                            B

          Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : Section 12.

          Judicial proceedings or administration of justice-Due course of-inter-
    ference with-Death of undertria/ prisoner-False and fabricated report and        C
    affidavit-Filed by contemner to mislead court-His explanation found unac-
    ceptable-Inspite of ample opportunity contemner failed to bring true facts to
    notice of court-Contemner deliberately tried to cover up excesses committed
    by Police by narrating untrue facts and giving false particulars-Held : Jn the
,
    circumstances of the case, the belated apology by contemner not accept-
    ablC-Contenmer sentenced to 3 months' simple imp1isonment-Constitution           D
    of India, 1950, Art. 129.

          The petitioner-Bar Association forwarded to this Court a copy of its
    resolution condemning the brutal assault leading to the death of an
    undertrial prisoner. The copy of the resolution was treated as a Writ            E
    Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The allegation
    against the Superintendent of Police, the respondent-contemner, was that
    he suppressed true facts from the Court and gave a false report to mislead
    the Court as to what was the real cause of the death of the undertrial
    prisoner. It was pleaded by the respondent-contemner that he had no
    personal knowledge of the sequence of events from apprehension to the            F
    death of the undertrial prisoner. He had returned from leave and had
    resumed duty only after the death of the prisoner.

          Disposing of the petition, this Court

          HELD : 1.1. The explanation that the Superintendent of Police had G
    returned from leave and bad resumed duty only after the death of the
    undertrial prisoner on the face of it cannot be accepted. As a responsible
    police officer it was his duty to make proper investigation aud give a report
    to this Court. Assuming within the time frame of 48 hours ~e could not
    prepare a report properly, he should have stated that in his report. He H
                                          573
    574                  SUPREME cm;rn RFPORTS [1996J SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A could have even prayed for longer time for furnishing a report. But the
  allegation against him is that he deliberately gave a false report. In the
  aflidavit filed by him he had ample opportunity to make good the lapses
  made in the report and bring the true facts to the notice of the Court which
  he did not do. As a responsible police oflicer it was his duty to bring to
  the notice of the Court the police brutality that had taken place and the
B false documentation that was prepared by the various police personnel to
  supress the truth and to give a misleading picture. The glaring inconsis-
  tencies in the aflidavit tiled by him have been pointed out in the report of
  the CBI. The contemner had committed gross contempt of Court by trying
  to mislead the Court as to the cause of death of the undertrial prisoner.
C He has also tried to cover up the excesses committed by the police which
  brought about the death of the undertrial prisoner by narrating untrue
  facts and giving false particulars. [574-B-G]

           1.2. The report of the coctemner from the very begining has tried to
    mislead the Court as to the cause of death of the undertrial prisoner and
D   the alleged events that led to his apprehension by the police. The emphasis
    that he \\'as a veteran dacoit \Vas also obviously with a view to create
    prejudice. Far from trying to help the Court to do justice in this case, his
    report has tried to mislead the Court and prevent the Court from finding
    out the truth about the allegations made by the Petitioner-Bar Association.
E                                                                     [586-B-CJ
          13. The contemner deliberately forwarded an inaccurate report with
    a view to misleading this Court and thereby interfered with the due course
    of justice by attempting to obstruct this Court from reaching a correct
    conclusion. He is, therefore, guilty of contempt under Article 129 of the
    Constitution read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He
F
    has tendered his apology only after his report was found out to be mis-
    leading and his aflidavit was found to be false. Having regard to the gravity
    of the case the contemner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of
    three months. [586-C-D]

G         CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Motzt Contempt.

                                         IN

          Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 209 of 1993.

H         (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
           SECY. HAILAKANDI BAR ASSN. 1•. STATE[SEN,J.]                  575

     S. Muralidhar for the Petitioner.                                          A
      Shakil Ahmed Syed for Respondent No. l/State.

      Ram .I ethmalani, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Arvind Nigam, for the Con-
temn er A.K. Sinha Cashyap.
                                                                                B
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SEN J.     This case arises out of a notice issued to A.K. Sinha
Casshyap, Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi to show cause why he
should not be held guilty of Contempt of Court. The allegation against the
contemner is that a shocking case of police brutality leading to the death      C
of an undertrial prisoner was sought to be covered up by him by an untrue
and misleading report sent to this Court followed by a false affidavit.

      The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association, forwarded to this Court
a copy of the resolqtion passed by the Association at an emergent meeting
held on 16th March, 1993 condemning the brutal assault leading to the           D
death of an undcrlrial prisoner Nurul Haque.

       Having regard to the serious nature of the complaint, this Court by
an order dated 20th August, 1993 decided to treat the copy of the resolu-
tion forwarded by the Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association as Writ
                                                                              E
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Director
General of Police, State of Assam, was directed to inquire into the matter
and send a detailed report in regard to the events leading to the death of
Nurul Haque. Pursuant to the said order, the Director General of Police
forwarded his report under letter No. C-150/91/107 dated 13th September,
1993. In the letter it was stated that the Director General of Police got the F
matter investigated by the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, who
prepared a report which was forwarded to this Court along with a medical
certificate dated 10th March, 1993 and particulars of medical examination
of Nurul Haque done on 11th March, 1993. In the report prepared by the
Superintendent of Police, it was specifically stated, "Nurul Haque neither G
died in police lock-up nor in police custody. He died while in judicial
custody as UTP (undertrial prisoner). He was not tortured during the
period of police custody."

     To say the least, the report \Vas not satisfactory. The inconsistency in
the statement of facts made in the report was pointed out in the Order of H
    576                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A this Court dated 24th January, 1994. It was noted in the Order that the
    report of the Superintendent of Police that "the P.M. Report did to indicate
    any e"ternal injury over the dead body" was factually incorrect and mis-
    leading. The Superintendent of Police, A.K. Sinha Cashyap, was asked to
    explain the same by affidavit and he stated the word 'not' had in Adver-
    tently appeared for which he tendered apology. This explanation was also
B   found to be unsatisfactory. It was pointed out that deletion of 'not' will
    leave the sentence grammatically incorrect. The senior police officers were
    reminded to show extra-care while forwarding their comments to this Court
    and not to mechanically forward the information collected by their subor-
    dinates. The Court had called for the report of the Director General of
c   Police because the Court reposed confidence in the objectivity of a person
    holding such a high office. It was further noted in the Order that another
    disturbing feature of the case was that the police had registered the offence
    under Section 302 I.P.C. against unknown members of the public. The story
    given out by the police that the members of the public had beaten Nurul
D   Haque before he was apprehended by the police was not borne out by the
    reaction of the public and also the Bar Association which had taken up the
    cause of Nurul Haque. Neither the report of medical examination done on
    12th March, 1993 nor the laboratory report on the viscera had been
    forwarded. Having regard to the facts and especially to the fact that the
    deceased had suffered a fracture, the possibility of the injuries having been
E   caused by the police could not be ruled out a;together. It was ordered :

            "Since the local police at the highest level have tak,on a stand that
            the assault on the deceased was by members of the public and not
            the police after the apprehension of the deceased, it is futile to
F           expect an independent and wholly objective investigation by the
            State Police. Even otherwise, the people will have little confidence
            in the investigation no matter how honest and objective the inves-
            tigation be. In the circumstances, we deem it most appropriate that
            the investigation of the crime in regard to the murder of the
            deceased under CR Case No. 275/93 and/or F.I.R. No. 120/93
G           should be undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation
            (CBI). In doing so, the CBI will bear in mind the allegation of the
            wife and other relations of the deceased that he died on account
            of the beating given to him after his apprehension on 9.3.1993,
            without being influenced by the fact that in the F.1.R. No. 120/93,
H           it is alleged that the assault was by the members of the public.
           SECY. HAILAKANDI BAR ASSN. v. STATE [SEN, J.]                   577

            The Registrar General will write a letter to the Director of CBI A
        to take immediate steps to take over the investigation of the crime
        from the local police and try to complete the same at an early date
        and bring the real culprits to book. This petition will stand so
        disposed of."

       After the Writ Petition was disposed of on 24th January, 1994, a           B
report was received from Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE Division,
Silchar, Along with the report he sent a forwarding letter dated 5th June,
1995 in which he stated that the disdainful role played by Shri AK. Sinha
Cashyap, the then Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi District, was
against all tenets of law and morality. He submitted a false/fabricated           c
affidavit/report to the Honb'ble Supreme Court. The falsity of his report
submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court is evidence in every sentence, if
not every word of the report of said Shri A.K. Sinha Cashyap, S.P. On
consideration of the letter and the report submitted by the Superintendent
of Police, CBI, a Show Cause Notice was served upon A.K. Sinha Cashyap
for showing cause why he should not be punished for the criminal contempt         D
of this Court for filing a false and fabricated report/affidavit in this Court.

      Since the allegation against Shri A.K. Sinha Cashyap is that he had
given an untrue report and filed a false affidavit about the death of Nurul
Haque to mislead the Court, it is necessary to set out the facts found by         E
the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, in detail.

      On 9th March, 1993 being Tuesday was a market day. It was the
month of Ramzan. Nurul Haque, resident of Boalipar under P.S. Hailakan-
di, was coming back from the market towards his house at about 7.00/7.30
P.M. He was 35 years of age and in goods health. A Police party, led by           P
Abdul Hye Choudhury, S.I., arrested Nurul Haque. His house was about
400 yards from the market. As per the version of eye witnesses, Nurul
Haque was overpowered by S.I. Abdul Hye Choudhury and party, who
were all in plain clothes, and took him into a Police J cep to Hailakandi
Police Station.
                                                                                  G
       Although the Police later claimed that Nurul Haque was assaulted
by members of the public at the time of the arrest, neither the villages nor
relatives nor market people) who were eye witnesses to the incident,
noticed any such assault, nor \Vas there any record of Nurul Haque being
treated for injury on 9th March, 1993.                                       H
    578                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          On 10th March, 1993, in the early morning, Azizur R~hman, brother
    of Nurul Haque, his wife and mother went to meet Nurul Haque at
    Hailakandi Police Station, but were not allowed to meet him. On 11th
    "vlarch, 1993, Azizur Rahman and some other relatives of Nurul Haque
    went to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, where they
    met nurul Haque, who told them that he had been brutally beaten up by
B   S.I. Abdul Hye Choudhury, Roy Daroga (Rajan Roy S.I.) and Home Guard
    Dalim in the lock-up. On 11th March, 1993, Nurul Haque was produced
    before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, with a prayeir for 72 hours
    police remand. It was also prayed that since Nurul Haque was assaulted
    by members of the public, medical treatment may be provided to Nurul
C   Haque. The prayer was granted.

        Even before this, on 10th March, 1993 Nurul Haque had been taken
  to Hailakandi Civil Hospital at about 5.30 P.M. for treatment. He was
  brought back to the Police Station after receiving treatment. Dr. M.L.
  Bhattacherjee, the Medical Officer of duty, examined the patient and
D recorded his findings in the Emergency Register as follows :

             (i) Abrasion in cheek 1 cm x 1 cm. This may be caused either by
             hitting of a blunt object or by falling.

            (ii) One abrasion in left leg 2'5 cm x 1 cm. This might be due to
E
            fall or some blunt object.

             (iii) Abrasion on fore-head, 2 cm x 2 cm. It may be due to the
            same reason as mentioned earlier.

F            (iv) Deep tenderness on right leg. The patient was complaining
             that he was having a severe pain on right leg. As far as he
             remembers this was just below the medial side. But there was no
             external injury at the spot."

          The patient complained that he had been beaten up by the police.
G The police said that he was a dacoit and was brought for medical treatment
    after arrest. The Doctor advised X-Ray, A.P. and lateral view of right Tibia
    and the Fibula. The Doctor noticed that all the injuries were fresh and had
    heen received within 24 hours. The patient was healthy and could walk
    freely with a slight limp for pain on the right leg. The patient was treated
H   at Emergency Ward for about 15 minutes and then discharged. As the
          SECY. HAILAKANDIBARASSN. v. STATE[SEN,J.]                      579

X-Ray machine of the Civil Hospital was not in order, the Doctor advised A
the police party to get a X-Ray done outside. There is nothing on record
to show that Nurul Haque was given any treatment thereafter nor any
X-Ray was done as advised by the Doctor. But, he was interrogated
thoroughly.

      On 11th March, 1993 at 1.15 P.M. Nurul Haque was taken from               B
Hailakandi Police Station to Civil Hospital for treatment. The Doctor on
duty, Dr. H.A. Ahmed, recorded the following injuries suffered by the
patient:

        "(i) One lascerated injury precent over the left thumb of size 2'5
        cm x 1'5 x skin deep.
                                                                                c
        (ii) One abrasion over the left forearm at middle third of size l
        cm. x 2 cm.

        (iii) One abrasion present over the left arm of size 2'5 cm x 2 cm.     D
        (iv) One abrasion present over the left leg. over the tibin of size 2
        cm x 2 cm.

        (v) One lascerated wound present over the right leg at upper third
        over tibia of size 15 c1n x 1/5 x bone deep and causing severe
                                                                                E
        tenderness.Tl

        Al 2.15 P.M. Nurul Haque was brought back from the hospital and
kept in the lock-up of the Police Station. He was produced before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, on 12th March, 1993, with a prayer for
holding Test Identification Parade. Th~ prayer was allowed. In the order F
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, it was recorded that Nurul
Haque had been given medical treatment and that the jail doctor should
provide treatment to Nurul Haque. The Jail doctor checked Nurul Haque
and found that he was suffering from multiple injuries and due to lack of
facilities he referred the patient to Civil Hospital, Hailakandi. At 6.45 P.M.
Nurul Haque was once again brought to Hailakandi Civil Hospital. He was G
taken to the Casualty Ward. In the Casualty Ward Register it was recorded
that he was suffering from multiple injury. Dr. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharjee
was the doctor on duty. However, later on an eA1ra word 'old' \Vas inserted
in between 'n1ultiple' and 'injury' to give a \Vrong impression about the
period when the injuries were suffered. He was admitted at 7.20 P.M. in H
    580                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the Indoor Ward. In the treatment report, the time of the in.jury was
    apparentlv corrected from 12 hours to 40 hours. It was recorded that the
    patient was healthy and fully conscious and the following injuries were
    found:

            "(i) One lascerated injury in left thumb.
B
            (ii) One abrasion over left forum at middle third.

            (iii) One abrasion over left arm.

            (iv) One abrasion over left leg over Tibin.
c
            (v) One lascerate<l injury present in the right leg upper third to
                Tibia.

          And the all IO.Junes were found infected and there was no
    record/report available for having conducted X-ray cxamination.    11


D
          The patient received some treatment but he collapsed on 13th
    March, 1993 at 5.25 A.M. Dr. Gautam Pal, who was on duty, noted that
    the patient was deeply unconscious, pulse rate rapid and thready, blood
    pressure could not be felt. The patient was injected Decadrum, a life saving
E   drug. He was put on oxygen and cardiac massage was also given. At 5.30
    A.M. Nurul Raque died.

          The Superintendent of Hailakandi Civil Hospital informed the Su-
    perintendent, District Jail, Hailakandi, th~t the undcrtrial prisoner Nurul
    Haque admitted on the previous day with the multiple injuries had expired
F   at 5.30 AM. on 13th March, 1993 due to Cardio Respiratory failure as per
    hospital record. The death was also recorded in the Gndertrial Prisoners
    Register of Hailakandi District Jail. The deadbody was sent for burial.
    There \Vas no record of intimating family members.

          Hailakandi police registered a case under Section 302 IPC in respect
G of the death of Nurul Haque against the members of the public on the basis
    of complaint filed by S.I. A.H. Choudhury. The case was to be investigated
    by Dinanda Phukan, O.C. The inquest was conducted by N. Borborah, S.l.,
    Hailakandi Police Station on 13th March, 1993 in the Civil Hospital. There
    were eight injuries in the lower portion of the right hand, in the right hand
H   joint etc. There was s\vclling and lasceration in the right hand and also the
           SECY.HAILAKANDIBARASSN. v. STATE [SEN,J.]                       581

right side of the waist. There was swelling on the right and left knees.         A

       On 14th March, 1993 the deadbody was sent to Hailakandi Civil
Hospital for post mortem examination which was done by Dr. S.R. Roy
who was only an L.M.F. doctor and not qualified for the job. According to
his finding the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the death was due
to Mayocardial Infraction with heart failure.                                    B

       The deadbody was collected and sent to family members of Nurul
Haque. It was refused by the family members. The Superintendent of
District Jail, Hailakandi, wrote to the C.J.M., Hailakandi, that as the
relatives of the deceased were unwilling to take the deadbody fm burial,
he may be allowed to dispose of the deadbody as per Jail Manual Rule
                                                                                 c
and Muslim Religious Rite. The prayer was allowed by the C.J.M.

       On 15th March, 1993, the Superintendent of District Jail, Hailakandi,
requested the C.J.M. that no relative of the deceased had come to take the
 deadbody from the Civil Hospital for burial. The dead body was getting          D
 decomposed gradually and bad smell coming out from it. A prayer was
made for disposal of' the body as per Muslim Religious Rites. The prayer
was allowed. The wife of the deceased, Fatcma Begum, filed an application
for recalling the order and to pass order for the post mortem examination
of the deadbody by a medical team in Silchar Medical College. The C.J.M.
called for a report from the Jail Superintendent about the disposal of the
                                                                                 E
 deadbody immediately. The Superintendent reported that the deadbody
was sent to Government land near Basic Training Centre, but the public
of that area strongly objected to the burial of the deadbody. The deadbody
was lying in front of Police Station Hailakandi at the time when the matter
\Vas reported.                                                                   F
       The C.J.M. thereupon passed an order on the application of the
widow of Nurul Haque and noted the fact that a number of lawyers
appeared in his court and prayed for further post mortem examination        at
Silchar Medical College. The C.J.M. thereupon directed the <lea<lbody to
be sent to Silchar for further medical examination. T.he wife· of the G
deceased was directed to accompany the deadbody .and take delivery of
the deadbody after post mortem was over. On 16th March, 1993, the
deadbody was brought to Silchar Medical College and the post mortem
\Vas conducted by Dr. B.K. Barah carried out the post n1ortem exa1nination
and sent the viscera for further examination. In the report of the Su~erin- H
    582                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A tendent of Police, CBI, it has been stated :

            "........... an accused who was arrested in healthy condition was a
            dead person at the hands of police and the attending doctors. They
            neither gave him food nor proper medical treatment throughout
            this period. In the C.D. of the r.o. nowhere it is mentioned that
B           he was provided with even a glass of water, less to say of food.
            Despite repeated suggestion of the doctor to get him x:rayed, no
            X-ray was got done though his right leg was fractured. The in-
            evitable result was the death of deceased Nurul Haque at the hand
            of the Police to which all others including doctors and the
c           Magistracy lent support. The cause of death was ostensibly shown
            as Cardiac Respiratory Failure which was not a correct fact. The
            deceased had no history of Cardiac problem, nor any ECG of him
            was got done during his police custody nor he had ever complained
            about this problem to the police. However, anything could have
            happened to a person subjected to physical torture, shock and lack
D           of sleep, lack of food and having been kept in the lock·up for last
            72 hours."

          Commenting on the report submitted by the Superintendent of
    Police, Hailakandi, to this Court, it has been stated :
E           "The report submitted by the S.P. Hailakandi, is full of inac-
            curacies, lack of evidence and false instances some of which are
            as follows:

            (1) Para 1, page-1 of the report says that Bheru Mia, Akkadas Ali
F           and others have confessed that under the leadership of Nurul
            Haque they committed 5/6 dacoities cannot be proved and name
            of Nurul Haque does not appear in any of the charge sheet or FIR
            of the cases. The above mentioned persons \Vere examined by the
            LO. and by the Hon'ble Court and they have not stated the above
            allegation.
G
             (2) The allegation of the S.P. that Nurul Haque committed many
             dacoity and rape in the locality and he was beaten bu the members
             of the public do not have any evidence to support it. That he was
             arrested on 10.3.93 is also wrong and clearly shows wrongful
H          ' confinement. Toe CJ .M., Hailakandi, allowed police custody for
          SECY. HA!LAKANDI BA!l ASSN. v. STATE [SEN,J.]                583

        72 hours and not 24 hours. The statement of the SP that Nurul         A
        Haque was again forwarded to the Court on 12.3.93 after complet-
        ing his interrogation is slightly mistaken because Nurul Haque was
        reproduced before !he Court only to conduct TIP for which the
        C.J.M. Hailakandi fixed the date on 15.3.93. The report of the SP
        that the UTP was referred to Hailakandi Civil Hospital on making
                                                                              B
        complaint of chest pain is also false.

        (3) The statement of the S.P. that the P.M. Report revealed that
        death was due to Myocardial Infection with Heart Failure and that
        the P.M. report did not indicate any C>-1ernal injury over the dead
        body is also false as mentioned earlier.                              c
        (4) That the re-post mortem examination is conducted by a team
        of doctor and that no opinion could be given because of highly
        decomposed state is also wrong/inaccurate. In fact the re- post
        mortem examination was conducted by Police Surgeon and
        Mediocolcgal Expert Professor B.K. Borah of S.M.C.                    D

        (5) On para 1 page 3 the S.P. has written that the viscera was
        preserved and sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination is not
        correct because it was never sent to S.F.S.L. It was kept at P.S.
        Hailakandi only. Recently, it has been traced at Police Station,
        Hailakandi, itself and seized by CBI and now it has been sent to
                                                                              E
        C.F.S.L. for opinion."

      In reply to the notice why action should not be taken nor contempt
of court against him; A.K. Sinha Cassyap has stated that he never intended
to disobey or defy an order of the Court or to mislead the Court. He has F
tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology for this. It has been
stated that he was in a shocked state of mind because of certain develop-
ments, particulars of which have been stated in the affidavit. He has
referred to a final report of the CBI dated 24/25.8.1995 in which prosecu-
tion has been recommended against certain police officers, but so far as
A.K. Sinha Cassyap is concerned, only recommendation is conveying of G
displeasure by Government. It has been stated by A.K. Sinha Cassyap that
he was on leave at the time when this incident took place. When he joined
service, he got only 48 hours time to make his report. He has made his
report on the basis of the material available. But A.K. Sinha Cassyap has
not only sent a report but has also filed an affidavit pursuant to the order H
    584                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A of this Court when the report was found unsatisfactory. He had ample time
    lo bring the facts lo the notice of the Court by that affidavit. There is no
    explanation for the reason why he did not bring the true facts to the notice
    of the Court which was his duty to do.

          It is true that the CBI Report has not recommended any criminal
B proceeding against him. But the allegation against A.K. Sinha Cassyap is
  that he suppressed true facts from the Court and gave a false report to
  mislead the Court as to what was the real cause of the death of Nurul
  Haque. It has been stated hy A.K. Sinha Cassyap that he had no personal
  knowledge of the sequence of events from apprehension to the death of
C Nurul Haque. He had returned from leave and had resumed duty only in
  the afternoon on l(J[h '.vi arch, J993 when Nurul Haque had a.lready died.
  This explanation on the face of it is not acceptable. As a responsible police
  officer it was his duty to make proper investigation and give a report to
  this Court. Assuming within the time frame of 48 hours he could not
D prepare a report properly, he should have slated that in his report. He
  could have even prayed for longer time for furnishing a report. But the
  allegation against him is that he deliberately gave a false report. In the
  affidavit filed by him he had ample opportunity to make good the lapses
  made in the report and bring the true facts to the notice of the Court which
  he did not do. The affidavit filed by AK. Sinha Cassyap in this Court is
E dated 26th November, 1993 pursuant to the direction given by this Court
  on 29th October, 1993. As a responsible police of:lcer it was his duty to
  bring tu the notice of the Court the police brutality that had taken place
  and the false documentation that was prepared by the varipus police
  personnel to suppress the truth and to give a misleading picture. The
  glaring inconsistencies in the a!fidavit filed by him have been pointed out
F
  in the report of the CBI, particulars of which have been set out
  hereinabove. A.K. Sinha Cassyap has not dealt with those particulars. He
  has only stated that that was not the final report of the CBI. The final
  report does not contain anything to the contrary to what has been stated
  in the report submitted to this Court. In our view, A.K. Sinha Cassyap, the
G contemner has committed gross contempt of court by trying to mislead the
  Court as to the cause of death of Nurul Haque. He has also tried to cover
  up the excesses committed by the police which brought about the death of
  Nurul Haque by narrating untrue facts and giving false particulars.

H         We, therefore, hold that A.K. Sinha Cassyap is guilty of contempt of
           SECY. HAILAKANDJ BAR ASSN. v. STATE [SEN, .1.]                  585

this Court. The belated apology given by AK. Sinha Cassyap cannot be A
accepted because it has not been given in good faith. He has tendered this
apology only after his report was found out to be misleading and his
affidavit was found to be false. He had unnecessarily highlighted in his
report that Nurul Haque was a dacoit for which there was no clear
evidence. He had slated in his report categorically a[tcr reciting some
                                                                                   B
mis_leac..ling fact) 11 From the above facts and circun1stances, it is cle~r that,
Dacoit, Nurul Haque neither died in Police Lock-up nor in Police custody.
He died while in Judicial custody as UTP. He was no!torturet!"during the
period of Police custody.''

      AK. Sinha Cassyap has stated that he had to make his report on the         C
basis of the records of the case as he had no personal knowledge of this
case. But the records reveal that the particulars of injuries noted by Dr'.
H.A Ahmed on 10th March, 1993 at 1.50 P.M. were more than what were
noticed by Dr. M.L. Bhattacharaya on 10th March, 1993 at 5.30 P.M. This
can only mean that more injuries had been inflicted upon Narul Haque             D
after he was examined by Dr. M.L. Bhattacharya. It appears that the
contemner has ignored even tell-tale evidence available on the record.

      We are of the view that this was a highly irresponsible report regard-
less of the truth and also against the records of the case. In spite of the
nature of the injuries detected and reported from time to time by various        E
doctors who examined Nurul Haque after his apprehension by·the police
and regardless of the recommendations for X-ray examination of the
injured leg, which was never done, the contemner has boldly reported to
his Court that Nurul Haque was not tortu.red during the period of police
custody. His report begins under the heading "Death of veteran dacoit             F
Nurul Haque" and ends with the summing up "Dacoit, Nurul Haque died
neither in Police Lock-up nor in Police Custody".

      This goes to show that the contemner was trying to highlight the fact
that nurul Haque was a veteran dacoit and possibly deserved the treatment
that he got at the hand of the police. The CBI report indicates that there G
is no record of any conviction of Nurul Haque in any dacoity case. Not
only that the story of saving Nurul Haque from Public wrath by the police
party on 9th March, 1993 is also not borne out by facts. He was not taken
for medical examination on the 9th March immediately after the alleged
assault by the members of the public. He was taken to Hailakandi Civil H
    586                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Hospital at 5.30 p.m. on 10th March when various fresh injuries were noted
    on his body by the doctors. No case of assault was also registered after
    rescuing Nurul Haque from alleged public wrath. This case was made only
    after Nurul Haque's death. The report from the very beginning has tried
    to mislead the Court as to the cause of death of Nurul Haque and the
    alleged even•s that led lo his apprehension by the police. The emphasis
B   that he was a veteran dacoit was also obviously with a view to create
    prejudice. Far from trying to help the Court to do justice in this case, his
    report has tried to mislead the Court and prevent the Court from finding
    out the truth about the allegations made by the Bar Association of
    H ailakandi.
c          We, therefore, hold that the contemncr deliberately forwarded an
    inaccurate report with a view to misleading this Court and thereby inter-
    fered with the due course of justice by attempting to obstruct this Court
    from reaching a correct conclusion. In the facts and circumstances of the
    case, we cannot accept his apology and hereby reject it. We hold him guilty
D   of contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution .read with Section 12 of
    the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having regard to the gravity of the case,
    we sentence the contemncr A.K. Sinha Cashyap to undergo simple im-
    prisonment for a term of three months. The contempt rule is disposed of
    finally as above.
E         The Director General of Police, Assam is directed to ensure that this
    order is carried out forthwith and the contemner is taken into custody and
    imprisoned to serve the sentence. The Registrar General will communicate
    this order to Director General of Police, Assam, with a direction to report
    compliance to him.
F
    v.s.s.                                                 Petition disposed of.