Supreme Court of India
VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 490
- Decided
- 9 July 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The medical jurist's opinion conclusively disproved the prosecution's version, rendering the eyewitness testimony unreliable, and therefore the convictions were unsustainable.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the conviction of two police officers for the death of Jeeva, who allegedly died from custodial torture at Amraiwadi police station. The trial and High Court had upheld the conviction, later reducing the charge from murder (Sec. 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec. 304 Part I IPC). The Court found that the medical jurist’s expert opinion showed the injuries were fresh and could not have been sustained if the victim had climbed several flights of stairs to the DCP’s office, contradicting the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s sisters. The sisters' failure to promptly report the alleged assault and their prior criminal records rendered their testimony unreliable. The Court also held that mere marking of exhibits without expert testimony does not satisfy evidentiary requirements. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the quashing of the convictions and acquittal of the accused.
Issues considered
- The prosecution failed to prove the accused guilty of custodial torture leading to death beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the medical expert's opinion on the freshness and timing of injuries overrides contradictory eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the conduct of the eyewitnesses (delay in reporting, prior criminal cases) renders their testimony unreliable.
- Whether contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrant overturning the conviction.
- Whether marking of exhibits without expert testimony satisfies the requirements of the Evidence Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 394
- Evidence Act, 1872
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 302, s. 304 Part I
Subjects
custodial torturecustodial deathpolice custodyjudicial custodymultiple injuriesmedical jurist evidenceocular evidenceacquittalunnatural conduct of witnessesmarking of exhibitcontradiction between medical and ocular testimony
Judgment
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 365 : 2024 INSC 490
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs.
v.
The State of Gujarat
(Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2017)
09 July 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated
13.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
whereby, the Division Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred
by the appellant accused-A1 and altered his conviction as recorded
by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Penal Code, 1860 to one under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – Custodial torture – Death of victim –
Acquittal of accused – Prosecution case that the two police
officers i.e. A1 and A2, assaulted J in the confines of the
Amraiwadi police station at separate intervals causing multiple
injuries all over his body due to which he later died – Trial
Court proceeded to convict both the accused and sentenced
them to imprisonment for life – A1 and A2 appealed before
the High Court – During the pendency of appeal, A-2 expired –
High Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court, however,
the offence was toned down from Section 302 IPC to offence
under Section 304 Part I IPC – Correctness:
Held: J had come along with his advocate and his two sisters
namely, PW-1 and PW-2 and surrendered at the Amraiwadi police
station – Next evening J was produced before the jurisdictional
Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody whereafter, he
was taken to and lodged at the Sabarmati Central jail – J’s condition
deteriorated in the prison, later he died – It is further revealed from
the records that deceased-J had been taken and presented before
the DCP at the Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad and only thereafter,
he was produced in the concerned Court of the Magistrate – The
Medical Jurist (PW-9) stated that the person having received the
injuries noted in the post-mortem report (Exhibit-50) would not be
* Author
366 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
able to climb a stair case without support and that the expression
of the person and his movement would be painful – Thus, there
was hardly any possibility that after having received the injuries
mentioned in the postmortem report (Exhibit-50), deceased-J could
have climbed up the stairs of Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad for being
presented before DCP – Furthermore, on being presented before the
Magistrate, the expression of pain on the face of the victim, would
be prominently visible and could not have escaped being noticed by
the Magistrate – Medical Jurist (PW-9) opined in his examination in
chief that the injuries caused to the deceased were fresh and must
have occurred within six to eight hours of the death – Thus, there
is formidable evidence of the Medical Jurist (PW-9) which totally
discredits the version of the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3)
that deceased-J was inflicted the injuries leading to his death while
being in police custody at the Amraiwadi Police Station – Their
evidence is contradicted in material particulars by the medical
evidence and other attending circumstances – Considering the
unimpeachable and strong opinion of the Medical Jurist (PW-9),
the probability of the victim having been assaulted in Sabarmati
Central jail leading to the fatal injuries noted in the postmortem
report (Exhibit-50) is much higher as compared to the theory set up
in the complaint and the evidence of the star prosecution witness
that deceased-J was fatally assaulted by A1 and A2 while he was
detained at the Amraiwadi Police Station – The prosecution has
failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons (A1)
(since deceased) and (A2)(since deceased) by leading cogent,
convincing and reliable evidence and their conviction as recorded
by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable
in the eyes of law – Resultantly, both accused A-1 and A-2 are
acquitted of the charges. [Paras 41, 42, 43, 46, 50, 52]
Evidence – Testimony of witness – Unnatural conduct:
Held: In the instant case, two sisters (PW-1 and PW-2) claimed
to have personally witnessed the assault being made on J
(deceased) – They admitted in their cross-examination that
they had been arraigned as accused in a couple of prohibition
cases – Thus, it can safely be inferred that these two so-called
eyewitnesses were having sufficient contact with the legal system
and were well aware of the legal machinery and would be knowing
the importance of filing a complaint promptly – However, they did
not approach the higher officials or the concerned Court to make
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 367
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
a complaint of the alleged assault made on their victim brother in
the Amraiwadi Police Station by the police officials – They also
did not approach the advocate engaged by them to tell him about
the custodial torture – This pertinent omission in failing to inform
their advocate about the custodial torture allegedly meted out to
J gives rise to a strong assumption about the unnatural conduct
of these eyewitnesses, casting a doubt on the truthfulness of their
version and discredits their testimony. [Paras 29, 30]
Evidence Act, 1872 – Marking of exhibit – Proof of document:
Held: Mere marking of exhibit upon the letter without the expert
deposing about the opinion given therein would not dispense with
the proof of contents of the document as per the mandate of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 36]
Evidence – Contradiction between the opinion of Medical jurist
and ocular testimony:
Held: This Court is conscious of the proposition that where there
are contradictions inter se between the opinion of the Medical
Jurist and the ocular testimony, generally, the evidence of the
eyewitnesses should be given precedence – However, where
the contradiction is so prominent that it completely demolishes
the version of the eyewitnesses who are interested and partisan,
in such cases, the Court should be circumspect in admitting the
evidence of the eyewitness while ignoring the convincing opinion
of the Medical Expert. [Para 44]
Case Law Cited
Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [2012] 9
SCR 1173 : (2013) 6 SCC 417; Shivasharanappa and Others
v. State of Karnataka [2013] 5 SCR 1104 : (2013) 5 SCC 705;
Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat [2023] 2 SCR
746 : [2023] 4 SCALE 478; Harvinder Singh alias Bachhu v.
State of Himachal Pradesh [2023] 13 SCR 1157 : 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1347; Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh [2020]
8 SCR 1071 : (2020) 10 SCC 733; Sait Tarajee Khimchand and
Others v. Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and Others (1972) 4
SCC 562; Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and
Another [2003] Supp. 5 SCR 90 : (2003) 8 SCC 745; Bhajan
Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Others v. State of Haryana
[2011] 7 SCR 1 : (2011) 7 SCC 421 – relied on
368 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872
List of Keywords
Custodial torture; Custodial death; Police custody; Judicial custody;
Multiple injuries; Formidable evidence of the Medical Jurist; Ocular
evidence; Acquittal of charges; Unnatural conduct of witnesses;
Marking of exhibit; Proof of document; Contradiction between the
opinion of Medical jurist and ocular testimony.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2038
of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2017 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLA No. 210 of 1997
Appearances for Parties
Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Anando Mukherjee, Ms. Ekta Bharati,
Shwetank Singh, Ms. Shreya Bansal, Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Ms.
Urmi H. Raval, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt,
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th
February, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1997, whereby, the Division
Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred by the accused appellant
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas and altered his conviction as recorded by
the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) to
one under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo
eight years rigorous imprisonment and further directed that he shall
pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 369
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
2. Learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad(hereinafter
being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) tried the accused appellant Vinod
Jaswantray Vyas(Original accused No.1)(hereinafter being referred
to as ‘A1’) and his co-accused Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel(Original
accused No.2)(hereinafter being referred to as ‘A2’) for the offences
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC and vide
judgment dated 4th March, 1997, the learned trial Court proceeded
to convict both the accused for the above offences and sentenced
them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
3. A1 and A2 preferred separate appeals before the Gujarat High Court
being Criminal Appeal Nos. 210 of 1997 and 226 of 1997 respectively,
to challenge the judgment dated 4th March, 1997 passed by the learned
trial Court. A2 expired during the pendency of the appeal before the
High Court. However, being a Government servant, the question of
his conviction had a direct bearing on his death-cum-retiral benefits
and thus, his legal heirs applied for and were granted permission to
prosecute the appeal further. Both appeals were decided by a learned
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court vide common judgment
dated 13th February, 2017 and the learned Division Bench proceeded
to affirm the findings of the learned trial Court holding that A1 and A2
had subjected Jeeva(deceased) to physical violence in police custody
and thereby, the findings of guilt were affirmed. However, the offence
was toned down from Section 302 IPC to offence under Section 304
Part I IPC and the sentence was modified as above.
4. Only A1 approached this Court to challenge the impugned judgments
whereas, the legal heirs of the co-accused, A2 have not challenged his
conviction. Leave was granted by this Court on 27th November, 2017.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the sentence awarded to the
accused appellant(A1) was suspended vide order dated 6th June, 2017
and he was directed to be released on bail. However, A1 also passed
away during pendency of the instant appeal and accordingly, by an
order dated 12th August, 2022 his legal heirs were taken on record and
were allowed to continue the appeal by virtue of provisions contained
in Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter
being referred to as ‘CrPC’), so as to seek service benefits of the
original appellant Vinod Jaswantray Vyas(since deceased) in the
event of the acceptance of the appeal.
370 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Brief facts: -
6. The accused appellant(A1) was posted as a Police Inspector at
Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad. One Jeeva had appeared
and surrendered at the said police station in the late hours of the
night on 10th June, 1992 as he had been arraigned as an accused
in C.R. No. 555 of 1992 registered at the said police station for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323,
324 and 427 IPC. He was also accompanied by the co-accused
Anna Dorai.
7. Jeeva had come to surrender at the police station along with his
advocate Shri Patanwadia and his two sisters namely, Selvin
Prabhakar(PW-1) and Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2). The advocate
Shri Patanwadia left after production of Jeeva at the police station,
however, the two sisters remained behind.
8. The original accused No.2(A2) was the Superintendent of Police at
the relevant point of time who came to the police station sometime
later. It is the case of prosecution that the two police officers i.e.
A1 and A2, assaulted Jeeva with fists and sticks in the confines
of the police station at separate intervals causing multiple injuries
all over his body due to which he became unconscious. He was
then dragged and placed in the lockup room of the police station.
Next evening i.e. on 11th June, 1992, Jeeva was produced before
the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody
whereafter, he was taken to and lodged at the Sabarmati Central
jail. Jeeva’s condition deteriorated in the prison and thus, he was
rushed to the civil hospital in the early hours of 12th June, 1992,
where the doctors declared him dead.
9. Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1), the sister of Jeeva(deceased), forwarded
a telegram(Exhibit-14) to the DGP office, Ahmedabad regarding the
custodial torture leading to her brother Jeeva’s death. However,
no action was forthcoming upon this telegraphic complaint,
whereupon she lodged a complaint(Exhibit-13) in the Court of
the Magistrate concerned on 1st July, 1992. In the interregnum, a
magisterial enquiry(inquest) had been undertaken. The dead body
of Jeeva(deceased) was subjected to postmortem at the BJ Medical
College, Ahmedabad by Dr. Nayan Kumar-Medical Jurist(PW-9). As
per the postmortem report(Exhibit-50), following external injuries
were observed on the body of Jeeva: -
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 371
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
“1) Abrasion on the doraam of right hand 1 x 1 cm in size
which was red in colour.
2) Abrasion on the posterior aspect of middle one-third of
the right arm 1 x 1 cm in size red in colour.
3) Two abrasions on the right shoulder each admeasuring
17 x 1 cm in size and red in colour.
4) Two bruises on the right scapular region each 6 x 4 cm
in size on the back.
5) Seven bruises on the back each varying in size but
about 2 x 4 cms to 4 x 1 cm.
6) Abrasion on the left wrist 1 x 1 cm.
7) Abrasion on the middle third of left forearm posterior
aspect about 2 x 1 cm.
8) Abrasion on the left shoulder 1 x 1 cm.
9) Abrasion on the left side of ligome 1 x 1 cm.
10) Bruise on the left lateral aspect of abdomen on mid-
axillary line at 10th rib 6 x 4 cm in size.
11) Bruise on the front of chest midline and 3rd rib 6 x 4
cm in size.
12) Bruise on the left anterior axillary line 4 x 5 cms in
size at nipple level.
13) Bruise on the left side of knee 2 x 5 cm.
14) Bruise on the left third 4 x 4 cm in size on thigh on
front middle.
Corresponding to such external injuries, following internal
injuries were observed:-
There was fracture of sternum under external wound No.11
which was transverse in direction. There was fracture of
4th, 5th and 6th ribs under external injury No.12. Pleura on
left side was cut. Left lung was ruptured under external
injury No.12. There was about 600ml fluid and clotted
blood in thorasic cavity. Paretareal cavity contained 1600
ml of clotted blood and fluid blood. Rupture of liver on
372 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the interior aspect of right lobe 3 x 4 cm in size. There as
rupture of spleen under external injury No.10. Rupture of
4 x 6 in size at diaphragmatic surface.”
10. The complaint(Exhibit-13) submitted by Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1)
was initially registered as Inquiry Case No. 84 of 1992. The learned
Magistrate directed an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.
Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC and the complaint came to be registered as Criminal
Case No. 1920 of 1993. Since the offence alleged was exclusively
sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Additional
City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, where the same was registered
as Sessions Case No. 378 of 1993. Charges were framed by the
trial Court against both the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC. The accused abjured
their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined a total of 10
witnesses and exhibited 62 documents in order to prove its case.
In their statements under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied
the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution case and
claimed to have been falsely implicated.
11. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence
counsel and upon appreciating the evidence available on record
proceeded to convict A1 and A2 and sentenced them both as above
vide judgment dated 4th March, 1997. The Division Bench of the
Gujarat High Court in appeal, while affirming the guilt of both the
accused, toned down the offence from Section 302 IPC to offence
under Section 304 Part I IPC vide judgment dated 13th February,
2017 which is assailed in the present appeal by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
12. Shri Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel representing the accused
appellant(A1), put forth the following submissions in order to assail
the impugned judgments seeking acquittal for the accused appellant-
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas(since deceased):-
(i) That there is a delay of around 20 days in filing the formal
complaint before the concerned Court of the Magistrate, since
the alleged incident took place on 10th June, 1992 and the
complaint came to be filed on 1st July, 1992.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 373
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
(ii) That the accused appellant had neither any motive nor any
reason to assault Jeeva(deceased).
(iii) That Jeeva(deceased) and Anna Dorai(both accused in C.R.
No. 555/92) had voluntarily surrendered at the Amraiwadi
Police Station. However, the injuries were suffered only by
Jeeva(deceased) which creates a doubt about the prosecution
story, inasmuch as, it cannot be believed that the police officers
who were presumably intending to extract confessions from the
accused would focus their attention only on one accused while
totally sparing the other who was also arraigned in the same case.
(iv) That Jeeva(deceased) was presented in the concerned Court
on 11th June, 1992, but he made no complaint whatsoever to
the Magistrate that he had been maltreated or assaulted by the
police officials at the police station. Jeeva(deceased) was having
significant criminal antecedents and had been arraigned as an
accused in multiple cases and had also been placed under
preventive detention. Therefore, he was fully aware about the
nitty gritties of the legal system. Thus, the rank silence on part
of the victim and his failure in raising a grievance before the
remand Magistrate that he had been subjected to custodial torture
at the police station despite having ample opportunity, creates a
grave doubt on the truthfulness of the entire prosecution case.
(v) That Jeeva(deceased) had been taken and presented before
the DCP Shri Surelia at the Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad and
only thereafter, he was produced in the concerned Court of the
Magistrate. Shri Raval referred to the testimony of Pratapbhai
Jagannath(PW-6) to contend that the office of DCP Shri Surelia
was located on the fifth floor and Jeeva(deceased) climbed the
staircases without any support or displaying signs of discomfort
or pain. He fervently contended that it is impossible to believe
that after having received such grave debilitating injuries as
described in the postmortem report, Jeeva(deceased) would
have been in a physical or mental condition to ascend and
descend five flights of stairs and that too without exhibiting any
sign of discomfort.
(vi) Shri Raval urged that Jeeva(deceased) had been sent to the
Sabarmati Central jail on 11th June, 1992 at around 6:30 pm
after being remanded to judicial custody. As per Shri Raval, the
374 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
probability of Jeeva(deceased) having been assaulted by co-
prisoners in the prison cannot be ruled out and is rather more
probabilized considering the fact that the injuries noticed on the
body of the victim were fresh in nature as per Dr. Nayan Kumar-
Medical Jurist(PW-9). To emphasize the above contention,
Shri Raval referred to the testimony(Exhibit-49) of the Medical
Jurist(PW-9) who categorically stated that the injuries caused
to Jeeva(deceased) were fresh and would have been suffered
within six hours of the death.
(vii) Shri Raval referred to the testimony of Udesingh Himmatsingh
Chauhan(PW-8) who stated that he had seen the red dust
over the clothes of dead body. He also claimed to have seen
Sabarmati Central jail from inside and stated that the soil of
the jail was red in colour. Based on the deposition of PW-8,
Shri Raval contended that when the inquest(Exhibit-45) was
carried out, the dead body of Jeeva was found smeared with
red soil which is typical to the Sabarmati Central jail. He thus
urged that there is imminent probability that Jeeva(deceased)
must have suffered the fatal injuries while being confined at
the Sabarmati Central jail.
(viii) That the so-called eyewitnesses(Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1),
Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2) and Nyakar Vasudev(PW-3))
emphatically stated that Jeeva(deceased) was beaten on same
parts of the body both by the accused appellant(A1) and co-
accused(A2). Shri Raval urged that it is impossible to believe
that two accused who assaulted the deceased at different
intervals would selectively target the same parts of the body
to land the blows.
(ix) That the accused appellant(A1) was a seasoned police officer
and hence, it does not stand to reason that he would use sticks
to assault the victim so as to leave behind visible marks and
risk the chance of the injuries being detected. He submitted that
clearly Jeeva(deceased) had been assaulted at the Sabarmati
Central jail and a totally false case has been foisted by the family
members of Jeeva(deceased) to wreak vengeance against the
accused persons on account of the fact that Jeeva(deceased)
was a known bootlegger and had been arraigned in number
of criminal cases by the police officials.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 375
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
On these counts, learned senior counsel implored the Court to accept
the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused
appellant of the charges.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State: -
13. Per contra, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned Standing Counsel
for the State of Gujarat, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant. She contended that the trial Court and the High Court,
after thorough appreciation of evidence have recorded concurrent
findings of facts holding the accused appellant(A1) and the co-
accused(A2) responsible for indulging in custodial violence thereby
causing death of Jeeva.
14. She contended that the witnesses, Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1),
Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2) had no reason so as to falsely
implicate the accused appellant(A1) for the murder of their brother
Jeeva(deceased). Presence of these witnesses at the Amraiwadi
Police Station was not disputed by the accused persons. The
evidence of these witnesses is reliable and trustworthy. The witness
Nyakar Vasudev(PW-3) was admittedly detained in the lockup of the
police station with Jeeva(deceased) and he too has given clinching
evidence supporting the case of prosecution and hence, this Court
should not feel persuaded to interfere with the concurrent finding of
facts recorded in the impugned judgments.
15. She further urged that Jeeva(deceased) was apprehensive that he
may be subjected to further cruelty at the hands of the police officials
if he made a complaint about the violence meted out to him in police
custody. Thus, rather than speaking out before the learned Magistrate,
he confided about the violence to his sister, Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1),
who sent a prompt telegram(Exhibit-14) setting out the details of the
incident to the DGP office, Ahmedabad promptly after the news of
death of her brother Jeeva was conveyed to her and thus, there is
no delay in lodging of the complaint.
16. She further contended that the influence of the accused persons
upon the investigation agency is clearly visible inasmuch as no
action was taken on the telegram(Exhibit-14) promptly sent by Selvin
Prabhakar(PW-1) who was later compelled to lodge a complaint
before the concerned Magistrate, only whereafter, the criminal case
could be registered against the accused.
376 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
17. She thus urged that the testimony of the witnesses examined by
the prosecution was rightly relied upon by the trial Court and the
High Court and that the impugned judgments do not warrant any
interference by this Court.
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have minutely reappreciated the evidence
available on record. We have also perused the judgments rendered
by the High Court as well as the trial Court.
Discussion of material/evidence available on record: -
19. The following facts are undisputed as per the record: -
(i) That A1 was posted as Police Inspector, Amraiwadi Police
Station and A2 was posted as Superintendent of Police on
the date of the incident.
(ii) That Jeeva(deceased) and Anna Dorai were arraigned as
accused in C.R. No. 555 of 1992, registered at the Amraiwadi
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 and 427 IPC.
(iii) That on 10 th June, 1992 at 10:45 pm, Jeeva(deceased)
accompanied by his two sisters, Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1) and
Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2) and advocate Shri Patanwadia
had gone to the Amraiwadi Police Station for surrendering in
connection with the above case. Anna Dorai also surrendered
along with Jeeva as he too was arraigned as an accused in
the same case.
(iv) That advocate Shri Patanwadia was not examined in evidence
in support of the prosecution case.
(v) That Anna Dorai who surrendered at the police station along
with Jeeva(deceased) in the same case, did not suffer any
injuries during the period of detention at the police station.
Anna Dorai was surprisingly not examined as a witness by
the prosecution.
(vi) That Meena, wife of Jeeva(deceased), who went to meet him in
the morning of 11th June, 1992 was not examined in evidence.
(vii) Jeeva(deceased) had sufficient exposure to the legal system and
procedure as he had previously also been arraigned in numerous
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 377
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
criminal cases. Association of advocate Shri Patanwadia in the
process of Jeeva’s surrender is ample proof of this fact.
(viii) Before being presented in the Court of the Magistrate, Jeeva
(deceased) was taken to the Karanj Bhavan and was presented
before DCP Shri Surelia whose office was located at the fifth
floor of the building and that Jeeva(deceased) ascended and
descended the multiple flight of stairs without exhibiting any
discomfort or signs of pain whatsoever.
(ix) Jeeva(deceased) was produced in the Court of Magistrate in
evening of 11th June, 1992 but he did not make any kind of
complaint whatsoever to the Magistrate that he had been beaten
by the accused at the police station.
(x) That as per Jeeva’s sister, Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1),
Jeeva(deceased) had complained after coming out of the
Magistrate’s Court that he had been beaten/tortured at the
police station but he could not make any complaint to the
Magistrate owing to the threat of retribution at the hands of
the police officials. However, the fact remains that Jeeva’s
sisters(PW-1 and PW-2) were free birds and nothing prevented
them from lodging a prompt complaint regarding the custodial
torture allegedly meted out to Jeeva(deceased) while he was
in police custody.
(xi) That the first complaint of the custodial torture meted out to
Jeeva(deceased) in form of the telegram(Exhibit-14) came to
be forwarded by Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1) to the DGP office,
Ahmedabad on 13th June, 1992. When no action was forthcoming
on this telegram(Exhibit-14), a formal complaint came to be
filed in the Court of the Magistrate concerned on 1st July, 1992.
(xii) That as per the evidence of Medical Jurist(PW-9), the injuries
noticed on the body of the deceased at the time of the
postmortem examination which was conducted on 12th June,
1992(between 4:15 pm to 5:30 pm) were fresh and were
caused within six to eight hours of the death. The Medical
Jurist(PW-9) observed in the postmortem report(Exhibit-50)
that he noticed 600 ml fluid blood and clotted blood in the
thoracic cavity and 1600 ml of fluid blood and clotted blood in
peritoneal cavity. He also gave a pertinent reply to a question
put in cross-examination that looking to the number of injuries
378 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
including the fractures and having rupture of liver and lung, a
person could not climb a staircase without support; he would
be depressed and his expression and movements would be
painful. The fracture of sternum and ribs would cause severe
pain and would also affect the respiratory system. Due to the
bruises and the fractures, the loss of blood would be about
30-35% of the total volume of blood in the body which would
cause drop in the blood pressure.
(xiii) The prosecution tried to overcome this pertinent opinion of
the Medical Jurist(PW-9) regarding the time of injuries by
examining the expert witness-Dr. Ravindra(PW-10) who gave his
opinion(Exhibit-53) on queries being raised by the Investigating
Officer which were based on the findings in postmortem
report(Exhibit-50). Nevertheless, the expert witness(PW-10)
while deposing, did not elaborate about the opinion which he had
expressed in answer to the queries raised by the Investigating
Officer. He only formally proved the letter(Exhibit-53) without
elaborating upon its contents. In the cross-examination, the
expert witness(PW-10) admitted that the doctor who had
performed the postmortem examination would be in a better
position to give opinion about the age of injuries.
20. Having set out the admitted facts, we shall now proceed to discuss the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. For the sake of convenience,
the details of the prosecution witnesses are reproduced hereinbelow
in a tabular form: -
PW-1 Selvin Prabhakar(Eyewitness)
PW-2 Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(Eyewitness)
PW-3 Naykar Vasudev(Eyewitness)
PW-4 Harishkumar Fakirswamy
PW-5 Dr. Digant Kalidas Dixit(Medical Officer)
PW-6 Pratapbhai Jagannath
PW-7 Ranjitsing Tensing
PW-8 Udesinh Himmatsinh Chauhan
PW-9 Dr. Nayankumar Natvarlal Parikh(Medical Jurist)
PW-10 Dr. Ravindra Shrikrishna Bhise(Expert witness)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 379
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
21. First, we shall discuss the evidence of the star prosecution witnesses
namely, Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1) and Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2).
Some relevant excerpts from the deposition of Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1)
and Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2) are reproduced hereinbelow for
the sake of ready reference: -
Examination-in-Chief of Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1)
“1.….Thereafter in the night at quarter to eleven hours PSI
Shri Vyas in the same room only nearby to the table of the
PSO making my brother to stand up facing the wall and
keeping both hands up and thereafter Shri Vyas delivered
blows with stick on the claws of the hands of my brother,
on the back, on the buttock, on the ankle and on the thigh
as also on the leg. Vyas Sir also pushed with stick on the
chest of my brother. For half an hour, as on getting beaten
up in this manner, my brother had fainted and had fallen
down. Thereafter two police persons lifted and threw away
my brother nearby to the table. At two hours in the night,
SP Shri C.G. Patel had come. I know that C.G. Patel and
at present he is present in the court as an accused person.
2. Shri C.G. Patel coming there made my brother to stand
up in such manner that his face was towards the wall and
he delivered stick blows on the hand, on the back, on the
side and also pushed with stick in the chest. Thereafter two
police persons had put my brother in the lock up. When
this happened at that time I and my sister Dhanlaxmi both
were present at the Amraivadi Police Station. We were
present in front of the lock up….
3……At quarter to six hours in the evening police persons
brought down stairs my brother and Anna. Thereafter,
policemen took both these persons at Court No. 7 and I
and my sister Dhanlaxmi had gone to the Court No.7. In
Court No. 7 these policemen were waiting for Shri Vyas
Sir with my brother and Anna as they were not having
sufficient papers. At that time my brother talked with me in
Madrasi means in Tamil language. At that time my brother
was weeping. When I asked him the reason for weeping
he told to me that- he is having severe pain in the chest
380 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and stomach and therefore he is unable to stand up. When
asked why, then he told to me that- both those persons
had beaten me up and therefore I am feeling the pain.
I asked my brother that as he has been beaten up, do
you want to file complaint before the Magistrate sir. Then
refused for the same. When I asked why, then he told to
me that- PI Shri Vyas and C.G. Patel have given me the
threat that if you will file complaint against us then, after
getting released from the jail, by planning police encounter,
and making you to run, bullet will be fired at you. Again he
stated to say that still he feels fearful….
4. On 12/6/92, at half past eleven hour in the morning two
police persons from jail had come there in civil dress and
told to us that-my brother Jeeva has died and his dead
body is kept in the PM Room of Civil Hospital and saying
this they had gone away……
….Thereafter at seven hours in the evening after conducting
the post mortem, we were handed over the dead body.
We had brought the dead body to our home. During the
night the dead body was kept at the home and on the
next day morning means on 13/6/92 the last ritual rites
were performed. During this night I had sent a telegram
from Lal Darwaja telegram office to Meghaninagar DGP
Office. The telegram stating about death of my brother in
this manner was sent…..
Thereafter, regarding this incident I had filed complaint in
the Metropolitan Court.
5…..In the year 1990, my brother Jeeva was arrested and
was sent up outside Ahmedabad in the jail. Jeeva was
kept in this manner for four months and after around four
months he was released…..
6.….During last year two cases of prohibition were filed
against me. The cases that were filed against me were
pertaining to Amraivadi Police Station. When Vyas Sir
was in charge of the Amraivadi Police Station, at that time
prohibition case was filed against me…..
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 381
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
….I have filed the complaint. In this complaint as witness
No.3 name of Vasu Parthasarthi is in Ex-12 complaint who
is not known to me…..
….In this complaint I did not give the name of Anna as
the witness. On 1/7/92, complaint was filed. During the
period when I had sent to telegram and filed the present
complaint, Vasu, Ravi, Hari and Anna none of these persons
had met me and I have not met them….
….It is not true that I, Jaykant and my sister and my
deceased brother Jeeva were jointly working as botleggers.
It is not true that, due to Vyas Sir joining the duty, as this
business has been closed, we have animosity towards
Vyas Sir….”
Cross-examination of Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1)
“8…..Thereafter on the next day, at 5.45 hours in the
evening when my brother was brought in the Court at that
time Advocate Shri Patanwadia met us. Prior to that we
did not inform to our advocate that as my brother is to be
produced, he should make the preparation for getting him
released on bail….
….During the period from 5.45 to 6.45 hours means for
around one hour my brother was made to sit in the Court.
During this period in the Court room many persons were
moving…..
….After my brother was brought in the Court, Patanwadia
Sir had gone out of the court compound. We had sent the
message to Patanwadia Sir and he came there and after
meeting he had gone. Our advocate stayed with us for
five-ten minutes….
….After my brother was beaten up, we met Patanwadia
Sir in the Court and during the intervening period, we did
not meet him. In the Court when Patanwadia Sir met us
for five-ten minutes, at that time he was informed that my
brother Jeeva has been beaten up in this manner and we
had shown the marks of my brother Jeeva getting beaten
up. These marks were not shown to Patanwadia Sir so
that he can take appropriate actions….
382 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9. When Jeeva is produced before the Magistrate and
if Jeevo makes a complaint before the Magistrate about
his getting beaten up, then threat was given to him for
killing him. We had informed about this to our advocate
Patanwadia Sir. At the time when Jeeva was produced
before the Magistrate at that time Patanwadia Sir should
remain present before the Magistrate, about which we had
not given intimation to Patanwadia Sir. However he told
to us that at the time when Jeeva will be produced before
the Hon’ble Magistrate, at that time we should inform him.
When Patanwadia Sir left the court compound means at
the second time he did not meet us…..
10…..We do not have any relationship with accused
person Mr. Vyas and we also do not have relationship
with Patel Sir. Prior to the incident I had never met any
of the accused persons…..
11.….The facts as to how he was beaten up and who had
beaten up where, have not been stated in the telegram…..
12.….My brother was kept at the Karanj Bhavan for two
and half hour. During this two and half hours, when was
my brother kept in the Karanj Bhavan I could not know
about the same. However he was taken upstairs and was
made to climb the steps about which fact I am aware. I
am not aware as to which floor he was taken. The police
persons who had brought my brother downstairs, had told
that Jeeva was taken before Sureliya Sir…..
14….Ex-14 is the copy of the telegram wherein it has been
stated that, “when my brother was produced PI Shri Vyas
Saheb had beaten up him severely with stick.”…..
19. …..It is true that I have not seen if my brother had
been beaten up by Sureliya Sir. In the Karanj Bhavan,
Sureliya Sir had beaten up my brother, if such fact has
been stated in the telegram then the same is false. It is
true that I have not seen taking my brother to Stadium. It
is true that I had filed complaint against the present two
accused persons and Sureliya Sir.
20…..It is true that prohibition cases have been filed against
my mother, myself and Pappu…..”
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 383
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
Examination-in-Chief of Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2)
“2. Thereafter in the night at eleven or quarter to eleven
hours PI Shri Vyas making my brother Jeeva to stand
facing the wall and keeping hands up as support, PI Shri
Vyas had beaten up my brother. He delivered blows with
stick on the palm of his hand, on the back on the waist,
on the thigh, on the ankle and pushed with stick in the
chest. He continued to beat up my brother in this manner
for around half an hour. Thereafter my brother fainted and
had fallen down and thereafter two police persons had
come and lifting my brother they had thrown him on the
wooden bench. Thereafter at night at quarter to two or two
hours, SP Shri Patel had come there. He had come down
from the second floor. Thereafter he made my brother
to stand up facing the wall with hands up and Shri C.G.
Patel had beaten up Jeeva on the palm of his hand, on
the back, on the side, on the buttock, on the thigh and
on the ankle with stick and pushed with stick in the chest.
The C.G. Patel was the SP…….
3……Thereafter on that day at two hours in the noon PSI
Shri Rana along with one police persons taking out from
the police station my brother and Anna, they were sitting
in the auto rickshaw and they had come in the office of
DCP Shri Sureliya Sir. His office is at Lal Darwaja. After
this rickshaw, in another auto rickshaw we had gone after
Shri Rana Saheb. Thereafter, Rana Sir had taken my
brother and Anna in the Office of DCP Shri Sureliya Sir. At
5.45 hours in the evening he was brought downstairs…….
3.…..Thereafter my brother Jeevo was talking in Tamil
language told to my sister crying. He said that- SP and PI
had beaten up very severely. In the hand and leg, marks
of stick could be seen. When my sister touched the body
of my brother, at that time there was swallowing…….
5……Thereafter on 12/2/92, at eleven or quarter to eleven
hours in the morning, two police persons came to our’
home. They said that Jeeva has died.”
384 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Cross-Examination of Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2)
“6…..It is true that, arresting my brother under PASA , he
was set up in the jail outside Ahmedabad……
8……It is true that in the portion inside the police station,
Jeeva and Anna were taken and our advocate was with
them and at that time the inside portion could not seen…..
12….It is not true that in my statement dated 13/6/92 I
have stated that, “ on the next day on 11/6/92, at nine
hours in the morning I and my sister Selvin and my sister
in law all the three of us had gone to the Amraivadi Police
Station for giving snack to my brother but my brother did
not eat the snack. My sister stayed back to have talk with
my brother. I and my sister in law Meenaben were sitting
outside the police station”….
12…For an hour Jeevo was in the Court of the Metropolitan
Magistrate. I had seen Jeeva in Court No. 7. I am not
aware as to whether on that day whether the Magistrate
of Court No. 7 was on leave or not?....
12.…..My brother Jeeva was taken at Karanj Bhavan on the
upper floor where there is staircase and from the staircase,
one can go upstairs about which I am not aware….”
22. From the testimony of Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1) and Dhanlakshmi
Vaiyapuri(PW-2), it is evident that Jeeva(deceased) was having
long standing criminal antecedents and there were allegations of
bootlegging against him. He had also been detained under the Gujarat
Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. Likewise, the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses(PW-1 and PW-2) also reveals that Anna
Dorai who too was arraigned as accused with Jeeva(deceased) in
C.R. No. 555 of 1992 also had similar criminal antecedents. However,
as per these prosecution witnesses, Jeeva(deceased) was singled
out for the custodial torture whereas even a finger was not laid on
Anna Dorai by A1 and A2. This creates a doubt in the mind of the
Court on the truthfulness of the allegations set out in the evidence
of the two sisters of Jeeva, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2.
23. PW-1 and PW-2 claim to have personally witnessed the assault
being made on Jeeva. In this background, there is a serious question
mark on the claim of PW-1 that after being produced in the Court,
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 385
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
Jeeva talked to her in Tamil language and that he was weeping and
when the witness asked Jeeva for the reason of his grief, he told
her that the police personnel had beaten him up and he was under
severe pain and was unable to standup. If at all PW-1 and PW-2 had
themselves seen the victim being beaten up, there was no occasion
for PW-1 to put a question to Jeeva as to why he was weeping or
as to the manner in which he had been beaten up.
24. This Court has considered the effect of unnatural conduct on the
credibility and evidentiary value of testimony of a witness through
a series of judicial pronouncements over time. In the case of Lahu
Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra1, this Court held
as follows: -
“26. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is vivid that
witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene
and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is
any delay in their examination, the testimony should not
be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind
that different witnesses react differently under different
situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become
perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from
the scene and yet some who have the courage and
conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get
themselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs from
individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity
in human reaction. While the said principle has to be
kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the
conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in
accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing
variations, then his testimony becomes questionable
and is likely to be discarded.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. In the case of Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka2,
it was held as follows: -
1 [2012] 9 SCR 1173 : (2013) 6 SCC 417
2 [2013] 5 SCR 1104 : (2013) 5 SCC 705
386 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“22. Thus, the behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions
would differ from situation to situation and individual to
individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of
witnesses would be unrealistic but the court cannot be
oblivious of the fact that even taking into account the
unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity
in human reaction, whether in the circumstances of the
case, the behaviour is acceptably natural allowing the
variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the
testimony of the witness may not deserve credence
and acceptance.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. In Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat3, it was held
as follows: -
“8. It is a settled principle of law that doubt cannot replace
proof. Suspicion, howsoever great it may be, is no substitute
of proof in criminal jurisprudence [Jagga Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 463]. Only such evidence is
admissible and acceptable as is permissible in accordance
with law. In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness
has to be reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of
credence and the case proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can
be a ground for disbelieving the witness.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. In the case of Harvinder Singh alias Bachhu v. State of Himachal
Pradesh4, this Court held as below: -
“18. Character and reputation do have an element
of interconnectivity. Reputation is predicated on the
general traits of character. In other words, character
may be subsumed into reputation. Courts are not
expected to get carried away by the mere background
of a person especially while acting as an appellate
forum, when his conduct, being a relevant fact, creates
3 [2023] 2 SCR 746 : 2023(4) SCALE 478
4 [2023] 13 SCR 1157 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1347
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 387
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
serious doubt. In other words, the conduct of a witness
under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, is a relevant fact
to decide, determine and prove the reputation of a
witness. When the conduct indicates that it is unnatural
from the perspective of normal human behaviour, the
so-called reputation takes a back seat.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. In the case of Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh5, a three judge
Bench of this Court discarded the testimony of a eyewitness on the
ground that the deceased was known to the witness and claimed
to have seen the assault on the deceased, but curiously, he did not
take any proactive steps in the matter to either report to the police or
inform any of the family members. The Court held that such conduct
of the eyewitness is contrary to human nature. The relevant extracts
from the judgment are as follows: -
“15. Next the unnatural conduct of PW 4 will require
some scrutiny. The witness Bhagat Ram was known to
the deceased and claimed to have seen the assault on
Laxman by Chunthuram and another person. But curiously,
he did not take any proactive steps in the matter to either
report to the police or inform any of the family members.
Such conduct of the eyewitness is contrary to human
nature. In Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)[2020 SCC
OnLine SC 826], one of us, Krishna Murari, J. made the
following pertinent comments on the unreliability of such
eye witness : (SCC para 32)
“32. The conviction of the appellants rests on the
oral testimony of PW 1 who was produced as
eyewitness of the murder of the deceased. Both
the learned Sessions Judge, as well as High
Court have placed reliance on the evidence of
PW 1 and ordinarily this Court could be reluctant
to disturb the concurrent view but since there are
inherent improbabilities in the prosecution story
and the conduct of eyewitness is inconsistent
with ordinary course of human nature we do not
5 [2020] 8 SCR 1071 : (2020) 10 SCC 733
388 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
think it would be safe to convict the appellants
upon the uncorroborated testimony of the sole
eyewitness. Similar view has been taken by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Selveraj v.
State of T.N. [(1976) 4 SCC 343] wherein on an
appreciation of evidence the prosecution story
was found highly improbable and inconsistent
of ordinary course of human nature concurrent
findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below
were set aside.”
16. The witness here knew the victim, allegedly saw the
fatal assault on the victim and yet kept quiet about the
incident. If PW 4 had the occasion to actually witness
the assault, his reaction and conduct does not match up
to ordinary reaction of a person who knew the deceased
and his family. His testimony therefore deserves to be
discarded.”
29. The two sisters(PW-1 and PW-2) were not under any restraint after
witnessing the custodial assault allegedly made on Jeeva. They
admitted in their cross-examination that they had been arraigned as
accused in a couple of prohibition cases. Thus, it can safely be inferred
that these two so-called eyewitnesses were having sufficient contact
with the legal system and were well aware of the legal machinery
and would be knowing the importance of filing a complaint promptly.
Nothing prevented these ladies from immediately approaching the
higher officials or the concerned Court to make a complaint of the
alleged assault made on their victim brother in the Amraiwadi Police
Station by the police officials.
30. Admittedly, an advocate named Shri Patanwadia was taken to the
Amraiwadi Police Station for facilitating Jeeva’s surrender and he was
also present when Jeeva(deceased) was presented in the Court on
11th June, 1992 by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the advocate was
a vital witness to unfold the truth of the case. However, he was not
examined in evidence for reasons best known to the prosecution. Even
if we assume that the advocate may have been hesitant to become a
witness in a case involving his client, the fact remains that PW-1 and
PW-2 had engaged Shri Patanwadia to represent Jeeva(deceased)
in the criminal case wherein he was arraigned as an accused and
he was taken along for effecting the surrender of Jeeva at the police
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 389
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
station. Thus, it was logically expected from PW-1 and PW-2, that
after having seen their brother Jeeva being assaulted by the police
officer, they would have immediately thought of approaching the
advocate engaged by them and tell him about the custodial torture.
However, no such step was taken by the sisters(PW-1 and PW-2)
of the deceased and this pertinent omission in failing to inform their
advocate about the custodial torture allegedly meted out to Jeeva
gives rise to a strong assumption about the unnatural conduct of
these eyewitnesses, casting a doubt on the truthfulness of their
version and discredits their testimony.
31. Keeping in view the above referred judgments and the infirmities
noticeable in the evidence of Selvin Prabhakar(PW-1) and
Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2), we are convinced that they are not
witnesses of sterling worth and their evidence is not fit to be relied
upon.
32. The prosecution claims that Naykar Vasudev(PW-3) was purportedly
arraigned as an accused on a complaint lodged by one Babu Raja
Ram and was also lodged at the Amraiwadi Police Station, at the
same time, when Jeeva was allegedly subjected to custodial violence.
He was examined as PW-3 and deposed that he saw the Police
Inspector Vyas(appellant herein)(A1) and Mr. Patel(co-accused)(A2)
beating Jeeva with sticks, etc. However, in cross-examination, the
witness admitted that he had not stated the aforesaid details to the
Sabarmati police which were being asked from him in the Court. He
also feigned ignorance as to the nature of case filed against him by
Babu Raja Ram. He also stated that he had not tried to move Jeeva
or talk to him when they were taken out of their lockup. Selvin(PW-1)
and Dhanlakshmi(PW-2) had come to the police station with breakfast
on the next morning. He did not see Jeeva in a conscious state till he
woke up in the next morning. He was released on bail at half past 3’o
clock in the afternoon. He did not tell his advocate Mr. Pathan about
the incident with Jeeva. He also admitted that he had not given the
name of Mr. Patel in the statement recorded by the Sabarmati police.
He explained that Sabarmati police had not recorded his statement
willingly. He also admitted that he did not state at the police station
that he was knowing Mr. Vyas and Mr. Patel previously. He tried to
explain that he had not divulged at the Sabarmati Police Station that
Mr. Patel had inflicted blow of stick on the chest of Jeeva as he was
not asked about the same.
390 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
33. Considering the tenor of evidence of PW-3, it is evident that his version
also suffers from grave infirmities, contradictions and omissions and
thus, implicit reliance cannot be placed on his testimony.
34. Jeeva(deceased) expired around 36 hours after his surrender before
the officials of the Amraiwadi Police Station and thus, the medical
evidence assumes great significance in the case. Dr. Digant Kalidas
Dixit(PW-5) who was working as a Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad deposed as below: -
“On 12th June 1992 at 8/00AM to 2/00 PM I was on duty
as Casualty Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.
At about 8/30AM on that day Shri R.K. Thakur, Jailor of
Sabarmati Central Prison, Head Constable Udaysinghbhai
and police constable Maheshbhai of Central Prison,
Ahmedabad had brought one Jeevabhai Vaiyapuri from
Sabarmati Central Prison. I had examined him and I found
that the patient was unconscious. His body was cold and
calm. Pulse was not palpable and it was not possible
to record Blood Pressure: respiration was absent; heart
sounds were not heard by stethoscope; pupils were dilated,
fixed and not reactive to light. All functions were suggestive
that the patient is dead. As such I had made a note in the
Register that the person is dead.”
35. Dr. Nayan Kumar-Medical Jurist(PW-9) conducted postmortem upon
the dead body of Jeeva. The relevant excerpts from the evidence of
the Medical Jurist(PW-9) are reproduced below: -
“The injuries found by me externally were fresh in nature.
The injuries were fresh and must have occurred within
six to eight hours of the death. I have brought the case
papers. A query was raised by the Police Inspector of
Sabarmati Police Station and it was replied by my brother
doctor Dr. Desai. In reply to the query, it was stated by
Dr. Desai that the injuries were fresh and he had opined
in the said letter that the injuries were within few hours
before the death. Again there was query from the Crime
Branch and they had made a query to the tune as to what
was the meaning of “few hours” and he had given time
that it may have occurred within four to five hours prior
to the post-mortem.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 391
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
It is true that if lathi blow is given on the back side of a
person, then it will cause wheel marks.
All the bruises were red in colour. From the colour of
bruises time can be ascertained by the medical man who
has seen the injuries.
Taking into consideration the bruises and the fracture there
will be loss of blood of about 30 to 35 per cent of the total
blood. With this loss of blood gradually blood pressure will
come down. It is true that fracture of sternum and three
ribs would cause severe pain and would also affect the
respiratory system as well. In the present case there was
fracture of lung also. I am of the view that having four
fractures as in this particular case and after having rupture
of liver and lung, a person cannot climb stair-case without
support. A man would be depressed and his expression
and movements will be painful.”
36. Dr. Ravindra(PW-10) was examined by the prosecution as an expert
witness to give opinion on certain queries raised by the Investigating
Officer. Dr. Ravindra(PW-10) responded to these queries vide a letter
which was marked as Exhibit-53 during his sworn testimony. However,
what precisely were the contents of the letter were not deposed by
the expert in his evidence. Thus, mere marking of exhibit upon the
letter without the expert deposing about the opinion given therein
would not dispense with the proof of contents of the document as
per the mandate of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
37. This Court in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Others v.
Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and Others6 held as follows: -
“15. The plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exs. A-12 and A-13, the
day book and the ledger respectively. The plaintiffs did not
prove these books. There is no reference to these books
in the judgments. The mere marking of an exhibit does
not dispense with the proof of documents. It is common
place to say that the negative cannot be proved. The proof
of the plaintiffs’ books of account became important because
the plaintiffs’ accounts were impeached and falsified by the
6 (1972) 4 SCC 562
392 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
defendants’ case of larger payments than those admitted
by the plaintiffs. The irresistible inference arises that the
plaintiffs’ books would not have supported the plaintiffs.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. In the case of Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal
and Another7, it was held as follows:
“16. ….The legal position is not in dispute that mere
production and marking of a document as exhibit by the
court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its
execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that
is, by the “evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe
for the truth of the facts in issue”……”
39. Furthermore, the expert witness(PW-10) admitted in his cross-
examination that the doctor who had performed the postmortem
examination physically can give better opinion about the age of the
injuries. Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that the
evidence of the expert witness(PW-10) does not lend any support
to the case of prosecution.
40. From the evidence of the so called eyewitnesses Selvin
Prabhakar(PW-1) and Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri(PW-2), it is apparent
that the victim was made to climb the five flights of stairs for being
presented before DCP Shri Surelia at the Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad.
41. Looking to the nature of injuries noted by the Medical Jurist(PW-9)
in the postmortem report(Exhibit-50), it is impossible to believe that
the victim, having received the multiple injuries, which included
rupture of spleen, rupture of liver, fracture of ribs, would have been
in a position to walk what to say of climb five flight of stairs. The
Medical Jurist(PW-9) stated that the person having received the
injuries noted in the postmortem report(Exhibit-50) would not be able
to climb a stair case without support and that the expression of the
person and his movement would be painful. Thus, there was hardly
any possibility that after having received the injuries mentioned in the
postmortem report(Exhibit-50), Jeeva(deceased) could have climbed
up the stairs of Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad for being presented
before DCP Shri Surelia.
7 [2003] Supp. 5 SCR 90 : (2003) 8 SCC 745
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 393
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
42. Viewed in light of the evidence of the Medical Jurist(PW-9) who
conducted the autopsy upon Jeeva’s dead body, we are of the opinion
that, if at all, the victim had already been subjected to the injuries
noted in the postmortem report(Exhibit-50), he would be having a
severe expression of pain and it would have been impossible for
him to climb up the flights of stairs. Furthermore, on being presented
before the learned Magistrate, the expression of pain on the face of
the victim, would be prominently visible and could not have escaped
being noticed by the learned Magistrate.
43. The opinion of the Medical Jurist(PW-9) regarding the age of injuries
has not been controverted by the prosecution. The said witness was
examined by the prosecution and he has categorically opined in his
examination in chief that the injuries caused to the deceased were
fresh and must have occurred within six to eight hours of the death.
The expert witness(PW-10) also admitted that the doctor who had
performed the postmortem examination would be in a better position
to give opinion about the age of injuries. Thus, there is formidable
evidence of the Medical Jurist(PW-9) which totally discredits the
version of the so called eyewitnesses(PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) that
Jeeva(deceased) was inflicted the injuries leading to his death while
being in police custody at the Amraiwadi Police Station. Their evidence
is contradicted in material particulars by the medical evidence and
other attending circumstances.
44. We are conscious of the proposition that where there are contradictions
inter se between the opinion of the Medical Jurist and the ocular
testimony, generally, the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be
given precedence. However, where the contradiction is so prominent
that it completely demolishes the version of the eyewitnesses who
are interested and partisan, in such cases, the Court should be
circumspect in admitting the evidence of the eyewitness while ignoring
the convincing opinion of the Medical Expert.
45. Our view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of
Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Others. v. State of
Haryana8 wherein, it was held as below: -
“38. Thus, the position of law in such a case of contradiction
between medical and ocular evidence can be crystallised
8 [2011] 7 SCR 1 : (2011) 7 SCC 421
394 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness
has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence,
when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony
improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of
the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical
evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all
possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular
evidence may be disbelieved.”
(emphasis supplied)
46. Considering the unimpeachable and strong opinion of the Medical
Jurist(PW-9), the probability of the victim having been assaulted
in Sabarmati Central jail leading to the fatal injuries noted in the
postmortem report(Exhibit-50) is much higher as compared to the
theory set up in the complaint and the evidence of the star prosecution
witness that Jeeva(deceased) was fatally assaulted by A1 and A2
while he was detained at the Amraiwadi Police Station.
47. The witness Udesingh Himmatsinh Chauhan(PW-8) categorically
stated in his evidence that at the time of inquest, he had seen the
victim’s clothes thoroughly and there was red dust over the said
clothes. He also stated to have seen Sabarmati Central jail from
inside and deposed that soil of the jail is red.
48. We feel that since the victim was brought dead from the Sabarmati
Central jail, it was imperative upon the Investigating Agency to
have made extensive investigation from the prison authorities so
as to rule out the possibility of injuries having been caused, while
the victim was lodged in the prison. We are also of the view that if
at all, Jeeva(deceased) was having the large number of injuries as
noted in the postmortem report(Exhibit-50), the prison authorities
would definitely have made a note thereof in the jail records at the
time of his admission in the jail premises and the observations made
at that time would be crucial for arriving at the truth of the matter.
49. The theory of motive attributed by the prosecution witnesses (PW-1
and PW-2) to the accused A1 and A2 is also not palpable. It may
be noted that the accused appellant(A1) had been posted as Police
Inspector at the Amraiwadi Police Station just a few months before
the incident. Merely because Jeeva(deceased) was having prior
criminal antecedents, that by itself, could not have provided motive
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 395
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
to the accused police officials to have singled him out for custodial
torture while totally sparing the co-accused Anna Dorai.
50. As an upshot of the above discussion, we are of the view that the
prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused
persons i.e. Vinod Jaswantray Vyas(A1)(since deceased) and
Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel(A2)(since deceased) by leading cogent,
convincing and reliable evidence and their conviction as recorded
by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable
in the eyes of law.
51. Resultantly, the accused appellant Vinod Jaswantray Vyas(A1)
(since deceased) deserves to be acquitted of the charges. The co-
accused Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel(A2)(since deceased) who too
was convicted by the trial Court and his appeal was also dismissed
by the High Court, also deserves to be given the benefit of the
conclusions drawn by us in this appeal even though no appeal has
been preferred on his behalf.
52. As a consequence, the judgment dated 4th March, 1997 passed by
the trial Court and judgment dated 13th February, 2017 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court are quashed and set aside.
Both the accused i.e. Vinod Jaswantray Vyas(A1)(since deceased)
and Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel(A2)(since deceased) are acquitted
of the charges.
53. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
54. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "custodial torture"Sign in to search