Lawyer Alleges Unnatural Sex, Torture In Police Custody: Punjab Court Orders Investigation Against Erring Officers
A Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court in Punjab on Saturday directed an investigation into an alleged incident of police officials committing unnatural sex, torture, and wrongful confinement against a lawyer.The Court ruled that the statement of the lawyer was to be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) of CrPC, in which prima facie cognizable offences of abetment of unnatural sex and...
A Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court in Punjab on Saturday directed an investigation into an alleged incident of police officials committing unnatural sex, torture, and wrongful confinement against a lawyer.
The Court ruled that the statement of the lawyer was to be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) of CrPC, in which prima facie cognizable offences of abetment of unnatural sex and causing injuries in wrongful confinement and threat to his life and liberty were shown.
CJM of Muktsar Sahib court Raj Pal Rawl thus directed the SHO of the concerned Police Station to initiate an investigation against the accused police officials/officers the culprits after registering a case against them.
An application was filed by the lawyer who was arrested along with another person accused of assaulting a police team and deterring them from discharging their duty.
Complainant requested a medical test and sought to record his statement on the alleged police brutality and inhumane treatment in police custody. The Court noted that 'he suffered injuries' as per his medical examination.
In a 13-page detailed statement, the lawyer narrated the torture, injuries and humiliating incident he faced at the police station. The Court noted that due to fear, the lawyer also withdrew his bail to protect his life.
Referring to Apex Court's decision in DK. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Srinivas Gundluri v M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corp & Ors, the Court said,
"...even accused/detenue has fundamental right of life and liberty, when there is "infringement of fundamental rights of life and liberty ofa person by functionaries of State. State is vicariously liable. Defence of sovereign immunity is not available to State."
Considering the nature of the allegation, the Court treated it as a complaint under Section 2(d) of CrPC.
It further observed that from the lawyer's statement, there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the concerned police officials
Consequently, the Court directed the SHO of the police station to register a case and initiate an investigation against the officers.
Appearance: Harmandeep Singh, MS. Barar, Rajinder R Kala Advocates for the applicant/victim
Manoi Bhushan, AP for the State.