Why Shouldn't Interrogation Of Accused In Appropriate Cases Be Videographed?: P&H High Court Asks Punjab, Haryana DGPs
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently asked the Director-General of Police (DGPs) of Punjab and Haryana State as to why the court should, not in appropriate cases, direct that interrogation of the accused be conducted under videography so as to eradicate the chances of the accused being tortured by the police.The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh raised this query while hearing a plea...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently asked the Director-General of Police (DGPs) of Punjab and Haryana State as to why the court should, not in appropriate cases, direct that interrogation of the accused be conducted under videography so as to eradicate the chances of the accused being tortured by the police.
The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh raised this query while hearing a plea from Kaushal, an alleged gangster, who has been named as an accused in the gruesome murder of Youth Akal Dal leader Vikramjit Middukhera.
Essentially, Kaushal has, in his plea alleged that he has been tortured at the hands of police officials, while he was interrogated by them and therefore, he has demanded that appropriate measures be taken for the videography of his police interrogation.
In view of the allegations of torture and inhumane treatment put up by the accused against the police officials, the Court observed thus:
"Needless to say, if a person is found guilty of the commission of any offence, he/she would suffer the consequences thereof, including capital punishment if that is so warranted in any particular case, but nevertheless, the kind of allegations that have been made in paragraph 22 are of the most depraved kind of behaviour, that no human being should either indulge in or be subjected to."
In view of the above, the DGP of Punjab and the DGP of Haryana have been directed to file their own affidavits in reply to the allegations and state on affidavit as to why the court should not direct that videography be conducted of the interrogation of the petitioner.
Importantly, stressing that a disclosure statement made in police custody, unless it leads to actual recovery, etc., would normally not be admissible in evidence, the Court also observed thus:
"...in any civilized society interrogation is now always down under videography to ensure that no inhuman methods of interrogation are resorted to, with it to be further observed by this court that proper methods of investigation and interrogation also result in criminals being convicted and therefore there would be no excuse to say that if the interrogation is made subject to videography, it may not have the desired results as regards the guilt or innocence of an accused."
Consequently, looking at the allegations made by the Accused, the DGPs have been directed to state as to why this court should not, at least in appropriate cases, direct that interrogation be conducted under videography so that neither can such like treatment of accused persons be resorted to, nor would accused persons then be able to make such accusations/allegations.
The matter has been adjourned to January 7 with a direction to Punjab and Haryana States to ensure that the mandatory provisions of Sections 41-B, 41-D, and 54 and all other statutory provisions contained in the Cr.P.C., are duly adhered to by them not only in respect to the petitioner but also obviously in respect to all persons accused of any crime.
Sr. Advocate Bipan Ghai with Advocates Paras Talwar, Deepanshu Mehta, and Prabhdeep Bindra appeared for the petitioner.
Case title - Kaushal vs State of Haryana and others
Read Order