Every Room Of Each Police Station Must Have CCTV Camera With Audio Facility, Any Lapse Will Be Deemed Contempt: MP High Court

In a case of alleged atrocity carried out in a police station, the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Director General of Police to ensure that each and every room of Police Stations in districts across the State are fitted with CCTV Camera with audio facility within three months, failure of which would amount to contempt. 

The court said this after observing that in the present case the petitioner was "badly beaten" by the police personnel in the concerned police station that too "deliberately" in a room which did not have CCTV camera. 

Taking note of the video clippings submitted by the petitioner, a single judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in its order observed, "Thus, it is clear that petitioner was badly beaten by the Police personnel in the presence of respondent no.5, inside the Police Station in a room which was not having CCTV camera. Petitioner was deliberately taken to a room because it was not having CCTV Camera. Therefore, it is clear that the Police personnel were intending to hide their illegal activities of assaulting the petitioner in a Police Station". 

It thereafter directed, “Therefore, the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to ensure that each and every room of the Police Station is fitted with CCTV Camera with audio facility.The Director General of Police, State of M.P. is directed to immediately call report from every Superintendent of Police of each District to the effect as to whether any room or space within the Police Station (so situated in their respective District has any black spot (without CCTV Camera) and should ensure that every room and every space within the Police Station is fitted with CCTV Cameras within a period of 3 months from today.”

The court further directed the Director General of Police of the State to ensure that report from every Superintendent of Police is received by him within one month from the date of the high court order.

Following this, every space including every room situated in respective Police Station be brought within the coverage area of CCTV Camera, within a period of two months from thereafter, it said. 

"In future if it is found that in a Police Station an area was left outside the coverage area of CCTV camera, then such lapse shall be considered as Contempt of Court, and action shall be taken against the Superintendent of Police of the said District and also S.H.O. of concerning Police Station for Contempt of Court," the court added. 

Background

The directions were made in a plea moved by a man claiming that he was illegally detained and badly beaten by the police authorities inside a Police Station. 

On September 17, 2023 residents of a village stopped the movement of trucks of the company where the petitioner was working. As he was the in-charge of the Company the petitioner went to the spot where respondent No.10 police officer was already present.

Petitioner said that he asked the officer about the matter to which the latter "demanded illegal gratification" of Rs. 5,000. The petitioner said that he got angry and shouted at the officer and in response the officer started beating the petitioner. The petitioner said that he was taken to the concerned Police Station by the Police staff where he was taken into a room by respondent No.7–another police officer, with a Bamboo stick. The petitioner said that this room had no CCTV camera  and it was here that he was brutally beaten. Relatives/friends of the petitioner who had already reached the Police Station and were standing outside rushed inside however, they were ousted. It was alleged that the police staff hatched a conspiracy and lodged the false FIR against the Petitioner.

The petitioner under Right to Information Act obtained CCTV footage of cameras installed inside the Police Station. Petitioner filed two pen drives containing the CCTV footages of Police Station which were supplied by Police Department under Right to Information Act, whereas respondent No.5 filed one pen drive containing the footage of fight between petitioner and respondent No.10 on the road.

Ruling in favour of the petitioner the high court concluded that by brutally beating the petitioner, Respondent No.10 had exceeded his right of private defence as well as exceeded the jurisdiction given by law for maintaining law and order situation.

On the conduct of Police Authorities

The court observed, “It is clear that the police authorities, instead of correcting their house, has protected the police personals who are prima facie guilty of committing police atrocities on the petitioner, who was in the custody of the police. Thus, it is clear that the entire staff, including the respondents no. 5 to 10 is out and out to destroy the evidence and is trying to manipulate the things. This attempt of senior police officers in protecting the wrongdoer is a very serious matter, and it appears that without verifying the contents of the Pen Drive which was also filed by the petitioner along with the petition, a false stand was taken in the return.”

The court also held that the petitioner being a victim of police atrocity is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 to be deposited by the respondents 5-10 in the court's registry within a month. The cost deposited by the respondents shall be paid to the petitioner, if any application for withdrawal is made.

Conduct of the Doctor who medically examined the Petitioner

The counsel for respondent no. 5 police personnel argued that the petitioner was medically examined by a Doctor, and no injury was found on his body. The high court however observed that the doctor had "not discharged his duties properly" and primarily with a "view to safeguard the respondents no. 5 to 10" had certified that no injury was found on the petitioner. Had he found injuries on the body of the Petitioner, then the respondents no. 5 to 10 police personnel would have come under difficulty, the court said. 

It then directed the DGP to verify the medical report of the petitioner, and if it is found that no injuries were mentioned in the petitioner's MLC a criminal case will be registered against the concerned Doctor for creating false and concocted MLC. 

Conduct of S.D.O. who gave clean chit to respondents no. 5 to 10

The state had submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (P) and every allegation made by Petitioner was found to be false. 

Rejecting this high court said, “The manner in which the respondents have tried to play fraud on the Court by submitting a false report, the Director General of Police is directed to conduct an enquiry into the fact finding report submitted by S.D.O.(P) and to register criminal case against him also, if facts so warrant.”

Allowing the plea the high court further directed the DGP to submit his report on installation of CCTV cameras at every place in "all the Police Stations" of the State of M.P. by February 18, 2025. In case the report is not submitted then the Registrar General has been directed by the court to register a separate case for Contempt of Court. 

Case Title: AKHILESH PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION No. 31360 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 274

Click Here To Read/Download Order