Supreme Court Directs Action Against Rajasthan Police Officials Alleged To Have Assaulted Witness To Elicit Confession

Shocked at allegations levelled by a prosecution witness against state officials, regarding assault for the purpose of eliciting a confession, the Supreme Court recently directed undertaking of an inquiry as well as administrative and criminal action.

The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the petitioner-accused's challenge to a Rajasthan High Court order declining bail, when it noted that though the prosecution witness in question levelled serious allegations against state officials, she was not declared hostile. Considering the facts, it allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed that he be produced before the Trial Court to be enlarged on bail on apt terms and conditions.

To state the facts briefly, the petitioner-accused was roped in as the main assailant in a case registered under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 5, 25 of the Arms Act. When he first applied for bail in 2022, the plea was rejected by the High Court. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court, although the concerned Bench was of the view that no case for bail was made out at that stage. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach again if the trial did not make progress within reasonable time.

Thereafter, in September, 2023, he moved a second bail application before the High Court. Vide the impugned order, this application was dismissed on the basis that 5 prosecution witnesses had been examined since passing of the Supreme Court's order in the first SLP. "Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail" the High Court had further said. Be that as it may, it directed the Trial Judge to expedite the trial.

Notably, amongst these 5 witnesses was the daughter of the deceased-victim, ie PW (prosecution witness) -2.

Assailing the second High Court order denying him bail, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court with the present case. While issuing notice on January 2, 2024, the top Court directed that the petitioner place on record depositions of witnesses who had already been examined by that time.

Now, when the deposition(s) came to be considered, the Court was shocked at the allegations levelled by PW-2 against state officials. This deposition read as follows:

"There was a scuffle between mom and Ramveer over some issue, then Ramveer got angry and took out a pistol and fired it at mom and forbade me from telling this to anyone and said that if I told anyone, he would kill me too. After this he called someone and left from there. After that he came back after two to five minutes and started telling someone on the phone that bullet had hit. That other one told that call the police and then he called the police. After this he tried to give me money but I refused to take the money. After that he went out to take the police and said that this woman had shot herself and then said that this girl had shot her. The policemen gave me a pistol and asked me show how it fires. I was scared. After interrogating the police took me to the police station. There they beat me and said tell that you are the one who shot your mother. Then I was sent back home at 7:30 in the night".

The Court noted that on the date of incident, PW-2 was approx. 14 years old and what she had stated about acts of police officials had gone unchallenged. As such, it was a case of gross misconduct and called for criminal action.

"As this portion of the evidence has gone unchallenged, it is a case of serious misconduct on the part of the police personnel. Not only that this is a misconduct, but an offence has been committed."

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it was directed that the order be forwarded to Director General of Police (DGP), Rajasthan to immediately initiate an inquiry and take action (both administrative and criminal). Though the appeal was sought to be disposed of in these terms, the Court listed the matter on a subsequent date for taking into consideration an action taken report to be filed by the DGP.

Counsels for petitioner(s): AoR Chitrangda Rastravara; Advocates Aishwary Mishra, Dashrath Singh, Dhananjai Shekhwat, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Anjali Sexena, and Gagandeep

Click here to read/download order