# J SUBE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2006] 2 S.C.R. 67
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006
- **Bench:** Y.K. Sabharwal, B.N. Srikrishna, R.V. Ra Veendran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/j-sube-singh-v-state-of-haryana-and-ors-21258
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Constitution of India 1950-Articles 21,32,226.
Public Interest Litigation-I/legal detention, custodial torture and
harassment of family members of criminal-Claim for Compensationpetitioner's son when intercepted and questioned by a Police party committed>..
murder of a police constable-Po/ice Party brought petitioner and other
members of his family to the police station for inquiring about the whereabouts
A
B
c
of his son-He was called to police station number of times-Petitioner sent D
an undated letter to this court alleging illegal detention, custodial torture and
harassment to family members, and claiming compensation for himself and his
family-This Court directed inquiry by CBI-On CBI report, FIR was lodged
against ten police officials uls 323, 342, 343, 365 and 384 of !PC-CBI
reported that petitioner and._his son were involved in several criminal cases- E
Petitioner and his relatives have made false and exaggerated claims in regard
to illegal detention torture etc. apart from suppressing material fact-No clear.
or incontrovertible evidence about custodial tortureJound-Al/egation not
supported by medical report or visible markslscars-lfeld.:this is not a fit case
for award of compensation as a Public law reme~However, it is open for
the petitioner to seek redress from the civil or criminal court awarding F
compensation.
6ustqdial Violence/torture-Claim for compensation by family members
of the criminal-Power under Articles 321226-Held, award of compensation
against the state is an appropriate and effective Public law remedy for redress
of an established or incontrovertible infringement of a fundamental right under G
article 2 I by a public servant-;-Quantum of compensation would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case-Award of such compensation will
not effect the right to claim additional compensation by way of civil/criminal
action-However, courts may not award compensation where the allegation
67
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2006) 2 S.C.R.
A of custodial torture are false or exaggerated fully or in part and custodial
torture is not established or supported by medical report or other evidenceThe aggrieved party in such cases is to be relegated to traditional remedies
available under civil/criminal law-Further held, the degree of proof required
in criminal prosecution relating to such matters is not strict.
B
Custodial Violence-Reasons and causes of custodial violence
enumerated-Emphasis laid on preventive measures to tackle custodial violence
effectively-A Balanced level of functioning suggested.
While patrolling, the police party received information that petitioner's
C son and his associates were conspiring in his house to apply pressure on some
tender bidders. When the police party proceeded towards petitioner's house,
they saw two young men coming on a motorcycle. When intercepted by the
police party, petitioner's son fired at them killing one of the constables. Both
the motorcyclists managed to escape. Police party went to the house of
petitioner in search of his son. Not finding him there, they brought the
D petitioner to the police station. Petitioner was released after inquiries.
E
Petitioner along with his relative filed a writ petition in the Punjab and
Haryana High Court alleging harassment, torture and illegal detention. The
High Court disposed of the petition with an observation that petitioners may
file a criminal complaint in a competent Court.
Petitioner then sent an undated letter to this court alleging illegal
detention and police torture. He prayed for a direction to the police to stop
the atrocities and torture and also sought compensation for himself and his
family members. This Court registered that letter as writ petition under article
32 of the Constitution. The Court directed the CBI to inquire into the matter.
F The CBI had concluded that some of the allegations of the petitioner were
substantiated while several others were not substantiated. On the basis of CBI
report, FIR was lod

## Text

_Characters 0–39,752 of 72,742. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39752 for what follows._

1
--J
SUBE SINGH
v
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 3,2006
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND R.V.
RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950-Articles 21,32,226.
Public Interest Litigation-I/legal detention, custodial torture and
harassment of family members of criminal-Claim for Compensationpetitioner's son when intercepted and questioned by a Police party committed>..
murder of a police constable-Po/ice Party brought petitioner and other
members of his family to the police station for inquiring about the whereabouts
A
B
c
of his son-He was called to police station number of times-Petitioner sent D
an undated letter to this court alleging illegal detention, custodial torture and
harassment to family members, and claiming compensation for himself and his
family-This Court directed inquiry by CBI-On CBI report, FIR was lodged
against ten police officials uls 323, 342, 343, 365 and 384 of !PC-CBI
reported that petitioner and._his son were involved in several criminal cases- E
Petitioner and his relatives have made false and exaggerated claims in regard
to illegal detention torture etc. apart from suppressing material fact-No clear.
or incontrovertible evidence about custodial tortureJound-Al/egation not
supported by medical report or visible markslscars-lfeld.:this is not a fit case
for award of compensation as a Public law reme~However, it is open for
the petitioner to seek redress from the civil or criminal court awarding F
compensation.
6ustqdial Violence/torture-Claim for compensation by family members
of the criminal-Power under Articles 321226-Held, award of compensation
against the state is an appropriate and effective Public law remedy for redress
of an established or incontrovertible infringement of a fundamental right under G
article 2 I by a public servant-;-Quantum of compensation would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case-Award of such compensation will
not effect the right to claim additional compensation by way of civil/criminal
action-However, courts may not award compensation where the allegation
67
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2006) 2 S.C.R.
A of custodial torture are false or exaggerated fully or in part and custodial
torture is not established or supported by medical report or other evidenceThe aggrieved party in such cases is to be relegated to traditional remedies
available under civil/criminal law-Further held, the degree of proof required
in criminal prosecution relating to such matters is not strict.
B
Custodial Violence-Reasons and causes of custodial violence
enumerated-Emphasis laid on preventive measures to tackle custodial violence
effectively-A Balanced level of functioning suggested.
While patrolling, the police party received information that petitioner's
C son and his associates were conspiring in his house to apply pressure on some
tender bidders. When the police party proceeded towards petitioner's house,
they saw two young men coming on a motorcycle. When intercepted by the
police party, petitioner's son fired at them killing one of the constables. Both
the motorcyclists managed to escape. Police party went to the house of
petitioner in search of his son. Not finding him there, they brought the
D petitioner to the police station. Petitioner was released after inquiries.
E
Petitioner along with his relative filed a writ petition in the Punjab and
Haryana High Court alleging harassment, torture and illegal detention. The
High Court disposed of the petition with an observation that petitioners may
file a criminal complaint in a competent Court.
Petitioner then sent an undated letter to this court alleging illegal
detention and police torture. He prayed for a direction to the police to stop
the atrocities and torture and also sought compensation for himself and his
family members. This Court registered that letter as writ petition under article
32 of the Constitution. The Court directed the CBI to inquire into the matter.
F The CBI had concluded that some of the allegations of the petitioner were
substantiated while several others were not substantiated. On the basis of CBI
report, FIR was lodged against ten police officials' u/s 323, 342, 343, 365 and
384 of IPC. The CBI reported that petitioner and his son were involved in
several criminal cases. It was also found that petitioner and his relatives have
G made false and exaggerated claims in regard to illegal detention torture etc.
apart from suppressing material facts.
Question before this Court was whether, in addition to directing CBI
inquiry and prosecution of the officers concerned, on the facts and
circumstances of this case, compensation could be awarded to petitioner and
H his family members, as a public law remedy for the violation of their
fundamental rights under article 21.
\
'!"
' .
SUBE SINGH v. STA TE OF HARY ANA
69
Disposing of the petitioner, the Court.
HELD: l.l. Though illegal detention and custodial torture were
recognized as violations of the fundamental rights of life and liberty
guaranteed under Article 21, to begin with, only the following reliefs were
being granted in writ petitioners under Article 32 or 226:
(a) Direction to set at liberty the person detained, if the complaint was
one of illegal detention.
(b) Direction to the concerned Government to hold an inquiry and take
action against the officers responsible for the violation.
(c) If the inquiry or action taken by the concerned department was
found to be not satisfactory, to direct an inquiry by an independent agency,
usually the Central Bureau of Investigation.
A
B
c
Award of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of the
fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, in addition to D
~),
the private law remedy under the Law of Torts, was evolved in the last two
and half decades. [85-A-D)
_J
Bhagalpur Blinding case, Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, [1981) 1 SCC 627;
Bhagalpur Blinding Case Khatri (IV) v. State of Bihar, (1981] 2 SCC 493; Rudul E
Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Bhim Singh v. State of J and K, (1985)
4 SCC 677; Peoples' Union/or Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi
Police Headquarters, (1989) 4 SCC 730; Nila Bati Behera v. State of Orissa,
(1993] 2 SCC 746 and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997] l SCC 416,
relied upon.
2. It is now well settled that award of compensation against the State is
an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement
of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant The quantum
of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will
F
not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation G
in a civil court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in
the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under section 357 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. (90-G, H; 91-A)
3. In cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006 I 2 S.C.R.
A of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, courts may award
compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 2~6. However, before
awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to itself the following
questions : (a) Whether the violation of Article 21 is patent and
incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock
the conscience of the court, (c) whether the custodial torture alleged has
B resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report
or visible marks or scars or disability. Where there is no evidence of custodial
torture of a person except his own statement, and where such allegation is
not supported by any medical report or other corroboration evidence, or
where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated
C fully or in part, courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy
under Article 21 or 226, but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional
remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action. (94-E-GJ
MC. Mehtav. Union of India, (1987) I SCC 395; Nila Bati Behera v. State
ofOrissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) I SCC
D 416; Shakita Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, (2003) 7 SCC 749;
Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of MP., (2005( 9 SCC 631; Dhananjay Sharma
v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757 and State of MP. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi,
(1995) 4 sec 262, relied upon.
4. In this case, there is no clear or incontrovertible evidence about
E custodial torture, nor any medical report of any injury or disability. The
grievance of the petitioner and his relatives is against different officers in
different Police Stations at different points of time. More importantly, se~eral
of the allegations are proved to be exaggerated and false. We, therefore, do
not consider this to be a fit case for award of compensation. All reliefs which
p should be granted in such a case, have already been granted by ordering an
inquiry by the CBI and ensuring that the Police Officers named are
prosecuted. The law will have to take its own course. [97-E-F)
5. Custodial violence requires to be tackled from two ends, that is, by
taking measures that are remedial and preventive. Award of compensation
G is one of the remedial measures after the event Effort should be made to
remove the very causes, which lead to custodial violence, so as to prevent such
occurrences. The endeavour should be to achieve a balanced level of
functioning, where police respect human rights, adhere to law, and take
confidence building measures (CBMs), and at the same time, firmly deal with
H organized crime, terrorism, white-collared crime, deteriorating law and order
; .
SUBE SINGH v. STA TE OF HARY ANA [RA VEENDRAN, J.)
71
situation etc. (96-E; 97-D(
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 237 of 1998.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
S. Muralidhar, (A.C.) for the Petitioner.
T.V. George, Ajay Siwach, Sandeep Sharma and Pradeep Dhiya for the
7
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. V. RA VE END RAN, J. An undated letter from the petitioner, received
by this Court on 19.11.1998, alleging illegal detention, custodial torture and
harassment to family members was registered as a writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution oflndia. The State of Haryana and its Director General
A
B
c
of Police, were arrayed as respondents I and 2 and the six Police Officers D
referred to in the Jetter-petition were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 to 8.
PROLOGUE (According to Police)
2. On 10.3.1998, at about IO a.m. Dharam Singh AS!, Police Post E
Dhamtan Saheb (Narwana Tehsil, Jind District), along with Police constables
(Ramesh Chand, Jaldhir Singh and Baljit Singh), while patrolling near Dhamtan
Saheb Bus Stand, received information that one Joginder Singh (son of
petitioner) and his associates were conspiring in his ho'!se, to apply pressure
on some tender-bidders. When the police party proceeded towards Joginder
Singh's house, they saw two young men coming from the opposite side, on F
a motorcycle. On seeing the Police party, the motorcycle suddenly turned
_j
back. On suspicion, the Police party gave chase and stopped the motorcycle
near a petrol-pump. The ASI asked the motorcyclist and the pillion-rider to
identify themselves. The motorcyclist gave his name as Amrik Singh. The
pillion-rider gave his name as Joginder Singh, a Palledar at Tohana. When G
the AS! asked Joginder Singh as to whether he was the same Joginder who
had jumped parole in a case, Joginder Singh started running. When the Police
_ party chased him, Joginder Singh turned back, whipped out a pistol and fired
at them. Baljit Singh, one of the Constables, was hit and collapsed. In the
ensuing confusion, both Amrik Singh and Joginder Singh escaped. The injured
Constable succumbed to the bullet injuries. In this connection, FIR No.112 H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2006 I 2 S.C.R.
A dated 10.3.1998 under Section 302/307/352/186 IPC was registered in P.S.,
Garhi, against Joginder Singh and Amrik Singh. On receiving information of
the death of constable, the SP and the DSP rushed to the hospital and later,
went to the Dhamtan Saheb Police Post. In the meantime, the Police party
which had gone to the house of Joginder, in search of him, did not find him
B and brought his father Sube Singh (Petitioner) to the Police Station. According
to police, the SOM and the Chairman of Zila Parishad, Jind, were also present
at the Police Post at that time. The petitioner denied any knowledge of the
whereabouts of his son Joginder. The SP made some enquiries with the
petitioner and left. After inquiries, the petitioner was re leased.
C
(2.1.) The petitioner along with his brother-in-law Rattan Singh filed
W.P. (Cr!.) No.416/1998 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 24.3.1998
alleging harassment, torture and illegal detention for three days (from
10.3.1998 to 13.3.1998) and again for a day (15.3.1998 to 16.3.1998) and
prayed for action against the concerned Police Officers and for a judicial
enquiry. The High Court by order dated 27.4.1998 disposed of the petition
D with an observation that petitioners may file a criminal complaint in a
competent court.
(2.2.) The petitioner went underground for a few months. Further
enquiries by the police revealed that several cases had been registered against
E the petitioner and his son Joginder Singh. Joginder was declared as 'proclaimed
offender' by order dated 12.6.1998 of S.D.J.M., Narwana. The petitioner
published a notice in 'Dainik Tribune' dated 6.8.1998 that he had disowned
his son Joginder and was not responsible for his actions.
(2.3.) The Police continued with their inquiries and in July, 1998, AS!
F Satya ~arayan and other Police Officers of Dhamtan Saheb Police Post again
tried to ascertain his whereabouts by making enquiries with the petitioner and
his relatives/friends.
The letter (re : alleged torture and illegal detention)
G
3. The petitioner sent an undated letter to this Court (received on
19.11.1998) wherein he alleged that ASI Dharam Singh, In-charge ofDhamtan
Saheb Police Post, along with some Police Officers, came to his house on
10.3.1998 at about 11 a.m, to enquire about the whereabouts of his son
'
\
'
,.
Joginder; and that when he informed them that he was not aware of it, they
•'
H started beating him. Thereafter, the Police took him, his wife and two minor
'
SUBE SINGH v. STATE OF HARY ANA [RA VEENDRAN, J.]
73
daughters forcibly to the Police Post, through the bazaar. He was beaten with A
sticks on the way. When they reached the Police Post, K.P. Singh,
Superintendent of Police as also the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana,
were present. When ASl Dharam Singh infonned them that the persons brought
were the father, mother and sisters of Joginder, the S.P. directed that they
may be brought to 'correct mental attitude'. The ASl took him inside and B
beat him for about 10 minutes and brought him back before the SP again. By
then, his wife and daughters were made to sit in an uncomfortable posture (as
students are made to sit in schools by way of punishment). When the petitioner
stated that he was not aware of his son's whereabouts, the S.P. became
furious and ordered his men to remove his moustache, whereupon Dharam
Singh sat on his chest (with three policemen pressing his hands and feet) and C
plucked his moustache. Again, they started beating him, searched his pockets
and took away Rs.2,350 whiCh he was carrying. Then the police took him
back to his house and ransacked the house. ASI Dharam Singh broke open
the lock of his trunk and seized his licensed gun, some cartridges and Arms
licence, as also some jewellery found in the trunk. Thereafter, the petitioner
was taken back to the Police Post. Though his wife and daughters were sent D
back to the house, he was illegally detained in Police custody for a day and
then taken to P.S. Garhi where he was kept for IO days and during the first
5 days of such detention, he was regularly beaten. Because of such police
harassment and torture, when he was released he and his younger son Gurmail
Singh fled from his house.
E
(3.1.) On 8.7.1998, the petitioner returned to his house. Satya Narayan,
ASI, (who had succeeded Dharam Singh) and Munshi (HC) of Dhamtan
Police Post, came to his house, with four other policemen, handcuffed him
and took him to the Police Post. He was tortured in the Police Post by the
ASI and Head Constable Munshi by thrashing him thrice, each time F
continuously for 15 minutes. When he requested for water, he was forced to
drink hot wiiter with salt. The Munshi, Dhamtan Police Post kept him in a
wooden Shikanza for 5 days and he was not allowed to sleep. Then he was
taken to Jind. He also alleged that the Police forced him to bring money for
the vehicles to conduct raids (to catch his son, Joginder) and he was forced G
to accompany them on such raids and was put in wooden Shikanza at Tulvan
Thana. When he begged that he should be released, he was infonned that he
was being taken for the raids on the instructions ofRanbir Shanna, S.P., Jind,
and that without the pennission of the S.P., he could not be released. After
three days he was again taken back to Dhamtan Post and kept there for 2
' days. Thereafter, he was released with a condition to visit the Police Post H
~
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 2 S.C.R.
\
A everyday in the morning and evening.
(3.2.) The Petitioner alleged that his friends and relatives who wanted
f
to meet him, when he was being illegally detained, were not permitted to
meet him and they were also tortured. He also alleged that Munshi (HC) of
Dhamtan Police Post was demanding money from him.
B
(3.3.) He alleged that in view of such torture, he was forced to leave
his house and remain outside. He prayed for a direction to the Police to stop
the atrocities and torture. He sought compensation for himself and his wife
and daughters for the social, physical and financial loss, and return of his
..
c
licensed gun, gold ornaments and other belongings. He also prayed for a
thorough inquiry into the atrocities and torture committed by the Police and
imposition of punishment to those who were responsible.
(3.4.) The letter of the petitioner was registered as a writ petition and
Rule was issued on 11.1.1999. On 13.9.2000, this Court appointed Mr. S.
D Muralidhar, Advocate, as Amicus curiae, to assist the Court.
The alleged Second Round of Harassment:
4. Joginder was arrested in June, 1999 by Punjab Police. Before his
arrest, he was allegedly involved in two robberies (registered on 19.3.1999
E with PS, City Yamunanagar, and on 21.3.1999 with PS, lndri, Kamal District).
On 25.1.2001, when he was being taken to Ferozepur Court from Ambala
jail, Joginder escaped from police custody. It is further alleged by the police
that on 13.2.200 I, Joginder and his associates murdered two residents of
Tohana.
F
( 4.1.) According to Police, on 29.1.2001, the SHO, Police Station, Garhi
along with other police officials visited the house of petitioner in search of
Joginder who had escaped from custody. Again in February, 2001 after the
double murder, the S.I. of Police Station, Tohana along with the ASI in
charge of Dhamtan Saheb Police Post, and other Police officials visited
G petitioner's house in search of Joginder. In that connection, petitioner and his
brother were taken to Police Station Tohana on 14.2.200 I for inquiries and
were released on the same day. They were again called for inquiries on the
next day. On 22.6.)001, the Officer in Charge of Police Post, Patiala Chowk,
Jim!, searched the house of Minti Devi (sister of Joginder), to find out whether
,.,
Joginder was hiding there. On 24.6.200 I, petitioner's younger son Gurmail
H Singh was arrested for possessing illegal arms.
1
).
. .J
SUBE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA (RAVEENDRAN. J.]
75
(4.2.) The petitioner filed an affidavit dated 22.2.2001 before this Court A
on 3.3.2001 alleging interrogation by Police on 26.1.2001 and 29.1.2001 in
regard to escape of his son Joginder from Police custody. He also alleged that
on 14.2.2001 he and his brother Narsi were handcuffed and taken to Tohana
Police Station and interrogated and released on 15.2.2001. The S.P. Jind filed
a detailed reply affidavit dated 11.8.200 I. A further affidavit was filed by the B
petitioner on I.I 0.200 I wherein he alleged that his younger son Gurrnail
Singh was forcibly taken from his sister's house on 22.6.200 I and tortured.
This brought forth a further affidavit dated 20.11.2001 from the S.P., Jind,
by way of reply denying the allegations.
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT:
5. Not being satisfied with the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of the
State, in regard to the letter-petition, this Court on 9.11.2000 directed the
Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to file a detailed affidavit in regard
c
to the steps taken on the allegations made by the petitioner. In view of it, the
State got the matter inquired into by Dr. John V. George, Inspector General D
of Police, (Law & Order), Haryana. He submitted a report dated 10.3.2001
stating that the allegations of the petitioner relating to police torture, illegal
detention, harassment to wife and daughters, and removal of cash/licensed
weapon/jewellery were not substantiated. The said report, however, confirmed
that petitioner and his brother were called to the Police Station couple of
times for interrogation regarding the whereabouts of Joginder. Not being E
satisfied with the said report, this Court on 17. I 0.200 I directed the CBI to
inquire into the matter with reference to the allegations made in the letter as
also the subsequent affidavits filed by the petitioner and his relatives and the
reply affidavits filed by the respondents.
(5.1.) The CBI held a preliminary inquiry and submitted the report of
the Inquiry Officer (A.K. Ohri, ASP) under cover of its letter dated 22. 7 .2002.
F
The findings in the said report are arrived at, on the basis of the allegations
made in the affidavits filed before this Court, and the statements made by the
petitioner, his family members and others (nearly 100 witnesses) before the
Inquiry Officer. The CBI has concluded that some of the allegations of the G
petitioner were substantiated while several others were not substantiated.
(5.2.) On 16.9.2002, this Court directed that the State Government to
take appropriate action on the report of the CBI. In pursuance of it, an FIR
was lodged in Garhi Police Station, Jind District, (FIR No.152 dated
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2006] 2 S.C.R.
A 17.10.2002 under Sections 323, 342, 343, 365 and 384 IPC) on the basis of
the CBI report, naming the following I 0 officers :-
I.
ASI Dharam Singh (by then S.I.)
2.
ASI Satyanarain 238/Jind
B
3.
HC Om Parkash No. I 02/Jind (by then AS!)
4.
Const. Dilbag Singh, No.59/Jind
5.
HC Balbir Singh No.450/Jind
6.
Const. Sudarshan Kumar No.8 l l/Jind
c
7.
Const. Mukesh Kumar No.99/Jind
8.
Const. Dhoop Singh No.704/Jind
9.
Const. Dharam Pal No.4/Jind
10. Const. Mohinder Singh 825/Jind (by then HC)
D
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana, filed an affidavit dated
1.11.2002 confirming that FIR was lodged and that he was investigating into
the matter.
( 5 .3.) On 11.11.2002, this Court noted that the FIR was registered and
E an appropriate chargesheet would be filed by the State in due course, and that
the officers concerned have been suspended/posted outside the district. This
Court also took note of the submission of the amicus curiae that in such
cases, apart from CBI inquiry and criminal prosecution, compensation has to
be awarded to the victims, and the submission of the State that having regard
F to the facts of the case and having regard to the registration of the FIR, the
matter may have to await the result of the prosecution. While adjourning the
case, this Court observed that the question of awarding any compensation at
that stage, did not arise.
(5.4.) The SP, Jind, by affidavit dated 9.6.2003 informed this Court that
G the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Baka Magistrate, Narwana, and that
the case was fixed for I 8. 7 .2003 for framing of charge. Thereafter, when the
matter came up on 4.8.2003, the amicus curiae again submitted that
compensation should be awarded. This Court directed hearing on the limited
question as to whether compensation should be awarded or not. The criminal
court was also directed to expedite the trial. The criminal case against the
H Police officers, we are informed, is under progress.
\
1
•
i
r
. ..)
,.'"';
SUBE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [RAVEENDRAN. J.)
77
(5.5.) Thereafter, arr;uments on the question as to whether compensation
should be awarded or not were heard on 6.10.2005 and written arguments
were submitted by the Amicus curiae and the State on 19.10.2005 and
16.11.2005 respectively.
(Preliminary) Inquiry Report of CBI:
6. The findings contained in the report of CBI are summarized below:-
Allegations by Petitioner (and his
Finding by C.B.l.
relatives)
1.
Incident on 10.3.1998
I. I.
Petitioner was tortured at
Not substantiated
Dhamtan Saheb Police Post
on 10.3.1998 on the directions
of
Mr.
K.P.
Singh,
Superintendent of Police, Jind
and Mr. Praveen Kumar
Mehta, DSP, 'Jind.
1.2.
On 10.3.1998 Dharam Singh
Not substantiated
AS! took cash of Rs.2,350/-
from the pocket of the
petitioner and Rs.4, 700/- from
the pocket of his friend
Narender Singh.
1.3.
Dharam Singh; ASI, took
Not
substantiated
by
any
away the licensed gun,
independent witness .
cartridges and jewellery from
the house of petitioner, on
l 0.3.1998.
1.4.
Dharam Singh, AS!, Incharge
Substantiated
ofDhamtan Saheb Police Post
along with other Police
officials picked up the
Petitioner and his friend
Sardar Narender Singh on
I 0.3.1998 and took them to
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006) 2 S.C.R.
A
the Police Post and beat them
on the way.
B
1.5.
Om Prakash (H.C., PS, Garhi)
and Dilbag Singh, Sentry,
beat petitioner on 11.3 .1998.
2.
Illegal detention.
2.1.
Petitioner was arrested on
10.3.1998 and taken to Police
Station Garhi on 11.3.1998
Substantiated (But no injury
report or medical report is
available.)
C
where he was illegally
detained for 10 days and
beaten during first 5 days.
Detention of petitioner at P.S.
Garhi for some days was
substantiated by ar. oral evidence
of accused in an Excise Case
(Amarinder Singh).
D
E
F
G
2.2.
Rattan Singh alias Ratna
(brother in law of petitioner)
was picket up on 10.3.1998
and kept illegally at P.S.
Garhi and tortured for 2 days.
He was again arrested on
16.3.1998, tortured for 4 days
and released on 20.3.1998.
Picking up of Rattan Singh a few
days
after
10 .3 .1998
is
established. However, alleged
torture and wrongful confinement
is supported only by his self
statement and not by any medical
or other evidence.
[Note: However, in the writ petition filed by Rattan Singh and
petitioner on 24.3.1998 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, it is
alleged that petitioner and Rattan Singh were kept in illegal
confinement from 10.3.1998 to 13.3.1998 and again from 15.3.1998
to 16.3 .1998. There is no allegation of any torture at all. They only
alleged that they apprehended harassment and torture by Police.)
3.
Incidents between 8.7.1998 and 7.11.1998
3.1.
Munshi (HC), in-charge of
Dhamtan Saheb Police Post
handcuffed petitioner and
took the petitioner to Police
Post on 8.7.1998.
3.2.
Satya Narayan, ASI, harassed
Substantiated
Substantiated
H
petitioner between 8. 7 .1998
\
•
/
/
SUBE SINGH v. ST ATE OF HARY ANA [RA VEENDRAN, J.]
79
and 7. I 1.1998.
3.3.
Satya
Narayan,
ASI,
Not Substantiated
demanded money from the
petitioner and took money
from petitioner, for fuel for
the vehicle used to conduct
raids.
3.4.
Satya Narayan AS! took 10
Not Substantiated
A
B
J
kg. of Desi Ghee from
petitioner's brother Narsi.
3.5.
Satya Narayan, AS!, had
Substantiated
detained Shamsher Singh in
c
police custody.
3.6.
Satya Narayan, AS!, tortured
Not substantiated.
Shamsher Singh and took
Rs.500/- to release him.
4. Re : Incidents in the year 2001
4.1.
SHO, Police Station, Garhi
along with other police
officials
raided
the
petitioner's house in January,
200 l and intentionally flashed
a torch light on the faces of
his young daughters.
4.2.
On 14.2.01, SHO, Police
Station City, Tohana along
with other police officials had
handcuffed the petitioner and
his brother Narsi and detained
for a day
D
Not substantiated.
(What
is
established is that SHO, PS, Garhi
raided the petitioner's house on the E
night of 31.1.0 I to check whether
Joginder who had escaped from
police custody was at the house. A
torch light was used as there was no
electricity.)
F
Not substantiated. (However, what
is established is that the petitioner
and his brother were taken to PS City
Tohana on 14.2.01, for inquiries in
connection with the report that G
petitioner's son Joginder Singh and
his associates had committed a
double murder on 14.2.01. After a
few hours of interrogation they were
released).
H
80
A 4.3.
B
4.4.
c
SUPREME COL!RT REPORTS
[2006] 2 S.C.R.
On 22.6.0 I, Gurmel Singh,
younger son of petitioner was
picked up (by Constables
Mukesh Kumar and Dhup
Singh in a vehicle driven by
Constable Dharampal). He
was confined at PS City, Jind
and tortured. ·
Yad Ram, Inspector, when he
was SHO, PS Alewa forcibly
picked up one Ramphal on
26. 7 .0 I and harassed him
when Ramphal's house was
raided on 29 .7 .0 I.
Substantiated only to the extent that
Gurmel Singh was picked up on
22.6.01
by police party and
wrongfully confined at PS City, Jind.
(In regard to alleged torture, the
statement of Gurmel Singh alone is
available without corroboration).
Not
substantiated.
(What
is
established is Yad Ram had taken
Ramphal on the instructions of ASP,
Jind and examined him for an hour).
7.
The report further shows that petitioner was involved in several
D criminal cases from 1972 and his son Joginder was involved in more number
of criminal cases from the year 1991, as detailed below:-
Cases in respect of petitioner:
I.
FIR No. 275 dt. 13. IO. 72 u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act P.S. Sadar Kaithal.
E
2.
FIR No.59 dt. 13.2.78 u/s 379 !PC PS Sadar Kaithal.
F
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
FIR No.231 dt. 22.7.85 u/s 25154159 Arms Act P.S. Sadar Kaithal.
FIR No.141 dt. 20.7.86 u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act P.S. Sadar Narwana.
FIR No.142 dt. 25.4.91 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act read with section
5 TADA Act P.S. Sadar Kaithal.
FIR No.147 dt. 25.4.91 u/s 285/336 l.P.C. P.S. Sadar Kaithal.
FIR No.219 dt. 17.7.91u/s324/323/506/34 !PC PS Sadar Kaithal.
FIR No.367 dt. 23.11.94 u/s 323/324/148/149 !PC PS Garhi.
G
9.
FIR No.277 dt. 25.6.2001 u/s 332/353/225/186/511 IPC PS City,
Jind.
(Note: The petitioner was convicted only in the first case. He was
1
acquitted in all other cases.)
• ....
H
f
SUBE SINOlh. STATE OF HARY ANA [RA VEENDRAN. J.)
81
~
Cases in respect of Joginder Singh :
A
(a)
FIR No.219 dated 17.7.91 u/s 323/324/506/34 !PC PS Sadar,
KaithaL
(b) ·FIR No.395 dated 5.7.97 u/s 324/34 !PC PS Civil Lines, Hissar.
(c) FIR No.242 dated 7.9.96 u/s 307/120-B !PC & 25/54/59 Arms B
Act, PS City, Tohana.
. ,
(d) FIR No.245 dated 8.9..96 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS City, Tohana .
(e) FIR No.112 dated 10.3.98 u/s 302/307/353/86/34 !PC & 25/54/
59 Arms Act, PS Garhi..
c
(t)
FIR No.57 dated 31.3.99 u/s 392/395 !PC & 25/54/59 Arms Act,
PS Indri, Kamal.
.
(g)·. FIR No.99 dated 19.3.99 u/s 393/394/397/307/452 !PC, PS City,
Yamunanagar ..
·-
.,._
.(h) ·FIR No.94 dated 21.6.99 u/s 399/401 !PC, 25/54/59 Arms Act, D
PS Malanwala, Distt. Firozepur, Punjab.
(i)
FIR No.8 dated 26.1.2001 u/s 223/224 !PC, PS GRP, Ludhiana,
ciPunjab ..
U'): :FIR No.'48 dated 14.2.2001 u/s 302/307/34 !PC and 25/54/59 E
Arms Act, PS City; Tohana.
(k) FIR No.JOO dated 16.2.2001u/s307/332/353/216 !PC and 25/54/
59 Arms Act, PS Sadar, Fatehabad.
(I)
FIR No.38 dated 21.2.200.1 u/s399/307 /402 !PC and 25/54/59
Arms Act, PS City, Narwana .
-,F
. 4
(m) FIR No.29 dated 16.3.2001 u/s 307, 120-B !PC and 25/54/59
Arms Act, PS City, Firozepur, Punjab.
(n) FIR No.149 dated 23.8.2001 u/s 25154159 Arms Act, PS Sadar,
Kapurthala, Punjab.
G
(Note : Joginder was con~icted in regard to FIR 242/1996 and FIR
No.24511996. SI. No. (c) and (d) above on 31.1.2002 and senteri;~d
,......,
. to undergo RI for six years and two years respectively)
~
H
-{
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006) 2 S.C.R.
A Position emerging from the records/CBI Report/arguments:
8. A careful examination of the facts, lead to the following inferences:
(i)
All allegations (relating to petitioner and his family members
being taken to Police Stations/Police Posts and being questioned/
B
beaten up/tortured) are in connection with the effort of Police to
find the ~hereabouts of Joginder Singh, whenever he was involved
in a serious incident, that is (a) incident on 10.3.1998 when
Joginder was suspected of killing a Police con~table, (b) incident
on 25.1.200 I when Joginder escaped from Police custody when
he was being taken to court, and ( c) incident on 13/14.2.2001
c
when Joginder was suspected of killing two persons at Tohana.
(ii) Though there is some evidence of illegal detention and beating of
petitioner and his relatives, the allegations of custodial torture are
exaggerated and to a certain extent false.
D
(iii) There is no medical evidence nor any visible scars/ marks/disability
resulting from the alleged torture, either in the case of petitioner
or his family members/relatives.
(iv) The complaints of petitioner and his relatives are against different
police officers of different police stations (totally unconnected
E
with each other) in regard to incidents at different points of time,
in March, 1998, April,.1998, July, 1998, January, 2001, February,
. '
2001 and June, 2001.
(v) The case of Petitioner is that he and/or his relatives were harassed,
illegally confined, or tortured, to find out the whereabouts of
F
Joginder. The police contend that the allegations by petitioner
and his relatives, are by way of a well conceived plot to prevent
police investigation in regard to misdeeds by Joginder and his
associates and to pre-empt any action by the police against Joginder
or his family members.
G
9. We will next refer to the factors which indicate that petitioner and
his relatives have made false and exaggerated claims in regard to illegal
detention, torture etc., apart from suppressing material facts.
(9.1.) In his letter to this Court, petitioner has alleged that he was
illegally confined by the Police for 11 days from 10.3.1998 (one day at
H Dhamtan Saheb Police Post and I 0 d<tys at Police Station, Garhi). Rattan
>
,
' \
1
).
.l
SUBE SINGH v. STATE OF HARV ANA [RA VEENDRAN, J.]
83
Singh (brother in law of petitioner) in his affidavit dated 13.5.1999 alleges A
that he was illegally detained for 2 days and again for 4 days. But in the writ
petition filed by petitioner and Rattan Singh in the Punjab and Haryana High
Court on 24.3.1998, it is alleged that the petitioner and Rattan Singh were
confined by Police between 10.3.1998 and 13.3.1998 (three days) and again
for a day between 15.3.1998 and 16.3.1998.
B
(9.2.) Petitioner, in the letter to this Court, alleges beating and torture
at Dhamtan Saheb Police Post on 10.3.1998 and at Police Station, Garhi for
five days in Police custody between 11.3.1998 and 16.3.1998. Rattan Singh
alleges torture for 2 days (from 10.3.1998 to 12.3.1998) and again for four
days (from 16.3.1998 to 20.3.1998). But in the writ petition filed in Punjab C
& Haryana High Court on 24.3.1998 by petitioner and Rattan Singh, there is
no allegation of beating or torture, but only expression of an apprehension
that they may be arrested, harassed and tortured (Note : Petitioner blames his
counsel for not mentioning the facts properly in the writ petition filed before
the High Court).
D
(9.3.) In the letter petition, petitioner completely suppressed the fact
that he (along with Rattan Singh) had filed a writ petition on 24.3.1998 in the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in regard to the said incident (between
10.3.1998 to 21.3.1998) and the fact that the said writ petition was disposed
of on 27.4.1998 by the High Court reserving liberty to file a criminal complaint. E
(9.4.) In the letter petition, the petitioner has alleged four 'misdeeds' of
police on 10.3.1998: (a) His torture at the police post at the Dhamtari Saheb
Police Post by Dharam Singh, AS! at the instance of Superintendent of Police
· and DSP, (b) Mistreatment of wife and daughters of the petitioner at the
Dhamtan Saheb Police Post, (c) Rs.2,350/- being taken from his pocket by F
AS! Dharam Singh, and (d) Licensed gun, cartridges, arms licence and gold
ornaments being illegally taken by AS! Dharam Singh on 10.3.1998. The
CBI report finds that none of these four allegations is substantiated.
(9.5.) In the letter petition, the petitioner alleged that he had told police G
that he was not on good terms with his son Joginder Singh, that he had
already disowned him and the family was having no connection with Joginder.
He even published a notice in 'Dainik Tribune' in August, 1998 stating that
he has no connection with his son Joginder. In his affidavit dated 31.8.200 I
(filed in this case on 1.10.200 I), petitioner reiterates that he has disowned his
son Joginder and alleges that he did not have any contact with him; and that H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006J 2 S.C.R.
A in spite of it, the police were continuously harassing him and his family
members seeking information about the whereabouts of Joginder and raiding
his house and his relatives' houses to find out whether Joginder was hiding
there. But the CBI inquiry has categorically found that petitioner and his
family members had not disowned Joginder. They were regularly meeting
B Joginder when he was in custody. Petitioner was traveling to meet his son
Joginder whenever he was being produced in courts, in respect of different
cases. In fact petitioner received money from the All India Food & Allied
Workers Palledar Union, Tohana (Kacchi Union) of which he was a member,
to meet the expenses of the travel (to meet his son) on 25. l 0.2000, 25.11.2000,
21.12.2000, 13.1.2001, 16.1.2001, 23.1.2001, 9.10.2001, 10.10.2001,
C 11.10.2001, 15.10.2001, 25.10.2001, 7.11.2001, 17.11.200'1and20.11.2001.
D
Further, the jail records showed that Joginder was met by petitioner's wife on
26.8.1999, petitioner's brother Narsi on 17.11.1999, 18.11.1999 and 1.3.2002,
petitioner's uncle Rama on 20.11.1999, and petitioner's brother-in-law Rattan
Singh on 5.3.2002.
10. There was thus reasonable cause for the Police to think that the
family members of Joginder might know about his whereabouts. The repeated
questioning of the family members of Joginder in the year 1998 and 200 I,
either at their houses or by calling them to the Police Station/Post was part
of investigation process and cannot, per se, be considered as harassment or
E violation of Article 21. Whether the police exceeded their limits in questioning
the petitioner or his relatives is of course a different aspect. The report of the
CBI shows that there is prima facie evidence about petitioner and some of
his relatives being illegally detained in Police Station/Post and subjected
possibly to some third degree methods, to extract information regarding the
whereabouts of Joginder Singh. At the same time, the report makes it clear
F that neither the illegal detention nor the alleged torture (if true) was of an
extent, alleged by the petitioner and his relatives. The claims were clearly
exaggerated and many a time false also. It is quite probable that the allegations
against Police were levelled and/or exaggerated to avoid enquiries by the
Police in regard to Joginder.
G
H
11.