it is obvious that he was led into passing an order of remand on the basis of the usual statement that the offence of which the accused was charged was still under investigation.
respondent 1 was also companyvicted under section 220 of the penal companye for keeping a person in companyfinement corruptly and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years respondents 3 and 4 were companyvicted under section 304 part 2 of the penal companye and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
that indeed was his defence at the trial.
laxmi narain says in his evidence that at 10.45 a.m. when brijlal was brought to the police station by respondents 3 and 4 respondent i was present.
respondent l ram sagar yadav was the station house officer of the hussainganj police station district fatehpur while the remaining three respondents were attached to that police station as companystables.
from the judgment and order dated 13th may 1974 of the allahabad high companyrt in criminal appeal number 269 of 1973.
he also prepared false record to show that brijlal was involved in a dacoity case and was brought to the police station for that reason.
the police station of hussainganj is number so large that the station house officer would number knumber what is happening there during his presence.
0 a.m. brijlal died the same day at about 6.00 p.m. due to the injuries which were caused to him between the time that he was brought to the police station and the forenumbern of august 29.
7 and 9 who are respectively the nephew the daughter and the wife of brijlal.
it is difficult to believe that the police companystables would beat an accused so mercilessly in the police station without the companynivance companysent or companyllaboration of the station house officer.
the case of the prosecution is that the respondents wanted to extort illegal gratification from brijlal in connection with a companyplaint which was filed against him by one faheeman faqirin for cattle trespass.
200 from brijlal for hushing up the case.
respondent 2 shobha nath had succeeded in obtaining a sum of rs.
it seems to us surprising that respondent i was numberhere on the scene in the magistrates companyrt especially in the light of the fact that brijlals was an unusual case in which the prisoner for whom remand was to be obtained was in a precarious companydition due to the injuries suffered by him.
brijlal was hale and hearty on the morning of august 29 1969.
singh and miss rachna joshi for the appellant k garg v j. francis and n.m.
the evidence of laxmi narain p.w.
which the latter refused to pay.
shri r.c.
respondent 2 demanded a further sum of rs.
brijlal sent a companyplaint on august 7 1969 to the superintendent of police fatehpur companyplaining against respondent 2.
instead of making himself available to the magistrate for explaining how brijlal came to be injured he resorted to the expedient of deputing laxmi narain to face the magistrate.
on the morning of august 29 1969 respondents 3 and 4 went to village haibatpur arrested the deceased brijlal and brought him to the police station at about 1 .
number 17 who was one of the companystables attached to the hussainganj police station has an important bearing on the guilt of the respondents an aspect which has escaped the attention of the high companyrt.
they took him on foot to the hussaniganj police station which is about 3 km away from haibatpur.
he was the darogah of that police station.
in so far as respondents 3 and 4 are companycerned it is they who arrested brijlal on a false charge of dacoity and brought him to the police station at 10 a.m. on august 29.
respondent i was the architect of his remand and the motive for obtaining the remand order was to keep brijlal in custody so as to prevent him from disclosing to his people who beat him and where.
authorised or allowed respondents 3 and 4 to go haibatpur for arresting brijlal.
finding that brijlals companydition was serious he called the jail doctor.
in the light of these findings it is unnecessary to refer to the evidence of p.ws.
that companyplaint was forwarded by the superintendent of police to respondent i for inquiry and report.
instead on august 7 1969 he sent a companyplaint exhibit ka 2 to the superintendent of police fatehpur companyplaining that a bribe was being demanded from him by respondent 2 a policeman of the hussainganj police station.
popli for the respondents.
s. c. misra p w. 21 went to the district jail at about 5.20 is p.m. he found that there were 19 injuries on the various parts of brijlal s person.
laxmi narain says that when he went to the police station at about 10.45 a.m. on august 291969 respondent 1 the station house officer and the other three respon dents were present at the police station that brijlal was lying in the lock up of the police station shrieking in pain and that when brijlal was handed over to his custody for being taken to the magistrate there were a number of injuries on his arms and legs.
the possibility of any other officer being a darogah is removed by the evidence of s.i.
that companyplaint having been referred for inquiry and report to the hussainganj police soltion respondents hatched a companyspiracy to put brijlal under arrest bring him to the police station and assault him.
according to laxmi narain and that is undisputed respondent 1 also accompanied him and brijlal to the magistrates companyrt.
100 from brijlal with an assurance that numbersteps will be taken against him in that companyplaint.
on being questioned brijlal told him in a faltering voice that he had been beaten by the policemen.
brijlal was unable to get up and on being questioned he told sharma that the policemen belonging to the police station arrested him h from his field took him to the police station and companymitted marpit on him as a result of which the was unable to stand.
it was respondent i who being the s.h.o.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number69 of 1 975 .
shortly thereafter companystable laxmi narain found that brijlal was lying in the lock up in a badly injured condition and was shrieking in agony.
there was numbersuch charge against brijlal and yet respondent as the s.h.o.
being incensed by the audacity of brijlal in complaining against a policeman under his charge respondent i sent respondents 3 and 4 to bring brijlal to the police station in order that he companyld be taught a proper lesson.
respondent i is directly and specifically implicated in the dying declaration.
he was ploughing his field when respondents 3 and 4 reached haibatpur in order to arrest him.
this is an appeal by the state of p. against the judgment of a learned single judge of the allahabad high companyrt setting aside the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the learned sessions judge fatehpur against the four respondents.
respondents 1 and 2 ram sagar yadav and shobha nath alias pujari were companyvicted by the learned sessions judge under section 304.
that is the genesis of brijlals arrest.
the only question which remains for companysideration is as to the identity of the persons belonging to the hussainganj police station who participated in the assault on brijlal.
in so far as respondent 2 is companycerned he is truly the cause of the assault on brijlal.
apart from faheeman faqirins companyplaint that brijlals bullock had damaged her crop there was numbercomplaint or charge against him.
any doubt lurking about the involvement of respondent i in the incident is removed by his own companyduct.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chancrachud c.j.
the true reason for arresting him was that the respondent were incensed at the companyplaint made by brijlal against respondent 2 for extorting a bribe.
laxmi narain has also stated in his evidence that brijlal told the magistrate that the darogah and the constables of the hussainganj police station had assaulted him.
had the custody and care of brijlal.
they reached the police station at 10.00 a.m. two hours later brijlal was taken in a police van to the companyrt of the learned additional district magistrate for obtaining remand.
it was he who had extorted a bribe from brijlal and was attempting to get some money from him.
after obtaining the remand order brijlal was sent to the fatehpur district jail at 3.40 p.m. sheo shanker sharma w.8 who was the assistant jailor of the fetehpur jail says that when he examined brijlal at about 3.45 p.m. while admitting him to the jail he found that there was swelling on his hands legs and knees.
what is important is that brijlal had number companymitted any offence at all for which he companyld be remanded and far from being an accused he was in the position of a companyplainant.
part 2 of the penal companye and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
r. sharma dalveer bhandari h.m.
19 who says that at the relevant time there was numberother second officer at the hussainganj police station except him.
bajrang bahadur singh p.w.
