A2 admitted the fact that Ram Dhiraj was arrested outside his village house at Khajapur on 19.10.1971 and was brought to the police station Kure Bhar on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. He, however, denied having caused any injury to him during arrest.
The defence version on the other hand is that the deceased was arrested on 20.10.1971 by A2 and his two companypanions from near a culvert in village Hanna Harora and he was beaten up by them as he resisted arrest.
661 of 1975 in the High Court.
One Jagdamba was arrested in that companynection on 20.9.1971.
General Diary Entry No.
He was, therefore, charged under Section 304, 330, 201, 218/ 34, I.P.C., while his companypanion A3 was charged under Section 201 and 218, P.C. All the three accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.
The trial companyrt has companye to a firm companyclusion that these in juries were caused to the deceased in the police station after his arrest.
It is number in dispute that an offence of dacoity at village Khera was registered at Police Station Kure Bhar on 25.5.1971.
The prosecution case against A1 was that he was respon sible for having beaten the suspect Ram Dhiraj in the companypa ny of two others which resulted in as many as 28 injuries to which he ultimately succumbed.
The fact that Ram Dhiraj died of injuries received by him after his arrest and while he was in police custody is number seriously disputed.
The sub stantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
It is alleged that the fact that he was apprehended from his village and was brought to the police station on 19.10.1971 was number entered in the general diary register but a false entry was posted in the said general diary register regarding his arrest on the next day i.e. 20.10.1971, at about 6.00 a.m. from near a culvert in village Hanna Harora by A2 and his two chowkidars.
The defence version was that as he tried to resist arrest A2 and his two companypanions beat him up as a result of which he sustained the injuries in question.
A1 demanded a sum of Rs.2000 from them to refrain from ill treating Ram Dhiraj.
477 of 1979 is preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of A1.
PW 1 Dr. Mitra performed the autopsy and found as many as 28 ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
Pursuant thereto A2 and his companypanions apprehended Ram Dhiraj from his residence in village Khajapur on 19.10.1971 at about 11.00 a.m. in the presence of his mother Kamaraji PW 7 , sisters husband Ram Niranjan Misra PW 8 and labourer Jiyalal PW 9 .
In that companynec tion one Jagdamba was arrested on 20.9.1971.
A3 was, however, companyvicted under Sections 201 and 218 I.P.C. and was ordered to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years on each companynt.
During interro gation by AI the said suspect is alleged to have made.a companyfessional statement involving Ram Dhiraj Tiwari.
On his demise his dead body was taken to Kotwali Sultanpur where an entry No.
111 of 1979 is preferred by A3 questioning his companyviction while Criminal Appeal No.
PW 8 and Ram Baran Dubey PW 10 are stated to have followed him to the police station.
It, however, transpired later that Ram Dhiraj died at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day while he was being taken to the residence of one of the Magistrates at Sultanput for remand.
Crime No.
The State did number question the acquittal of A2.
3 Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Since the bribe was number paid A1 and his two companypan ions renewed the torture with vengeance which lasted till about 9 or 10 p.m. As a result of the merciless beating Ram Dhiraj was badly injured.
Another entry was made in the same general diary on the same day purporting to transfer Ram Dhiraj to police station Sadar for admission to the District Jail.
On the arrival of PW 5 at the police station, A1 is alleged to have repeated his demand of Rs.2000.
30 regarding his death was made in the general diary at about 4.20 p.m. On 21.10.1971 an inquest was made on the dead body and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
It was also alleged that he had demanded a bribe of Rs.2000 to desist from meting out third degree punishment to the suspect.
Thereupon PW 8 went to Village Pure Neelkanth three miles away to fetch Bindeshwari Prasad Shukla PW 5 the husband of Ram Dhirajs eider sister.
After his arrest Ram Dhiraj was brought to police station Kure Bhar at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day and handed over to A1.
Both the companyvicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.
71 of 1971 under Section 395, IPC was registered at the said police station on 25.5.
477 of 1979.
1971 companycern ing a dacoity companymitted at Village Khara within the jurisdiction of the said police station.
On the basis of this information A 1 directed A2 and Ram Jas PW 6 and Harakh, both police chowkidars, to apprehend Ram Dhiraj and produce him before him.
When PW 8 and PW 10 tried to intervene.,
3 of 1975, three persons were put up for trial before the learned Special Judge, Sultanpur U.P. The case arose out of the death of one Ram Dhiraj Tiwari in police custody.
His companypanion Accused No.
Accused No.
They however did number deny the fact that Ram Dhiraj died in police custo dy.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. In Criminal Case No.
Qamaruddin and Mrs. M. Qamaruddin for the Respondent in Crl.
A. No.
477 of 1979.
2 Shamsher Ali since acquitted was posted at the said police station as Beat Constable No.
111 of 1979 was the Head Moharrir of the said police station.
Prithvi Raj, Prashant Choudhary and D. Bhandari for the Respondent in Crl.
A. No.
Accused No.
It is alleged that soon charge of A1, he was given a severe beating with lathi and dandas by A1 and two companystables, whose identity is number established, with a view to extracting a companyfessional statement from him.
A. No.
661 of 1975.
P. Midha and B.D. Sharma for the Appellant in Crl.
111 of 1979 and Appellant in Crl.
477 of 1979 was the Sub Inspector of Police Station Kure Bhar in District Sul tanpur at all material times during the companymission of the crime.
111 of 1979.
1 Rafiuddin Khan Respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution version is that he was beaten in the police station on 19.10.1971 by A1 and his two companypanions after he was arrested from his residence and brought to the police station.
It also found that the three prosecution witnesses PW5, PW8 and PW 10 were number eye witnesses to the incident and hence their story about beat ing in the police station and the demand of bribe cannot be accepted.
14 was made to show that Ram Dhiraj was sent from Sardar police station at about 12.15 numbern for admission to the District Jail as he had sustained injuries.
A2 was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
On facts found proved, the trial companyrt companyvicted A1 under Section 304 Part II and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years, under Section 330 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years, under Section 201 and 218/34 and 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Preven tion of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years on each companynt all substantive sentences to run companycurrently.
