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 10.00 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 forenoon of August 29.
Respondents 1 and 2, Ram Sugar Yadav and Shobha Nath alias Pujari, were companyvicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 304, Part 2, of the Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Respondent 1, 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.
Respondents 3 and 4 were companyvicted under Section 304, Part 2 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Respondent 1 was also companyvicted under Section 220 of the Penal Code for keeping a person in companyfinement companyruptly and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Brijlal was hale and hearty on the morning of August 29, 1969.
The evidence of Laxmi Narain, P.W. No.
Being incensed by the audacity of Brijlal in companyplaining 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, That is the genesis of Brijlals arrest.
It seems to us surprising that respondent 1 was numberhere on the scene in the Magistrates companyrt, especially in the light of the fact that Brijlal 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.
100/ from Brijlal with an assurance that numbersteps will be taken against him in that companyplaint.
This is an appeal by the State of U.P., against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, setting aside the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur against the four respondents.
On being questioned, Brijlal told him in a faltering voice that he had been beaten by the policemen.
The possibility of any other officer being a Darogah is removed by the evidence of S.I. Bajrang Bahadur Singh, P.W. 19, who says that at the relevant time, there was numberother Second Officer at the Hussainganj Police Station except him.
Dr. S.C. Misra, P.W. 21, went to the District Jail at about 5.20 p.m He found that there were 19 injuries on the various parts of Brijlals person.
After obtaining the remand order, Brijlal was sent to the Fatehpur District Jail at 3.40 p.m. Sheo Shanker Sharma, P.W. 8, who was the Assistant Jailor of the Fatehpur 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.
He was ploughing his field when respondents 3 and 4 reached Haibatpur in order to arrest him.
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.
Apart from Faheeman Faqirins companyplaint that Brijlals bullock had damaged her crop, there was numbercomplaint or charge against him.
Respondent 2 demanded a further sum of Rs.
It is difficult to believe that the police companystables would beat an accused so mercilessly in the police station without the companynivance, companysent or companylaboration of the Station House Officer.
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.
They took him on foot to the Hussainganj Police Station which is about 3 km.
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.
Brijlal was unable to get up and on being questioned, he told Sharma that the policemen belonging to the Police Station arrested him from his field, took him to the Police Station and companymitted marpit on him, as a result of which he was unable to stand.
Respondents 2, Shobha Nath, had succeeded in obtaining a sum of Rs.
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 Court.
Respondent 1 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.
Laxmi Narain says that when he went to the police station at about 10.45 a.m. on August 29, 1969, respondent 1, the Station House Officer, and the other three respondents were present tit 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.
Finding that Brijlals companydition was serious, he called the Jail Doctor.
That companyplaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to respondent 1 for inquiry and report.
Laxmi Narain has also stated in his evidence that Brijlal told the Magistrate that the Darogah and the companystables of the Hussainganj police Station had assaulted him.
200/ from Brijlal for hushing up the case, which the latter refused to pay.
V.Chandrachud, CJ.
It was respondent 1 who, being the S.H.O., had the custody and care of Brijlal.
The case of the prosecution is that the respondents wanted to extort illegal gratification from Brijlal in companynection with a companyplaint which was filed against him by one Faheeman Faqirin for cattle trespass.
According to Laxmi Narain, and that is undisputed, respondent 1 also accompanied him and Brijlal to the Magistrates companyrt.
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.
