unsoundness of mind

“Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it.

Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss.

Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.”

-Adriana P. Bartow

The importance of affirmed rights of every human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens.

Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens.

It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society.

In all custodial crimes that is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma a person experiences is beyond the purview of law.

Meaning of Torture

“Torture” has not been defined in Constitution or in other penal laws. ‘Torture’ of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the ‘strong’ over the ‘weak’ by suffering.

“Custodial torture” is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation with destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality.

International Laws on Custodial Violence

“Custodial violence” and abuse of police power is not only peculiar to this country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global.

1.      International Conventions

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1984, which market the emergency of worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights, stipulates in Article 5 that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to curel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Despite the pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilised nation shows its concern and takes steps for its eradication.

2.      English Laws

In England, torture was once regarded as a normal practice to gather information regarding the crime, the accomplices and the case property or to extract confessions, but with the development of common law and more radical ideas imbibing human though and approach, such inhuman practices were initially discouraged and eventually almost done away with, certain aberrations here and there notwithstanding.

The police powers of arrest, detention and interrogation in England were examined in depth by Sir Cyril Philips Committee- ‘Report of a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure’ (command – Paper 8092 of 1981).

The report of the Royal Commission is, instructive. In regard to the power of arrest, the Report recommended that the power to arrest without a warrant must be related to and limited by the object to be served by the arrest, namely, to prevent the suspect from destroying evidence or interfering with witnesses or warning accomplices who have not yet been arrested or where there is a good reason to suspect the repetition of the offence and not to every case irrespective of the object sought to be achieved.

The power of arrest, interrogation and detention has now been streamlined in England on the basis of the suggestions made by the Royal Commission and incorporated in police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 and the incidence of custodial violence has been minimised there to a very great extent.

Fundamental Rights against Custodial Violence

Fundamental rights occupy a place of pride in the India Constitution.

ARTICLE 21 provides “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty expect according to procedure established by law“. Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution.

The expression “life of personal liberty” has been held to include the right to live with human dignity and thus it would also include within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries.

ARTICLE 22 guarantees protection against arrest and detention in certain cases and declares that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest and the shall not be denied the right to consult and defend himself by a legal practitioner of his choice.

CLAUSE (2) OF ARTICLE 22 directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate.

ARTICLE 20(3) of the Constitution lays down that a person accused of an offence shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. These are some of the constitutional safeguard provided to a person with a view to protect his personal liberty against and unjustified assault by the State.

Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution required to be jealously and scrupulously protected.

Any form of torture of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise.

If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen.

The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicted under trials, detunes and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

Statutory Provisions against Custodial Violence

In tune with the constitutional guarantee a number statutory provisions also seek to project personal liberty, dignity and basic human rights of the citizens.

CHAPTER V. OF Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with the powers of arrest of a person and the safeguard which are required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the arrested person.

SECTION 41, CR. P.C. confers powers on any police officer to arrest a person under the circumstances specified therein without any order or a warrant of arrest from a Magistrate.

SECTION 46 provides the method and manner of arrest. Under this Section no formality is necessary while arresting a person.

Under SECTION 49, the police is not permitted to use more restraint than is necessary to permitted to use more restraint than is necessary to prevent the escape of the person.

SECTION 50 enjoins every police officer arresting any person without warrant to communicate to him the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested and the grounds for such arrest.

The police officer is further enjoined to inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and he may arrange for sureties in the event of his arrest for a non-bailable offence.

SECTION 56 contains a mandatory provision requiring the police officer making an arrest without warrant to produce the arrested person before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay and Section 57 echoes Clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

There are some other provisions also like Section 53, 54 and 167 which are aimed at affording procedural safeguards to a person arrested by the police.

Whenever a person dies in custody of the police, Section 176 requires the Magistrate to hold and enquiry into the cause of death.

Third Degree Method

However, inspite of the constitutional and statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and life of a citizen, growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody has been a disturbing factor.

Experience shows that worst violations of human rights take place during the course of investigation, when the police with a view to secure evidence or confession often resorts to third degree methods including torture and adopts techniques of screening arrest by either not recording the arrest or describing the deprivation of liberty merely as a prolonged interrogation.

A reading of the morning newspapers almost every day carrying reports of dehumanising torture, assault, rape and death in custody of police or other governmental agencies is indeed depressing. The increasing incidence of torture and death in custody has assumed such alarming proportions that it is affecting the creditability of the Rule of Law and the administration of criminal justice system.

Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of a an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with that view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means.

The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purpose full to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using their degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No. society can permit it.

Report of National Police Commission

The Third Report of the National Police Commission in India expressed its deep concern with custodial demoralising effect with custodial torture was creating on the society as a whole. It made some very useful suggestions.

It suggested: “…….An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances: –

  • The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims.
  • The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
  • The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
  • The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.

It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the specified guidelines……”

The recommendations of the Police Commission (supra) reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. These recommendations, however, have not acquired any statutory status so far.

Judicial Decisions against Custodial Violence

Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar Vs. State[1]considered the dynamics of misuse of police power of arrest and opined :

“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power of arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another…No. arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation about the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying person his liberty is a serious matter.”

In Neelabati Bahera Vs. State of Orissa[2], Supreme Court pointed out that prisoners and detenues are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights of the arrestees and detenues.

It was observed:

It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen of life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody.

The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in custody, expect according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life.

His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law.”

Custodial death and lack of evidence against Police

Instances have come to out notice were the police has arrested a person without warrant in connection with the investigation of an offence, without recording the arrest, and the arrest person has been subjected to torture to extract information from him for the purpose of further investigation or for recovery of case property or for extracting confession etc. The torture and injury caused on the body of the arrestee has sometime resulted into his death.

Death in custody is not generally shown in the records of the lock-up and every effort is made by the police to dispose of the body or to make out a case that the arrested person died after he was released from custody. Any complaint against such torture or death is generally not given any attention by the police officers because of ties of brotherhood.

No first information report at the instance of the victim or his kith and kin is generally entertained and even the higher police officers turn a blind eye to such complaints. Even where a formal prosecution is launched by the victim or his kith and kin, no direct evidence is available to substantiate the charge of torture or causing hurt resulting into death as the police lock-up where generally torture or injury is caused is away from the public gaze and the witnesses are either police men or co- prisoners who are highly reluctant to appear as prosecution witness due to fear of letaliation by the superior officers of the police.

It is often seen that when a complaint is made against torture, death or injury, in police custody, it is difficult to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are incharge of police station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate. Consequently, prosecution against the delinquent officers generally results in acquittal.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors[3]. is an apt case illustrative of the observations made above.

Law Commission Recommendations to curb Custodial Violence

It needs no emphasis to say that when the crime goes unpunished, the criminals are encouraged and the society suffers. The victim of crime or his kith and kin become frustrated and contempt for law develops.

It was considering these aspects that the Law Commission in its 113th Report recommended the insertion of Section 114B in the Indian Evidence Act.

The Law Commission recommended in its 113th Report that in prosecution of a police officer for an alleged offence of having caused bodily injury to a person, if there was evidence that the injury was caused during the period when the person was in the custody of the police, the Court may presume that the injury was caused by the police officer having the custody of the person during that period.

The Commission further recommended that the court, while considering the question of presumption, should have regard to all relevant circumstances including the period of custody statement made by the victim, medical evidence and the evidence with the Magistrate may have recorded. Change of burden of proof was, thus, advocated.

In sham Sunder Trivedi’s case (supra) Supreme Court also expressed the hope that the Government and the legislature would give serious thought to the recommendation of the Law Commission. Unfortunately, the suggested amendment, has not been incorporated in the statute so far.

If detention is necessary then also human Rights

There can be no gain saying that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State. The right of preventive detention of individuals in the interest of security of the State in various situations prescribed under different statures has been upheld by the Courts.

The right to interrogate the detenues, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation, must take precedence over an individual’s right to personal liberty. The latin maxim salus populi est supreme lex (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae est suprema lex (safety of the state is the supreme law) co-exist and are not only important and relevant but lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.

The action of the State, however must be “right, just and fair”. Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be ‘right nor just nor fair’ and, therefore, would be impermissible, being offensive to Article 21. Such a crime-suspect must be interrogated – indeed subjected to sustained and scientific interrogation determined in accordance with the provisions of law.

He cannot, however, be tortured or subjected to third degree methods or eleminated with a view to elicit information, extract confession or drive knowledge about his accomplices, weapons etc.

His Constitutional right cannot be abridged except in the manner permitted by law, though in the very nature of things there would be qualitative difference in the methods of interrogation of such a person as compared to an ordinary criminal.

Challenge of terrorism must be met with innovative ideas and approach. State terrorism is not answer to combat terrorism. State terrorism would only provide legitimacy to ‘terrorism’. That would be bad for the State, the community and above all for the Rule of Law. The State must, therefore, ensure that various agencies deployed by it for combating terrorism act within the bounds of law and not become law unto themselves. that the terrorist has violated human rights of innocent citizens may render him liable for punishment but it cannot justify the violation of this human rights expect in the manner permitted by law.

Need, therefore, is to develop scientific methods of investigation and train the investigators properly to interrogate to meet the challenge.

Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for arrest in D.K. Basu Case

Supreme Court issued the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:

  1. The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name togs with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
  2. That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest a such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness. who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
  3. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
  4. The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
  5. The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.
  6. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of he next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
  7. The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
  8. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned Stare or Union Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
  9. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the illaga Magistrate for his record.
  10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
  11. A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution and need to be strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to the other governmental agencies also to which a reference has been made earlier.

Failure to comply

Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render his liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

How do we check the abuse of police power?

  • Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two possible safeguards which this Court must insist upon.
  • Attention is also required to be paid to properly develop work culture, training and orientation of police force consistent with basic human values.
  • Training methodology of the police needs restructuring.
  • The force needs to be infused with basic human values and made sensitive to the constitutional ethos.
  • Efforts must be made to change the attitude and approach of the police personal handling investigations so that they do not sacrifice basic human values during interrogation and do not resort to questionable form of interrogation.
  • With a view to bring in transparency, the presence of the counsel of the arrestee at some point of time during the interrogation may deter the police from using third degree methods during interrogation.

Apart from the police, there are several other governmental authorities also like Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Directorate of Enforcement, Costal Guard, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), the State Armed Police, Intelligence Agencies like the Intelligence Bureau, R.A.W, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) , CID, Tariff Police, Mounted Police and ITBP which have the power to detain a person and to interrogated him in connection with the investigation of economic offences, offences under the Essential Commodities Act, Excise and Customs Act. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act etc.

There are instances of torture and death in custody of these authorities as well.

In re Death of Sawinder Singh Grover[4] supreme Court took suo moto notice of the death of Sawinder Singh Grover during his custody with the Directorate of Enforcement. After getting an enquiry conducted by the additional District Judge, which disclosed a prima facie case for investigation and prosecution, supreme Court directed the CBI to lodge a FIR and initiate criminal proceeding against all persons named in the report of the Additional District Judge and proceed against them.

The Union of India/Directorate of Enforcement was also directed to pay sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the widow of the deceased by was of the relevant provisions of law to protect the interest of arrested persons in such cases too is a genuine need.


As held by Honourable Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. West Bengal (1996)

[1] [1994 (4) SCC, 260]

[2] 1993 (2) SCC, 746]

[3] 1995 (3) Scale, 343

[4] 1995 Supp (4) SCC, 450