2. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Sagar Yadav & Ors.; (1985) 1
SCC 552
• We would like to impress upon the Government the need to
amend the law appropriately so that policemen who commit
atrocities on persons who are in their custody are not allowed to
escape by reason of paucity or absence of evidence.
• The Law as to the burden of proof in such cases may be re-
examined by the Legislature so that hand maids of law and
order do not use their authority and opportunities for
oppressing the innocent citizens who look to them for protection.
3. D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal; (1997) 1 SCC 416
• The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be denied to
convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody.
• 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.
• Need, therefore, is to develop scientific methods of investigation
and train the investigators properly to interrogate to meet the
challenge.
• The law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture
of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation
with a view to solve the crime.
4. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raaghunath Dhoble;
(2003) 7 SCC 749
• The Law Commission in its 113th Report recommended
amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to provide
that …….., if there is evidence that the injury was caused during
the period when the person was in the police custody, the Court
may presume that the injury was caused by the Police Officer
having the custody of that person during that period unless the
Police Officer proves to the contrary.
• The Courts are also required to have a change in their
outlook, approach, appreciation and attitude, particularly in
cases involving custodial crimes and they should exhibit more
sensitivity and adopt a realistic rather than a narrow technical
approach.
5. Prakash Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors; (2006) 8
SCC 1
• There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level
to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
• Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority
at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the
rank of Superintendent of Police and above.
• The district-level Authority may be headed by a retired District
Judge while the state-level Authority may be headed by a retired
Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court.
6. • The State-level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of only
allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would
include incidents involving death, grievous heart or rape in police
custody.
• The district-level Complaints Authority would, apart from the above
cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house
grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority.
• The recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district
and State-levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a
delinquent police officer shall be binding on the authority concerned.
This direction was given in response to a huge number of complaints
against the police, and the lack of accountability which has led to
serious misconduct by members of the police force. However, six years
after the Supreme Court’s directive only six states and four union
territories have functioning PCAs.
7. Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association & ANR Vs.
Union of India & Anr.; Writ Petition (CRL.) NO. 129 OF 2012
• HRLN filed a petition for setting up a Special Investigation team
to investigate extra judicial killings of approx. 1600 victims in
the State of Manipur.
• The Supreme Court appointed a Committee headed by Justice
(Retd.) Santosh Hegde to investigate into six cases.
• Pursuant to enquiry the SC appointed Committee held that all
six cases were cases of fake encounters.
8. • The Commission has also given its report on the role and
functioning of the State Police and Security Forces in Manipur.
The Commission has pointed out that this Court in 'Naga
People's Movement for Human Rights vs. Union of India'
(1998) 2 SCC 109, set out detailed guidelines within which the
Security Forces should operate under the Armed Forces (Special
Provisions) Act, 1958 (in short 'AFSPA'). Following the
decision of this Court, the Armed Forces Headquarters issued
circulars laying down the Do's and Don'ts for the Security
Forces.
• The National Human Rights Commission has also issued
detailed guidelines and the State Government has also issued
circulars prescribing operational limits for the State Police and
the Security Forces. But, unfortunately, none of these guidelines
or Do's and Don'ts are followed in actual operations.
9. • The Supreme Court has observed that one of the main issues
before this Court, therefore, is how to ensure that the State
Police and the Security Forces adhere to the guidelines laid
down by this Court and the directions issued by the Army
Headquarters, the National Human Rights Commission and
the State Government.
• The matter is now pending for further hearing.
