Custodial Death Case: Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Of Policemen, Rejects Appeal for Murder Charges

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the conviction and 10-year sentence of five Uttar Pradesh policemen who were found guilty of the custodial torture and subsequent death of a 26-year-old man in 2006.

The court also affirmed the three-year imprisonment of the sixth convict, Inspector Kunwar Pal Singh, for kidnapping the victim. Dismissing the appeals filed by the policemen against their conviction and sentence issued by a trial court in March 2019, the high court upheld the decision.

Furthermore, the court rejected the appeal made by the complainant, who was the father of the victim, seeking a conversion of the convicted officers’ charges from Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) to Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“Considering that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused police officers caused injuries to Sonu (victim) with an intention that in all likelihood death will ensure, thereby causing the murder of the deceased, it would be difficult to reach a conclusion that the accused police officers would be guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,” the order stated.

The bench noted that based on the sequence of events and the evidence presented, it can be inferred that the deceased individual was subjected to custodial torture. Although the perpetrators were aware that such torture could potentially result in the victim’s death, there was no intention on their part to cause the victim’s demise. “Therefore, the act of causing bodily injury, as is likely to cause death, would make the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 IPC Part I and liable for a sentence for rigorous imprisonment of 10 years,” the order further stated.

“What had happened to the victim after his arrest / abduction by the accused persons was within the special knowledge of the accused persons and having not provided believable explanation, the court was right in drawing the presumption that the police was responsible for his abduction, illegal detention and death,” the court pointed out.

The court, in addition, upheld the acquittal of constable Vinod Kumar Pandey, stating that there was no evidence to establish his presence at the site of abduction and the Sector-20 police station in Noida. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to acquit him on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

In 2011, the Apex Court transferred the trial from Noida to Delhi, noting that the manner in which the investigation was conducted indicated that a fair trial could not be ensured in Uttar Pradesh due to the involvement of accused individuals from the state police.

As per the prosecution’s case, Sonu was apprehended by policemen in civilian clothes on September 1, 2006, and taken to the Nithari police outpost in Sector 31, Noida, in a private vehicle. On September 2, 2006, he was placed in the lockup of the police station in Sector 20, Noida, at 3:25 AM. The police had alleged that he was wanted in connection with a robbery case investigation.

An investigation concluded that Sonu had committed suicide around 5:30 AM due to physical and mental distress resulting from false implication in the case.

The court dismissed the police’s claim of suicide, citing significant discrepancies in the records and describing the general diary entries as “fabricated and manipulated.”

Noting the injuries found on Sonu’s body, the high court expressed skepticism regarding the alleged suicide attempt and the likelihood of sustaining such injuries while being saved by trained police personnel.