“Acceptance of apology tendered by the respondents will sent a wrong message to society at large, and everyone who has committed such an inhumane act will cultivate a feeling of being pardoned by the court of law, and those who have not yet engaged in such act, will be encouraged to do so,” the verdict says.
—
LAST week, the Gujarat High Court pronounced guilty four police personnel under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for publicly flogging persons.
The police personnel were sentenced to 14 days simple imprisonment for tying the complainants to a pole last year at Undhela Village Masjid chowk and carrying out the act of flogging. The high court rejected their apology holding that the acts committed by them were beyond the contours of forgiveness.
A division Bench of Justices A.S. Supheia and Gita Gopi handed down the sentence after holding the five policemen for having breached the famous ruling of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu versus State of West Bengal, which proscribes torture by police and mandates a slew of directions to be followed while making arrests.
The Bench also imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on the contemnors while making clear that they would undergo a further simple imprisonment for three days in default.
The Bench, however, stayed its order for 60 days since Section 19(4)(b) of the Contempt of Court Act provides for an appeal against the Order of the division Bench within 60 days.
While rejecting the apology tendered by the erring policemen, the Bench held: “[T]he feeling of getting humiliated to the extent that it obliterates their sense of being human is a standalone feeling and is not legally compensable.
“Thus, the acceptance of apology tendered by the respondents will sent a wrong message to society at large, and everyone who has committed such an inhumane act will cultivate a feeling of being pardoned by the court of law, and those who have not yet engaged in such act, will be encouraged to do so. In order to uphold the majesty of law and to protect the unflinching faith of the people in the judiciary, we hold these people in contempt.”
In this case, the victims were detained on October 3, 2022, between 11:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. from Undhela village, district Kheda. They were taken to the special operation group (SOG) police station at Kheda and were detained in the night hours.
The first information report (FIR) was registered at 4:30 a.m. on October 4, 2022, at the Matar Police Station. The arrest memos specified the time of arrest as 11:15 p.m. on October 4, 2022.
Noting these infirmities, the Bench observed that though the victims were detained at the SOG Police Station at Kheda during the night hours of October 3, 2022, the FIR was registered at the Matar Police Station, Kheda in the morning hours at 04:30 a.m. on October 4, 2022, and their time of arrest was shown as 9:15 p.m. on October 4, 2022, for the reasons best known to the policemen.
“It is also shocking and surprising to note that during the period of registration of the FIR at 4:10 a.m. and their arrest at 9:15 p.m. on October 4, 2022, the complainants were brought at to Village Chowk, tied to the pole and brutally beaten,” the Bench underscored.
This, the Bench opined, appeared to come within the limit of 24 hours prescribed for production before a magistrate, the arrest appeared to have been shown at 9:15 p.m. on October 4, 2022 though they were already detained and beaten in full public view by then.
Thereafter, on October 5, 2022, around 2:00 p.m., the victims were produced before the concerned magistrate when they disclosed the incident to the magistrate. The Bench also noted that no signatures of relatives had been taken on the arrest memo.
On being directed by the Bench, the magistrate in its report on September 26, 2023 confirmed the presence of policemen beating the victims. Even the medical certificates clearly showed the history as “assault by police with injuries” on the victims.
Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act prescribes the punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
Last year, the Delhi High Court sentenced a Delhi police sub-inspector (SI) to undergo simple imprisonment for one day, along with a fine of ₹2,000, as well as nominal costs of ₹15,000 for court proceedings, to be paid by him to the petitioner, after it found the police officer guilty of contempt of the court for breaching the Supreme Court’s guidelines on arrest in the celebrated case of Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar.
In 2014, the Supreme Court, in Arnesh Kumar had, inter alia, directed that the notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be served on the accused before making the arrest. The court had issued the direction to prevent unnecessary arrests as arrests, in the opinion of the court, bring humiliation, curtail freedom and cast scars forever.
