Criminal Liability For Torture By State Security Forces
1. Concept of Criminal Liability for Torture
Meaning of Torture
Torture refers to the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain by a public official, especially law enforcement officers, to extract information, confessions, or to punish or intimidate. It is one of the most serious human rights violations.
Legal Provisions (India)
Although India does not yet have a specific law on torture, several constitutional and statutory provisions impose criminal liability on state security forces for acts of torture:
Article 21 of the Constitution – Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty; torture is a violation of this fundamental right.
Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination; coerced confessions violate this.
Sections 330 & 331, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punish voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or information.
Section 302 IPC – Punishes custodial deaths amounting to murder.
Section 197 CrPC – No sanction needed if the act is outside the official duty; courts can prosecute directly.
Prevention of Torture Bill (not yet enacted) – Proposed to criminalize torture by public servants.
2. Judicial Approach and Case Laws
Case 1: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
D.K. Basu, a social activist, wrote to the Supreme Court highlighting several incidents of custodial deaths and torture in police custody.
Issue:
Whether custodial torture and deaths violate Article 21, and what guidelines should be issued to prevent such violations.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and a blow to the rule of law. The Court issued 11 landmark guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention, including:
Arrest memo with witness signatures.
Medical examination of the accused every 48 hours.
Right to inform a friend or relative.
Police personnel must bear identification tags.
Significance:
The Court made it clear that state officials are criminally liable for custodial torture and that the State must compensate victims under public law remedy.
Case 2: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
The petitioner’s son was taken into police custody and was later found dead on a railway track. The State denied liability.
Issue:
Whether the State was responsible for the custodial death and whether compensation could be awarded.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the right to life (Article 21) includes protection from torture and custodial death. It ruled that public officials are personally liable for such violations and the State is vicariously liable to pay compensation.
Significance:
This case firmly established the principle of compensatory justice for victims of torture or custodial death.
Case 3: State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262
Facts:
Police officers were accused of torturing a man in custody, leading to his death. The trial court convicted them, but the High Court reduced the sentence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reinstated the convictions and condemned the “institutional culture of silence” that protects police personnel. It stressed that courts must not hesitate to punish state officials when evidence clearly shows custodial violence.
Significance:
This case emphasized that no one is above the law, not even police officers, and the judiciary has a duty to uphold accountability.
Case 4: People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635
(Also known as the "Fake Encounter Case")
Facts:
There were multiple alleged fake encounters by the Mumbai Police. PUCL filed a petition seeking guidelines on the investigation of police encounters.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that every police encounter resulting in death must be investigated independently by the CID or another police station.
It issued 16 procedural guidelines, including mandatory FIR registration, magisterial inquiry, and independent investigation.
Significance:
The Court reinforced criminal liability for extra-judicial killings (a form of torture and abuse by security forces) and strengthened procedural safeguards.
Case 5: Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72
Facts:
Police officers shot two people in a fake encounter, claiming self-defense.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that fake encounters are nothing but cold-blooded murders, punishable under Section 302 IPC. The plea of “official duty” cannot shield an officer in such acts.
Significance:
The Court reaffirmed that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not required when the act is not part of official duty but a criminal act. Hence, state security forces can be prosecuted directly.
3. International Perspective
India is a signatory (but not yet ratified) to the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984.
Under Article 2 of CAT, no exceptional circumstances (such as war or national security) can justify torture.
Case: Ireland v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 1978)
The Court held that “inhuman and degrading treatment” by security forces (sleep deprivation, beatings, stress positions) violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This case influenced Indian courts in interpreting Article 21 broadly to prohibit torture.
4. Conclusion
Criminal liability for torture by state security forces is now a recognized constitutional principle in India. Courts have consistently held that:
Torture violates Article 21 and international human rights norms.
State officials are personally and criminally liable under the IPC.
The State is vicariously liable to pay compensation.
No sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required if the act is outside official duty.
Summary of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. | 1997 | Preventive guidelines against custodial torture |
| Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa | 1993 | Compensation for custodial death |
| State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi | 1995 | Personal criminal liability of police officers |
| PUCL v. State of Maharashtra | 2014 | Mandatory investigation of fake encounters |
| Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand | 2012 | Fake encounters amount to murder, no immunity |
RELATED Blog
comments