P&H HC Convicts DSP In 1995 Custodial Death Case
Punjab & Haryana HC Convicts DSP in 1995 Custodial Death Case
1. Background
The case pertains to the custodial death of an individual in 1995 while in police custody.
The accused was a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) at the time.
The case remained pending for decades due to procedural delays, appeals, and investigations.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently delivered its judgment, convicting the DSP for his role in the custodial death.
2. Key Legal Issues
Custodial Death Liability:
Police officers, including senior officers, can be held criminally liable if their acts or omissions directly or indirectly lead to death in custody.
Command Responsibility:
Senior officers are responsible for ensuring subordinate officers act lawfully.
Failure to prevent torture or custodial violence constitutes dereliction of duty and criminal liability.
Delay in Justice:
Long delays in prosecution do not absolve the accused from criminal responsibility.
Courts continue to stress that accountability of police officers is paramount.
3. Court’s Observations
(a) Violation of Fundamental Rights
The custodial death violated Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution, which includes protection from torture and inhuman treatment.
(b) Evidence Sufficiency
The High Court relied on:
Medical records indicating physical trauma
Witness testimonies
Police records
The court concluded that there was overwhelming evidence of custodial misconduct.
(c) Rejection of Defense Arguments
The accused DSP argued lapse of time and procedural technicalities.
The HC held that substantive justice outweighs procedural delays, especially in grave human rights violations.
4. Legal Principles Affirmed
Custodial Accountability:
Senior police officers can be convicted under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 304 (culpable homicide), 201 (destruction of evidence), or 342/343 (wrongful confinement), depending on facts.
No Immunity for Officers:
Holding office or senior rank does not shield from criminal liability in custodial deaths.
Right to Judicial Remedy:
Victims and their families are entitled to fair trial, compensation, and accountability.
🔹 Case Law:
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 – Laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1 – Emphasized prompt investigation and judicial oversight in custodial matters.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260 – Arrest must be lawful; custodial rights protected.
5. Significance of the Judgment
Reinforces police accountability in custodial deaths.
Sends a strong deterrent message to law enforcement officers.
Affirms that delays in prosecution cannot dilute criminal responsibility in serious human rights violations.
✅ Conclusion:
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s conviction of the DSP in the 1995 custodial death case highlights that senior police officers are criminally accountable for acts leading to custodial deaths, and fundamental rights under Article 21 cannot be violated with impunity, regardless of time elapsed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments