Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP

Share & spread the love

Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP is significant as it underscores the judiciary’s role in addressing custodial deaths and holding law enforcement officers accountable for their actions. It emphasises the need for transparency, integrity and accountability within the police force, particularly in cases involving allegations of torture and abuse of power. The judgement also highlights the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals in custody and the judiciary’s duty to intervene in cases of miscarriage of justice, especially when it involves state actors.

Facts of Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP

Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP revolves around the custodial death of Ram Dhiraj Tiwari, who was allegedly beaten to death by police personnel at the Kure Bhar police station in Uttar Pradesh. The accused in the case included three police officials: Rafiuddin Khan (Accused No. 1), Shamsher Ali (Accused No. 2) and Gauri Shankar Sharma (Accused No. 3).

On October 19, 1971, the deceased, Ram Dhiraj Tiwari, was arrested from his residence by a team led by Accused No. 2 and brought to the Kure Bhar police station. The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1, the Sub-Inspector of the police station, subjected the deceased to severe physical torture, resulting in 28 injuries, to extract a confession regarding his involvement in a dacoity case.

The prosecution further claimed that Accused No. 1 had demanded a bribe of Rs. 2000 to spare the deceased from third-degree torture. Accused No. 3, the Head Moharrir, was accused of falsifying records in the General Diary to cover up the custodial death.

The defence, however, contended that the deceased was arrested on October 20, 1971, not on October 19, 1971, as claimed by the prosecution. According to the defence, the deceased resisted arrest near a culvert in his village and was beaten by Accused No. 2 and his companions during the struggle, which led to his injuries.

Procedural History

The trial court accepted the prosecution’s version of events and convicted Accused No. 1 under Sections 304 (Part II), 330, 201 and 218/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Accused No. 2 was acquitted of all charges, while Accused No. 3 was convicted under Sections 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

On appeal, the High Court overturned the trial court’s findings, accepting the defence version that Accused No. 1 was not at the police station on October 19, 1971, until 7:30 p.m. The High Court also found that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable, as they were not present at the scene and were related to the deceased. As a result, the High Court acquitted Accused No. 1 and upheld the acquittal of Accused No. 2. However, the conviction of Accused No. 3 under Sections 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision to acquit Accused No. 1.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP were:

  1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting Accused No. 1 despite the trial court’s findings?
  2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict Accused No. 1 for the custodial death of Ram Dhiraj Tiwari?
  3. Whether the falsification of records by Accused No. 3 was adequately proven to warrant his conviction under Sections 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code?

Relevant Statutes

Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender
  • Section 218: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment
  • Section 304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • Section 330: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:

  • Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2): Criminal misconduct by a public servant

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

  • The prosecution argued that the deceased was indeed arrested on October 19, 1971 and that Accused No. 1 was present at the police station and responsible for the custodial death. The falsified General Diary entry was cited as an attempt to cover up the actual date and circumstances of the arrest.
  • The prosecution relied on the testimony of three witnesses (PW 5, PW 8 and PW 10) who were related to the deceased and claimed to have witnessed the beating.
  • Medical evidence was presented to corroborate the cause of death and the injuries sustained by the deceased.

Defence’s Arguments:

  • The defence maintained that Accused No. 1 was not present at the police station on October 19, 1971 and was therefore not responsible for the alleged torture.
  • They argued that the deceased was arrested on October 20, 1971 and the injuries occurred during the arrest as the deceased resisted.
  • The defence highlighted the familial relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased, questioning their credibility.
  • The testimony of DW 1, Jaswant Singh, a Station Officer from another police station, was presented to support the claim that Accused No. 1 was not present at the Kure Bhar police station on October 19, 1971.

Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP Judgement

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and the reasoning of both the trial court and the High Court, held in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP that the High Court had erred in its findings and that interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was justified. The Court reinstated the trial court’s conviction of Accused No. 1, Rafiuddin Khan, while dismissing the appeal of Accused No. 3, Gauri Shankar Sharma.

Court’s Rationale

Custodial Death and Evidence Tampering:

The Supreme Court in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs. State of UP noted that both the trial court and the High Court had recorded a concurrent finding that the deceased was arrested on October 19, 1971. This finding was crucial in dismissing the falsified entry in the General Diary, which attempted to show the arrest as occurring on October 20, 1971. The need to make a false entry in the diary was seen as indicative of an attempt to cover up the wrongful conduct of the police.

Credibility of Witnesses:

The Court in Gauri Shankar Sharma v State of UP addressed the issue of the prosecution witnesses being related to the deceased. While acknowledging their relationship, the Court emphasised that this alone was not sufficient to discredit their testimony, especially when it was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court found no compelling reason to reject their testimony merely on the ground of their familial ties with the deceased.

Rejection of Defence Testimony:

The Supreme Court in Gauri Shankar Sharma v. State of UP was critical of the High Court’s acceptance of DW 1’s testimony, pointing out that it was not uncommon for police officers to provide inaccurate accounts to either secure a conviction or assist a colleague. The Court emphasised the general difficulty in cases of custodial deaths in securing evidence against police officers, who are often in control of records and capable of manipulating them to their advantage.

Gravity of the Offence:

The Court underscored the seriousness of custodial deaths, particularly when the perpetrators are law enforcement officers who are expected to protect citizens, not abuse their authority. The Court highlighted the need for stringent punishment to deter such behaviour and prevent the emergence of a “police raj” where law enforcement officers act with impunity.

The Supreme Court in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP concluded that the High Court had misdirected itself in acquitting Accused No. 1, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Court restored the conviction of Accused No. 1 as recorded by the trial court and emphasised the importance of holding police officers accountable for custodial deaths. The case serves as a stern reminder of the need for the judiciary to take custodial deaths seriously and to ensure that those responsible are held accountable to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens.

Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP Case Summary

The Supreme Court case Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP involves the custodial death of Ram Dhiraj Tiwari, who was allegedly beaten to death by police personnel. The trial court convicted Accused No. 1 (Sub-Inspector) and Accused No. 3 (Head Moharrir) based on evidence of torture and falsification of records. However, the High Court acquitted Accused No. 1, accepting the defence’s version. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasising the seriousness of custodial deaths, especially when committed by law enforcement officers. The Court reinstated the convictions, underscoring the importance of accountability and the need for strict punishment to prevent abuse of power by the police.


Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawBhoomi
Upgrad