Cruel Police Torture Led To Custodial Death | Chhattisgarh High Court Calls It An Intolerable Betrayal Of Justice | Conviction Altered To Culpable Homicide | Four Policemen Get 10 Years Rigorous Imprisonment
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari held that the custodial death of a man in police custody constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC recorded by the trial court against four police personnel and substituted it with a conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court imposed a sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment upon each of the four accused.
Additionally, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant seeking conviction of one of the accused under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Division Bench concluded that no legally admissible evidence had been led to prove that the offence was committed with knowledge that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The Court thus affirmed the acquittal under the Act recorded by the trial court.
The case arose out of the death of Satish Norge, who was taken into custody by police officers from Police Station Mulmula on 17 September 2016 following an information received from an operator of the CSPDCL Electric Sub-Station, Nariyara. According to the prosecution, Satish Norge was found to be making nuisance in a drunken condition at the sub-station. Station House Officer Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1), along with Constables Sunil Dhruv (A-2) and Dilharan Miri (A-3), proceeded to the location.
Satish Norge was taken to the Community Health Centre, Pamgarh, where Dr. Rashmi Dahire (PW-11) conducted a medical examination and found him to be intoxicated but without any visible injuries. Thereafter, Satish Norge was brought to the police station and arrested under preventive proceedings under Sections 107 and 116(3) CrPC. Later the same day, his condition reportedly deteriorated, and he was taken to CHC Pamgarh again, where he was declared dead on arrival.
Postmortem examination conducted by a team of three doctors, including Dr. K.K. Dahire (PW-12), revealed 26 external injuries. The cause of death was reported as multiple contusions over the body leading to congestion and cardio-respiratory arrest.
FIR was registered on 19 September 2016, and after investigation, charges were filed against Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1), Sunil Dhruv (A-2), Dilharan Miri (A-3), and Rajesh Kumar (A-4) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. A-1 was also charged under Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
The prosecution examined 30 witnesses and submitted 37 documents. Among the key witnesses were Sukhsagar (PW-2), Sarpanch of the village, Prakash Norge (PW-3), son of the deceased, Mithailal Norge (PW-4), uncle of the deceased, Ravindra Kumar (PW-5), and Vinita Norge (PW-13), who testified about the injuries and alleged assault by the police.
The trial court found that the deceased died in police custody due to injuries inflicted by the accused. The court acquitted A-1 of charges under the SC/ST Act but convicted all four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each.
The appellants challenged the conviction, contending inter alia that the cause of death was not conclusively proven to be homicidal, that there was no evidence of intent to cause death, and that the injuries could have resulted from a mob assault prior to the police custody.
In the connected acquittal appeal, Usha Devi Norge, widow of the deceased, challenged the acquittal of A-1 under Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, arguing that the offence was committed with knowledge that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
The High Court reviewed the evidence and held: "Deceased died homicidal death in police custody and it is a case of custodial death." The Bench rejected the argument that Satish Norge was assaulted by villagers, noting: "Deceased was medically examined by Dr. Rashmi Dahire and found to be not suffering from any injury at the time of medical examination."
The Court recorded that the death occurred after the deceased was brought into police custody and while he was still in custody: "When Satish Norge was brought to the police station after his medical examination, though he was in drunken condition, but was alive and taken back to the police station after the MLC and second time, he was produced dead before Medical Officer."
On the injuries, the Bench noted: "In postmortem report, 26 injuries were found on his body and as per the postmortem report, he died on account of multiple contusion injuries over the body leading to congestion and cardio-respiratory arrest."
The Bench further stated: "It was within the specific knowledge of A-1 to A-4 as to how and in what circumstances he died and they ought to have explained in their statement under Section 313 CrPC, however, it could not be explained."
Citing Supreme Court precedents including Shyamsunder Trivedi, Munshi Singh Gautam, and K.H. Shekarappa, the Court held that direct evidence is rarely available in custodial deaths and stated the obligation on the accused to offer explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The Bench found that the circumstances pointed conclusively to police assault: "Deceased died due to the cruel police torture and beating by the accused/appellants herein which is also supported by the evidence." The Court found the testimony of prosecution witnesses consistent and credible.
However, examining the culpability under IPC, the Bench concluded: "Offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC would be made out against the accused/appellants A-1 to A-4." The judgment further recorded: "Their intention was to teach a lesson to the deceased who had dared to make nuisance in the Electric Sub-Section."
On the acquittal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Court held that the amended Section 3(2)(v) of the Act requires proof that the offence was committed "knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe". The Court observed: "No legally admissible evidence has been led to prove that appellant Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1) has committed the offence knowing fully well that the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community."
The acquittal under Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) was thus upheld as "legally sustainable."
The Division Bench held: "Offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC would be made out against the accused/appellants A-1 to A-4 and accordingly, we hereby alter their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 to one under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC."
The Court further directed: "Consequently, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them is set aside and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the altered conviction. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon them by the trial Court with default stipulation shall remain intact. The criminal appeals stand partly allowed. "
On the appeal filed by the widow of the deceased, the Court concluded: "The acquittal of A-1 of the charges under Sections 3(1)(j) & 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 is legally sustainable and it is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed having no merit."
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment and original record be transmitted to the trial court and jail authorities for compliance: "Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate; Mr. Roshan Dubey on behalf of Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate; Mr. Sumit Singh and Ms. Vaishali Jeshwani, Advocates; Ms. Pragati Pandey on behalf of Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate.
Case Title: Jitendra Singh Rajput & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:34873-DB
Case Number: CRA Nos. 611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019
Bench: Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
