The Supreme Court recently expressed shock at allegations levelled by a prosecution witness against state officials, regarding assault for the purpose of eliciting a confession. Subsequently, the court directed an inquiry as well as administrative and criminal action.
The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the petitioner-accused’s challenge to a Rajasthan High Court order declining bail, when it noted that though the prosecution witness in question levelled serious allegations against state officials, she was not declared hostile. In view of the facts, the court allowed the petitioner’s appeal and directed that he be produced before the Trial Court to be enlarged on bail on apt terms and conditions.
The petitioner-accused was roped in as the main assailant in a case registered under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 5, 25 of the Arms Act. When he applied for bail in 2022 for the first time, the plea was rejected by the High Court. The order was challenged before the apex court, although the concerned bench was of the view that no case for bail was made out at that stage. Consecutively, the special leave petition was dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach again if the trial did not make progress within reasonable time.
Later in September 2023, the petitioner moved a second bail application before the High Court. Through the impugned order, this application was dismissed on the basis that 5 prosecution witnesses had been examined since passing of the Supreme Court’s order in the first SLP.
Amongst these 5 witnesses was the daughter of the deceased-victim, ie PW (prosecution witness) -2. Assailing the second High Court order denying him bail, the petitioner moved the apex court with the present case. Issuing notice on January 2, 2024, the top Court directed that the petitioner place on record depositions of witnesses who had already been examined by that time.
At present, when the depositions came to be considered, the Court was shocked at the allegations levelled by prosecution witness 2 against state officials. The deposition stated that there was a scuffle between the witness mother and Ramveer over some issue, then Ramveer got angry and took out a pistol and fired it at her mother and forbade her from telling this to anyone, threatening that if she told anyone, he would kill her too.
It further mentioned that after the incident Ramveer called someone and left from there. The accused came back after two to five minutes and started telling someone on the phone that a bullet had hit him, who suggested calling the police and then the accused called the police. Following, the accused tried to give her money but she refused to take the money. He then went out to take the police and said that the woman had shot herself and then said that this girl had shot her.
The deposition asserted that the policemen gave the prosecution witness a pistol and asked her to show how it fires. It added that following interrogation, the police took her to the police station and beat and told her that she is the one who shot her mother. She was sent back home at 7:30 in the night, it concluded.
The Supreme Court noted that on the date of incident, PW-2 was around 14 years old and what she had stated about acts of police officials had gone unchallenged. The court observed that as this portion of the evidence has gone unchallenged, it is a case of serious misconduct on the part of the police personnel. It mentioned that the case is not only a misconduct, but an offence has been committed.
Considering the facts and circumstances, it was directed that the order be forwarded to Director General of Police (DGP), Rajasthan to immediately initiate an inquiry and take action (both administrative and criminal). Although the appeal was sought to be disposed of in these terms, the Court listed the matter on a subsequent date for taking into consideration an action taken report to be lodged by the DGP.