A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addresses the abusive actions of a police officer who paraded the appellant, a detainee, in a humiliating manner while verbally and physically assaulting him in custody. Despite recommendations for stricter punitive measures, including criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court refrained from initiating them owing to mitigating factors, including the officer’s superannuation and monetary compensation already rendered. The judgment reaffirms the constitutional safeguards for personal liberty under Article 21 and the role of courts in enforcing police accountability while balancing justice with mercy.

Keywords:
Individual dignity, Police custody, Criminal proceedings, Article 21, Zero tolerance, Police accountability.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Somnath v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
18 March 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

vi) Author of the Judgment:
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

vii) Citation:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1014; 2024 INSC 232

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 21 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Sections 379, 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Human Rights, Police Accountability

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from gross misconduct by a police officer (Respondent No. 2) against the appellant, who was paraded half-naked in public custody in 2015. Despite recommendations for disciplinary action, the penalty imposed was only a “strict warning.” The appellant sought judicial intervention for stricter accountability, citing violations of his constitutional rights. The case delved into the role of courts in upholding individual dignity against systemic abuse of power.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Arrest and Custody:
   The appellant was arrested on June 14, 2015, for alleged theft under Section 379, IPC. He was placed in custody, where he faced humiliating treatment, including being paraded in public while verbally and physically assaulted.

2. Judicial Developments:
   After being granted bail on June 20, 2015, the appellant was detained for an additional four hours due to obstruction by the respondent officer. Following complaints, an inquiry confirmed misconduct by Respondent No. 2.

3. Disciplinary Actions:
   While the High Court awarded compensation of ₹75,000 to the appellant, it declined to initiate criminal proceedings against Respondent No. 2, citing statutory limitations under the Maharashtra Police Act and lack of timely complaint.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can criminal proceedings be initiated against a police officer for custodial abuse despite statutory limitations?
2. Do courts have the power to award compensation under Article 226 for custodial misconduct?
3. Should mitigating factors like superannuation and monetary restitution affect the initiation of criminal prosecution?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Violation of Dignity and Liberty:
   The appellant argued that the respondent’s actions breached his fundamental rights under Article 21, necessitating strict criminal accountability. Citing D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, the appellant highlighted the importance of upholding custodial safeguards.

2. Inadequacy of Disciplinary Action:
   The appellant submitted that a mere warning is an insufficient penalty for the severe misconduct committed. Reference was made to Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178, emphasizing exemplary punishment for custodial excesses.

3. Misuse of Authority:
   The appellant claimed that the statutory protection under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act should not shield Respondent No. 2, given the egregious nature of the offense.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Delay in Complaint:
   Respondent No. 2 invoked Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, arguing that the appellant’s delayed complaint invalidated prosecution. Citing procedural protections, they claimed the disciplinary warning was adequate.

2. Payment of Compensation:
   The respondent highlighted that monetary compensation totaling ₹1.75 lakh had already been paid, and further prosecution was unwarranted given the officer’s retirement.

3. Denial of Misconduct:
   The respondent dismissed allegations of custodial abuse as fabricated and motivated by personal vendetta.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to life and personal liberty
2. Article 226, Constitution of India – High Court’s power to issue writs
3. Section 379, Indian Penal Code – Punishment for theft
4. Section 161, Maharashtra Police Act – Protection against belated prosecution
5. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Protection of marginalized groups from atrocities

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court acknowledged Respondent No. 2’s culpability but refrained from initiating criminal proceedings due to his retirement and substantial monetary restitution. Courts emphasized the need for strict adherence to custodial safeguards and guidelines in D.K. Basu (supra).

b. Obiter Dicta

The judgment underscored that acts of custodial violence erode public trust in law enforcement and necessitate a zero-tolerance approach. It reiterated the responsibility of courts to balance punitive justice with mercy.

c. Guidelines

1. Police forces must adhere to constitutional safeguards during arrests and custody.
2. Departmental procedures should impose meaningful penalties for custodial misconduct.
3. Courts must ensure timely redress for victims of custodial abuse.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
2. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178
3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
4. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985) 4 SCC 677

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Maharashtra Police Act, 1951