Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A plea seeking to compound the offenses committed by two police officers accused under custodial violence case was refused by the supreme court. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Ajay Rastogi increased the compensation to be paid to 3.5 lacs each in addition to the compensation charged by the high court to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, though considering the age of the accused the sentence was reduced.
The police officers were Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Chaudary who were convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC). It was found out by the court that both the accused have mercilessly beaten the deceased in the police station itself, while in custody. This incident took place in the year of 1985, where the accused challenged their conviction in front of the apex court. The accused prayed to compound the offenses committed under the purview of the settlement reached between the convicts and the heirs of the deceased.
In the appeal, the court observed that: the offense caused by the accused is not only against the deceased and their heirs, but it was clearly against humanity and violates the fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. The court also observed that, in this case, the offense was committed by the police in charge of the purighat police station and the senior inspector posted there. The police are considered to be the protector of law and order in society, people look forward to the police to protect their life and property. People approach the police station so that their property and life will be protected, any injustice caused will be redressed and the wrongdoer will be held guilty and punished. When the protector of the people themself adopts brutality and beats a person to death who came to the police station is a matter of great concern.
The court finally observed that the offenses committed by the convicts cannot be compounded on the ground that there is an agreement between the accused and the appellant, which is also accepted by their legal heirs. However the court considered the fact that the accused are above the age of 75, it reduced the sentence to 6 months from one year.
86540
103860
630
114
59824