INTRODUCTION
The concept of police brutality has been prevalent for a very long time. It refers to the unlawful or excessive use of force against an individual or a group of people. Although, this term is mostly used in the media with regard to certain incidents in the United States, there have been plenty of cases of police brutality in India as well, right from the pre-independence era. The menace of police brutality has a detrimental effect on the society and the system of justice. People will be hesitant to report crimes to the police as they would be fearful of the massive powers of the police. Therefore, it becomes imperative to impose certain restrictions on the powers of the police. In India, the Police Act 1861 was enacted to govern the regulation of the police. Section 1 of the act clearly states that the word “Police” shall include all persons who are enrolled under the act.
MAJOR INSTANCES OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN INDIA
P Rajan – During the emergency, a student named Rajan was arrested by the Kerala Police. He was held in police custody and it was unveiled that he was tortured during the interrogation process. He had died from torture of an extreme kind while being in police custody. It was later revealed that the then Home Minister of Kerala, K. Karunakaran had full knowledge of his arrest which compelled him to resign from his post.
Bhagalpur Blindings – A series of incidents took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s in Bhagalpur wherein the police had blinded 31 undertrial prisoners by pouring acid into their eyes. This was also the first instance wherein the Supreme Court had ordered monetary compensation for the violation of human rights.
Thoothukudi violence – During the protests against the extension of the copper smelter plant run by the Sterlite Corporation, the police opened fire on the protestors leading to the deaths of 13 people and injuries to more than a hundred people.
Jeyaraj and Bennicks – The father- son duo had entered into an altercation with the police. Following this, the police had brutally beaten, tortured and sexually assaulted them which led to their deaths.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO POLICE BRUTALITY
CONSTITUION OF INDIA
Under Article 246 of the Constitution, Police falls under the State List in the Seventh Schedule and therefore only state govt can make laws to regulate the police in their respective state. In many instances, police brutality has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as being violative of the Fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. This is especially true with Article 20, which refers to Right to Life and Personal Liberty and Article 20 and 22 which refers to the rights of the accused and arrested persons respectively. In the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar(1983), the petitioner was unlawfully held in prison even after 14 years of his acquittal. The Court held that the detention was unjustified and ordered compensation to be paid to the victim. In the case of Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi(1990), a 9 nine-year-old child was brutally beaten up by the police and later succumbed to his injuries. The Court ordered the Delhi Administration pay Rs75000 as compensation to the mother for the death of her child. Similarly, in the PUDR v.Police Commissioner, Delhi Police(1989), a labourer who was doing some work in a police station was brutally beaten to death and the Court ordered the Delhi Administration to pay Rs 50000 as compensation for the death. In the State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Kant Patil(1991) case, an undertrial prisoner was subjected to humiliation by the police by having him handcuffed, arms tied with rope and paraded through the streets. The Court once again ruled in favour of the victim and ordered the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs.10000. In the landmark judgment of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa(1993), the petitioner’s son was arrested by the police on suspicion of theft and later his body was found on the railway tracks. It was contended by the petitioner that he was killed by the police during custody and his body was then dumped on the railway tracks. On the other side, the respondents contended that the accused had died from a train accident while escaping. The Court held that the injuries to the victim were similar to those caused by a lathi than a train accident and ordered the state to pay a compensation of Rs 1,50,000 to the petitioner and initiate criminal proceedings against the accused police officers.
CRPC/BNSS
Under the Criminal Procedure Code/ BNSS, there have been safeguards provided to the police officers while performing their duties. Section 197 of CRPC/218 of BNSS states that the courts cannot take cognizance of an offence when such an alleged offence is said to have been committed by a public servant except with the prior sanction of the union/state. Police officers are thereby protected from prosecution against the acts committed by them while discharging their duties. The sanction of the state government is required before prosecution can begin against the accused police officials. Similarly, under Section 132 of the CRPC/151 of BNSS, sanction of the government is mandatorily required for prosecution of police officials for acts done under Section 129 to 131 of CRPC/ Sec 148 to 150 of BNSS. These three sections deal with the powers of the armed forces to disperse an unlawful assembly. In the case of Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P.(1996), the police officers were accused of gross human rights violations against the protestors such as firing on the protestors, illegal detention, masse molestations and rapes etc. The Court held that every act done by a public servant does not automatically come under Section 197 of the CRPC. Only those acts which have a direct nexus or connection with the official duties will come under Section 197 of the CRPC. In this case, acts of the public servants had no direct nexus with the official duties whatsoever and the court ordered damages to be paid to the victims.
INDIAN POLICE ACT 1861
Under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861, police officers who indulge in unwarranted personal violence against any person in custody shall be punished with imprisonment of three months or a penalty of three months’ pay or both.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872/BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM
Under Section 25 of the Evidence Act/Sec 23(1) of BSA, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in court. This provision was brought to protect the accused against forced confessions. A confession made to an officer will not be admissible in court unless it is done in the presence of a magistrate under Section 26 of Evidence Act/23(2) of BSA.Section 28 of Evidence Act/Proviso 1 to Sec 22 of BSA states that if the impression is such that the confession was made by threat, inducement or promise and if it is fully removed, such a confession is valid.
POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY (PCA)
This body was established as a result of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India. The model act has incorporated the main points of the Supreme Court judgment. The PCA has the authority to hear complaints against police officers of all ranks. It is to be created at both district and state level. The State level authority is to look allegations of serious misconduct against police officers above the rank SP. The PCA has the powers of the civil court under the Civil Procedure Code 1908. It has the power to summon witnesses, compel production of documents, initiate registration of FIRs against the accused police officers.
The body has not yet been fully established by all the states. Only eighteen states have enacted laws in partial conformity with Model Act and Prakash Singh Judgment. The act is operational in the ground level in just six states. Kerala is the only state where PCA has been established at both the district and state level.
CONCLUSION
The laws dealing with police brutality are not adequate. While the Supreme Court has taken the next step by providing compensation to the victims of police brutality in many cases, there is still hardly any mechanism for prosecuting the responsible officers. The punishment under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861 for unwarranted violence against people in custody is grossly inadequate. New legislations are required to prescribe prosecution of officers for police brutality with stringent penalties to deter police brutality from taking place.
Contributed By : Kritavirya Choudhary (Intern)