[Custodial death] Power of police to regulate crime not unfettered; can't treat citizens in inhuman manner: Bombay High Court

Observing that the powers of the police are not 'unfettered' and that it cannot treat any citizen in an 'inhuman manner,' the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday ordered the State government to pay compensation of over ₹15 lakh to the kin of a man who died in police custody [Sunita Kalyan Kute v. State of Maharashtra]..A Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay Waghwase said that the State, being the protector of citizens, was required to compensate them if its employees subject citizenry to any form of torture."...custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. Though police have powers to control the actions of the people and the crime; yet, it is not unfettered under the guise of exercise of the said power they cannot torture or deal with a citizen in inhuman manner. The State is the protector of the life of its citizens if it’s employee undertakes torturous act under the guise of power, then it has to compensate such citizen," the Bench said in its order..As per the petitioner, on November 4, 2018, she, along with her son and his wife, were transporting sugarcane on a tractor. At that time, two constables - Dashrath Kumbhar and Deepak Kshirsagar - of the Solapur Police intercepted the tractor at a police outpost and began to brutally assault Pradip for playing a tape recorder too loudly. They subsequently dragged him into the outpost police station.The petitioner stated that her son expired on the spot. Sensing the same, the two constables took him to a nearby hospital, where he was declared dead.The Bench took into account the report of the District Magistrate and the post-mortem report, which showed 43 external injuries on Pradip's person that were are ante-mortem and inflicted within 24 hours of the incident..It was found that the evidence was sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the injuries were inflicted by the two constables when Pradip was sitting on the tractor, before he was taken inside the outpost.The judges further stated that for an offence to qualify as a custodial death, whether the injuries inflicted were in a police station or an outpost, was not of importance. "In custodial death the injuries should have been inflicted when the person was in any way in the custody of the police officer and, therefore, we take the inquiry report given by the Magistrate as a strong piece of evidence to support the contention of the petitioner that Pradip's death was a custodial death, which is one of the heinous crimes," the Bench said..In its order, the Bench opined that there was no reason for the constables to intercept the tractor and that even if they had any kind of objection to the volume of his tape recorder, they could have told the same to the deceased in a 'dignified manner.'"When there was no reason for interception and then no reason for police atrocities, there is violation of fundamental rights of the deceased. Therefore, grant of compensation for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen," the order stated.The Court thus determined that Pradip's family was entitled to compensation of ₹15,29,600..Advocate SR Kedar appeared for the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor AM Phule represented the State. Advocate MS Bhosale appeared for the two constables..[Read order]