SC quashes conviction of cops in custodial disappearance case

The Supreme Court has quashed the conviction of two policemen sentenced to six months imprisonment for "contempt" in a case of custodial violence in which the whereabouts of the victim is not known till date.

The apex court quashed the conviction on the ground that principles of natural justice and rules relating to contempt proceedings were not followed by the Allahabad high court which it said had also taken an erroneous presumption that Tej Veer Singh, a businessman, was dead as the cops could not explain his whereabouts.

The alleged contemners -- constables Sahdeo Singh and Liladhar -- were earlier sentenced to six months in jail by the high court after it came to the conclusion that the duo along with SI Deep Chand (Sector 24, Noida police station) and some other policemen abducted Tej Veer alias Pappu on May 29,
1997 while he was travelling by the Prayagrag Express.

The high court held them guilty of contempt on the basis of the District and Sessions judge's report as they did not comply with the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in DK Basu case (1985) that family members of a person detained or arrested should be informed about such a step. It had also asked the state government to terminate the services of the two constables.

Sub-inspector Deep Chand, the main accused, had died during the pendency of the contempt case, hence the case abated against him.

The high court passed the sentence on the basis of the report
submitted by the District and Sessions Judge who held the policemen responsible for the disappearance of Singh, reportedly picked up for questioning about his brother who is alleged to be a criminal.

Aggrieved, the constables moved the apex court. Upholding the plea, the apex court said the high court had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the 1952 rules (Contempt of Court Act) as the alleged contemners were not informed of the charges.

"The appellants had never been informed as what were the charges against them. The relevant documents on the basis of which the high court had taken a prima facie view while initiating the contempt proceedings suo motu, had not been made available to them," a bench of justice JM Panchal and justice BS Chauhan observed in a judgment.
 
The apex court also did not agree with the high court's reasoning that since it was for more than four years the whereabouts of Veer Singh were not known, he should be presumed to be dead.

Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for presumption of a person being dead in case he has not been heard of for seven years.

"In the instant case, only a period of four years had elapsed. Therefore, we are not able to understand as under what circumstances, such a presumption could be drawn by the high court," the apex court said while referring to the 2001 judgment passed by the high court.
 
The apex court said the rules require the framing of charge(s) and furnishing the copy of the documents to the alleged contemner on the basis of which the charges have been framed.

"In the instant cases, there has been no compliance of these mandatory provisions contained in the Rules. In absence of the charge(s), a delinquent/accused/alleged contemner may not be able to furnish any defence as he is not aware as to what charge(s) he is required to meet.

"Every statutory provision requires strict adherence, for the reason that the Statute creates rights in favour of persons concerned. The impugned judgement suffered from non-observance of the principles of natural justice and not ensuring the compliance of Statutory Rules, 1952. Thus, the trial itself suffered from material procedural defect and stood vitiated," the apex court said.

Citing a number of its earlier judgements as also of various high courts, the apex court said contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the same standard of proof is required in the same manner as in other criminal cases.

"The alleged contemner is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the Criminal Jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt.

"There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The alleged contemner is to be informed as what is the charge, he has to meet. Thus, specific charge has to be framed in precision," the bench said.