- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sanganagouda A. Veeranagouda And Others v. State Of Karnataka .
Factual and Procedural Background
Six police personnel—A-1 Sanganagouda Ayyanagouda Veeranagouda (Sub-Inspector) and Constables A-2 Chandrappa Basappa Komara, A-3 Basavaraj Kadiyappa Aramani, A-4 Kalakappa Gulappa Hosamani, A-5 Eswarappa Ramappa Gowari, and A-6 Virupakshappa Shidramappa Narthi—were tried for offences under Sections 330, 348 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution alleged that, acting on A-1’s directions, the constables arrested one Guddappa on 19-10-1988 in connection with a murder investigation (Crime No. 168/1988) and brought him to Ranebennur Police Station. While in custody, Guddappa was allegedly beaten and later found hanging on 20-10-1988; he died en route to hospital. An SDM inquiry was completed on 31-10-1988, and an FIR (Crime No. 181/1988) naming all the accused was lodged on 06-11-1988.
The trial court acquitted all six accused. On the State’s appeal, the High Court of Karnataka acquitted one constable but convicted the remaining five (A-1 to A-5) under Section 330 IPC (six months’ RI) and Section 348 IPC (three months’ RI), directing both sentences to run concurrently. The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by those five convicted officers.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court correctly relied on the testimonies of PW 1 (eyewitness and brother of the deceased) and PW 13 (police driver) to convict the appellants under Sections 330 and 348 IPC.
- Whether, in the absence of written authorisation from the Circle Inspector or production of the complaint allegedly lodged by PW 1, the prosecution failed to establish unlawful arrest and wrongful confinement.
- Whether failure to produce the deceased before a Magistrate within 24 hours constituted wrongful confinement under Section 348 IPC when A-1 was not the investigating officer.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Circle Inspector (investigating officer) did not authorise the arrest; no case diary or record shows such authorisation, undermining the prosecution case.
- Because the deceased died within roughly 32 hours of arrest, there was no “wrongful confinement” under Section 348 IPC; responsibility to produce the accused before the Magistrate lay with the Circle Inspector, not A-1.
- The complaint allegedly filed by PW 1 with the Assistant Commissioner was not produced, casting doubt on PW 1’s credibility.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court’s evaluation of evidence and found no infirmity:
- Credibility of PW 13 (police driver): PW 13 confirmed that A-1 ordered A-2 to A-5 to arrest the deceased, transported him to the station at 9:30 a.m. on 19-10-1988, and later saw the deceased taken from hospital back to the station at 5:30 p.m. on 20-10-1988.
- Eyewitness account of PW 1: PW 1 testified that he saw the appellants beating his brother inside the lock-up with sticks. Cross-examination did not shake his core testimony.
- Medical corroboration: Twenty-one injuries described by PW 17 (doctor) matched PW 1’s account of sustained assault.
- Wrongful confinement under Section 348 IPC: Section 56 of the CrPC obliges “the police officer making the arrest” to produce the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Because A-1 effected the arrest, the obligation rested on him; failure to comply—coupled with the accused’s death—constituted wrongful confinement.
- The Court dismissed the significance of missing authorisation records or non-production of PW 1’s prior complaint, holding that the oral evidence and medical findings sufficiently proved the offences.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Appeal dismissed; High Court conviction and sentences affirmed.
Direct consequences: the appellants’ bail bonds and sureties were cancelled, and they were ordered to be taken into custody within one month to serve concurrent sentences of six months’ and three months’ rigorous imprisonment. The judgment reinforces accountability for custodial violence but sets no new precedent beyond affirming the High Court’s fact-based findings.
H.K Sema, J.— Heard the parties.
2. The six accused all police personnel, A-1 Sanganagouda Ayyanagouda Veeranagouda, Sub-Inspector of Police and A-2 Chandrappa Basappa Komara, A-3 Basavaraj Kadiyappa Aramani, A-4 Kalakappa Gulappa Hosamani, A-5 Eswarappa Ramappa Gowari, A-6 Virupakshappa Shidramappa Narthi, Constables were put to trial before the trial court for the offence under Sections 330/348/201 IPC. The trial court after concluding the trial acquitted all the accused. On appeal being preferred by the State, the High Court acquitted one of the accused and convicted the five appellants before us under Section 330 and sentenced them to six months' RI. The High Court also found all of them guilty under Section 348 IPC and sentenced them to three months' RI. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by special leave.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that in connection with FIR Case Crime No. 168 of 1988 for an offence under Section 302 IPC the deceased Guddappa was arrested on 19-10-1988 on the direction of A-1 by A-2 to A-5 and the deceased expired by hanging in the police station on 20-10-1988. He was being taken to the hospital but died on the way. An enquiry was conducted by the SDM with regard to the cause of death of the deceased and the report was submitted on 31-10-1988. Pursuant to the report an FIR was lodged on 6-11-1988 where all the accused were named. Thereafter, charge was framed against the appellants under Sections 330/348/201 as aforesaid. PW 17 Dr. Devadas P.K conducted the post-mortem and found the following injuries:
“1. There is an oblique ligature mark present on the neck over front at the level of Adam's apple 0.5 cm below the upper border, measuring 19 cm in length and 2 cm in width, situated 10 cm below the chin. The right end of the ligature mark is situated 5.5 cm below the right ear lobe and the left end of the ligature mark is situated 5 cm below the left angle of lower jaw. Edges are not abraded, no ecchymosis is present.
2. Abrasion measuring 2.5 cm × 1 cm present over the right side of forehead situated 4 cm above the middle of right eyebrow, reddish in colour.
3. Abrasion measuring 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm present over left ala of nose, reddish in colour.
4. Abrasion measuring 0.5 cm × 0.3 cm, present over upper lip 0.5 cm below the left ala of nose, reddish in colour.
5. Abrasion measuring 4 cm × 1.5 cm present over the top of right shoulder at the root of neck, reddish in colour.
6. Abrasion measuring 2.5 cm × 0.5 cm, present over the front of right shoulder over outer third of clavicle, reddish-brown in colour.
7. Oblique linear abrasion two in number 0.5 cm apart measuring 1 cm × 0.2 cm and 8 cm × 0.2 cm respectively present over the left side front of chest situated 4 cm below the left nipple and 12 cm above the umbilicus, reddish in colour.
8. Abrasion measuring 5 cm × 3 cm present over inner side of right abdomen 5 cm above the base of sacrum measuring 14 cm × 11 cm × 1 cm, bluish in colour.
9. Contusion present over upper lumbar region over the back of the abdomen 5 cm above the base of sacrum measuring 14 cm × 11 cm × 1 cm, bluish in colour.
10. Abrasion measuring 12 cm × 4 cm present over left side of abdomen situated 5 cm coastal margin, reddish in colour.
11. Contusion measuring 7 cm × 2 cm × 1 cm situated 15 cm below the iliac crest over the left buttock, bluish in colour.
12. Contusion measuring 12 cm × 6 cm × 3 cm present over the right buttock at its centre, bluish in colour.
13. Contusion measuring 7 cm × 8 cm × 2 cm present over the right buttock at its centre, bluish in colour.
14. Abrasion measuring 4 cm × 3 cm present over upper part of right buttock 3 cm below the iliac crest, reddish in colour.
15. Contusion present over the outer side of left thigh 15 cm below the greater trochanter measuring 9 cm × 6 cm × 2 cm, bluish in colour.
16. Contusion present over the front of left thigh measuring 9 cm × 4 cm × 3 cm situated 5 cm above the left patella bone (kneecap), bluish in colour.
17. Contusion present over outer side of right thigh 6 cm below the greater trochanter measuring 6 cm × 5 cm × 2 cm, bluish in colour.
18. Abrasion measuring 1 cm × 0.5 cm present 1 cm below the left patella bone (kneecap), reddish in colour.”
4. On the basis of the complaint lodged an FIR Cr. No. 181 of 1988 was registered in which all the accused were named.
5. The High Court on reappraisal of the evidence on record and particularly after examining the evidence of PW 13 the police driver and of the eyewitness PW 1 Parasappa @ Parasurama came to the conclusion that the prosecution case against the appellants was found well established and convicted the appellants as aforesaid.
6. Mr K.N Bhat, learned Senior Counsel contended that the investigating officer in connection with the FIR Case Crime No. 168 of 1988 under Section 302 IPC was one Circle Police Inspector M.K Patil and there is no case diary or record which would disclose that the Circle Police Inspector authorised the appellants to arrest the accused since deceased. He further contended that the evidence established that the arrest has been made on 19-10-1988 and the deceased is said to have expired by hanging on 20-10-1988 and, therefore, no wrongful confinement is established against the appellants in terms of Section 348 IPC, inasmuch as it was bounden duty of the Circle Police Inspector as an investigating officer to produce the accused before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay exceeding 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the transportation from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court. Learned counsel also contended that from the evidence of PW 1 it appears that he lodged a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner but the complaint has not been brought on record. We are not at all impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. In this case the High Court relied upon the evidence of PW 13 and the evidence of PW 1 who is an eyewitness. PW 13 is the police driver. He has categorically stated that at the relevant period of incident Appellant 1 was acting as the PSI, Ranebennur Police Station and Appellants 2 to 5 were acting as police constables under Appellant 1 at the said police station. He has also stated that on the direction of Appellant 1 the Police Constables went along with PW 13 in a jeep driven by PW 13 and arrested the deceased. He has specifically stated that the appellants who were directed by Accused 1, are the police constables A-2 to A-5 went along with jeep driven by PW 13 to bring the deceased Guddappa in the jeep to the police station. He further stated that the appellant constables thereafter got down from the jeep and after about 15 minutes they brought the deceased Guddappa along with them and put him in the jeep and after that he brought the deceased Guddappa and abovesaid constables to the police station in the jeep driven by him at 9.30 a.m He categorically stated that when he brought the deceased accused to the police station at about 9.30 a.m Accused 1 was working as PSI in the town police station at Ranebennur. He further stated that later about 2.00 p.m the PSI took him to Devaragudda in the jeep and when they returned from Devaragudda at 5.30 p.m he saw the deceased being brought by the Police Constable by name Patil from the hospital to the police station in the autorickshaw.
8. The undisputed fact remains that at the relevant time A-1 was in charge of the police station. A-2 to A-5 were acting as police constables in the said police station. The injuries sustained by the deceased Guddappa leading to his death were caused in the said police station.
9. The High Court also heavily relied upon the evidence of PW 1 Parasappa @ Parasurama. PW 1 specifically stated that his brother was working as a coolie in Guttal Bus-stand whereas he was working as hamali. When PW 1 returned from work his wife told him that his brother had not come back from work and, therefore, he went to Guttal Bus-stand where he came to know that the police had taken away his brother and then the next day that is on 19-10-1988 at about 12 noon he went to the police station but the police had not allowed him to enter in the police station. Accused 5 at that time was present in front of the police station and he had not allowed him to enter in the police station. While standing in front of the police station he saw that the police were assaulting his brother in lock-up room. He named the Police Constables, namely, Aramani, Krishna, Hosamani and Madival and Accused 1 Veeranagouda as assailants of his brother with sticks. He further stated that they were assaulting his brother all over the body. Later on he heard that his brother had died. The witnesses were subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit the creditworthiness of the statement-in-chief. The substance with regard to the factum of the beating and arrest has remained unimpeached. Further, the statement of PW 1 as referred above is well corroborated by the medical evidence in material particular. Similarly, the contention of the counsel for non-production of the complaint said to have been lodged by PW 1 is inconsequential having regard to the evidence of PW 1 and PW 13 as referred above.
10. We also do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no wrongful confinement. In this case it is established that the accused was arrested on 19-10-1988 at 9.30 a.m and he expired at about 5.30 p.m on the next day, that is, 20-10-1988. The argument of the counsel that it was the duty of the Circle Police Inspector who was the investigating officer to have produced the accused before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours and since A-1 was not an investigating officer the burden of producing the accused before the Magistrate cannot be fastened on A-1 and for that reason no case of wrongful confinement under Section 348 IPC has been established against him. In our view, this contention also has no force. Section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not speak about the investigating officer, it simply speaks about the police officer making an arrest without warrant. As the evidence discloses that the arrest was made by Appellant 1 and, therefore, it was his bounden duty to produce the accused before the Magistrate next day within 24 hours. The death of the deceased has since occurred beyond 24 hours it would amount to wrongful confinement as contemplated under Section 348 IPC.
11. In the reasons aforestated, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court. This appeal is, accordingly, failed and dismissed.
12. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and sureties stand cancelled. The appellants are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence as awarded by the High Court. Compliance within one month.
Alert