STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAVIKANT S PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against an order of the High Court of Bombay directing Shri Prakash Chavan, Inspector of Police, Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Sholapur, the fourth respondent before the High court, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent herein, an undertrial prisoner, on the ground that the said police officer was guilty of violation of fundmental right of an undertrial prisoner under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It further directed that an entry should be made in his service record. The facts that give rise to this appeal are as follows.

(2.) One Ganesh Kolekar was murdered on 2nd August, 1989. During the investigation, the police suspected that the respondent herein was a party to the said murder. He was arrested in Karnataka State and was brought to Sholapur in the early hours of 17th August, 1989. A local paper called Tarun Bharat published from Sholapur, carried in its issue of 17th August, 1989 a news item which stated that the respondent, an undertrial prisoner, would be taken in a procession or a parade from Faujdar Chavadi Police Station through the main squares of the city for the purpose of investigation. On 17th August, 1989, the respondent herein was handcuffed and both his arms were tied by a rope and he was taken through the streets and the same is not in dispute. The respondent herein filed a writ petition seeking a censure of the police officer and to award damages. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay having exonerated the Superintendent of Police and other respondents, held that the 4th respondent Shri Prakash Chavan, Inspector of Police, who is one of the appellants before us, has subjected the undertrial prisoner to an unwarranted humiliation and indignity which cannot be done to any citizen of India and accordingly directed him to pay the compensation and he was also censured as mentioned above.

(3.) It is submitted before us that the respondent had a long criminal record and that the murder of Ganesh Kolekar was as a result of enmity between the two gangs and the respondent belonged to one gang and the situation required that he should be taken after being handcuffed. The High Court elaborately dealt with this aspect and held that the explanation given by the Inspector of Police is wholly unacceptable. On behalf of the respondent, reliance is placed on some of the decisions of this Court on the aspect of handcuffing and violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. In Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that "the convicts are not wholly denuded of their fundamental rights. Prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed." In Prem Shanker Shukla vs. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526, this Court observed that "to be consistent with Arts. 14 and 19 handcuffs must be the last refuge as there are other ways for ensuring security. No prisoner shall be handcuffed or fettered routinely or merely for the convenience of the custodian or escort." In Sunil Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990) 3 SCC 119, this Court again reiterated following the principles laid down in Sunil Batras case (supra) and other cases held that handcuffing is an act against all norms of decency and amounts to violation of principle underlying Art. 21. This Court also directed the State Government to take appropriate action against the erring officials for having unjustly and unresonably handcuffed the arrested persons.