STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of U.P., against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur against the four respondents. Respondents 1 and 2, Ram Sagar Yadav and Shobha Nath alias Pujari, were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 304, Part 2, of the Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, Respondent 1 was also convicted under S. 220 of the Penal Code for keeping a person in confinement corruptly and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Respondents 3 and 4 were convicted under section 304, Part 2 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to the rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) Respondent 1, Ram Sagar Yadav, was the Station House Officer of the Hussainganj Police Station, District Fatehpur, while the remaining three respondents were attached to that police station as constables. On the morning of August 29, 1969 respondents 3 and 4 went to village Haibatpur, arrested the deceased Brijlal and brought him to the police station at about 10.00 A.M. Brijlal died the same day at about 6.00 P.M. due to the injuries which were caused to him between the time that he was brought to the police station and the forenoon of August 29.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the respondents wanted to extort illegal gratification from Brijlal in connection with a Complaint which was filed against him by one Faheeman Faqirin for cattle trespass. Respondent 2, Shobba Nath, had succeeded in obtaining a sum of Rs. 100/- from Brijlal with an assurance that no steps will be taken against him in that complaint. Respondent 2 demanded a further sum of Rs. 200/- from Brijlal for hushing up the case, which the latter refused to pay. Instead, on August 7, 1969 he sent a complaint (Exhibit.Ka-2) to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, complaining that a bribe was being demanded from him by respondent 2, a policeman of the Hussainganj Police Station. That complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to respondent 1 for inquiry and report. Being incensed by the 'audacity' of Brijlal in complaining against a policeman under his charge, respondent 1 sent respondents 3 and 4 to bring Brijlal to the police station in order that he could be taught a proper lesson. That is the genesis of Brijlal's arrest. Apart from Faheeman Faqirin's complaint that Brijlal's bullock had damaged her crop, there was no complaint or charge against him.