POLICE COMMISSIONER Vs. YASH PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Police Commissioner of Delhi, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Bal Kishan, Union of India and Delhi Administration (all appellants before us) were the defendants in the suit for recovery of damages filed by the respondent herein (hereafter referred to as the 'plaintiff'). The plaintiff had claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs from the appellants (hereafter referred to as the 'defendants') alleging that the police had used violent force against him in which he was also inflicted with serious injuries whereby his fundamental rights of life, liberty and personal safety as well as right of freedom and expression were violated. The learned Addl. District Judge (ADJ) has decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 1,12,500/- vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2002. Subject matter of this appeal is the said judgment and decree.

(2.) IN the plaint filed by the plaintiff, he had alleged that on 25.2.1993, the Commissioner of Police had promulgated orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') within the Union Territory of Delhi. The promulgation of these orders was not liked by some persons, including some Advocates practicing at Patiala House Courts. The plaintiff is also among those Advocates. Accordingly, they decided to raise a democratic voice by way of protest against the said order. It was further alleged that about 50 lawyers of Patiala House Courts, including the plaintiff, when stepped out of Gate No.2 of the court premises in their robes, the police force swooped upon them and surrounded them. This police force was headed by Shri Bal Kishan, Assistant Commissioner of Police (defendant No.2). The police personnel started hurling lathi blows upon the Advocates who were making peaceful demonstration. Neither any warning nor any order of dispersal was given by the police officers before inflicting lathi blows and before using force against them. The plaintiff alleged that in the process, he was beaten black and blue by lathi wielding policemen. He still kept his calm and pleaded with the policemen to desist from this cruel and brutal behaviour. The police did not pay any heed to his plea and rather responded by another lathi blow with vengeance in the orders of defendant No.2. The hapless lawyers rushed inside Patiala House Courts for shelter. When the plaintiff reached inside the boundary of Patiala House Courts, he noticed one Shri J.P. Dixit, Advocate lying motionless on the ground floor leaning against the inside gate pillar and profusely bleeding. He was surrounding by 4-5 policemen who were still inflicting lathi blows on his body. In order to save him, the plaintiff broke through the policemen and managed to drag Shri Dixit to safety. However, this infuriated the policemen who turned their ire towards the plaintiff and started giving him the lathi blows. With great difficulty he was rescued by other Advocates. In this entire episode, the plaintiff allegedly suffered severe wounds. He consulted one Dr. Ajit Tewari, a private practitioner, who advised him certain medicines and treatment. When he noticed that the plaintiff is not recovering from injuries and as the pain was aggravating, he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital on 28.2.1993 where he was medically examined and certain x- rays were also taken. The MLC report prepared by the doctors at the Safdarjung Hospital (Ex.P-6/1) showed the following injuries :-

(3.) IN the joint written statement filed by all the defendants, various allegations made by the plaintiff were denied. The version of the defendants in the written statement was that a call for 'Bharat Band' for 25.2.1993 had been given by the Bhartiya Janata Party, which had also proposed a rally at the Boat Club. It was for this reason that orders under Section 144 of the Code were promulgated to ensure maintenance of public peace and proper law and order. Necessary police arrangements were also made in different zones and sectors within the Union Territory of Delhi. Local police staff and outside force of Punjab Police were detailed for duty at Patiala House Courts, Tilak Marg, Purana Quila Road and C-Hexagon Road. At about 10.45 a.m., an information was received on wireless that 35-40 persons at Patiala House Courts had assembled. On receiving this information, S.I. Satish Sharma reached the spot. He found that a group of 35-40 persons who had gathered outside Gate No.2 on C-Hexagon Road was taking a shape of procession. They were informed about promulgation of prohibitory orders because of which it was not permissible for them to form a group of 5 or more people and directed them to disperse from the place. The assembly of persons, however, did not accede to this legal direction of the police and formed a part of unlawful assembly. They were dispersed after giving warning and to ensure this mild force was used in which one or two persons received minor cane injuries, while others received minor injuries in the melee. On the complaint of S.I. Satish Sharma, FIR No. 69/1993 under Section 188 of the IPC was registered in police station Tilak Marg. During investigation, certain persons who had received injuries were admitted in JNJPN Hospital. The plaintiff, who was another injured, got himself medically examined in Safdarjung Hospital. The defendants denied that these persons, including the plaintiff, simply wanted to lodge a peaceful protest against promulgation of orders under Section 144 of the Code. It is also denied that police had beaten these protesters mercilessly. As per the police, minimum force was used to stop the agitators who were heading towards the Boat Club, which action was not permissible in law and, therefore, the defendants pleaded for dismissal of the suit.