SIYABAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "No police life-style which relies more on fists than on wits, on torture more than on-culture, can control crime because means boomerang on ends and re-fuel the vice which it seeks to extinguish. Nothing is more cowardly and unconscionable than a person in police custody being beaten up and nothing inflicts a deeper wound on our constitutional culture than a State official running berserk regardless of human rights." This is what was said in Kshore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625.

(2.) IN this habeas corpus petition filed in the year 1984, the petitioner stated that her husband Radheyshyam son of Laxman Singh Vishwakarma, resident, of village Pipalkheri, P.S. Dehgaon, Tehsil and District Raisen was summoned by Girija Narayan Shrivastava, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Kotwali at Vidisha. According to her, it was represented that her husband is required in a police case. This happened on 10th November, 1983. It has been further stated by her that her husband Radhyeshyam was given merciless beating. Serious injuries were sustained by him According to the petitioner this required his hospitalisation in Hospital in at Vidisha. It is stated that aforementioned Radhyeshyam was admitted in the Hospital. It is her further case that after 11th November, 1983, the petitioner has not been able to find out the whereabouts of her husband. She had been running from pillar to post, making representation to highest authorities of this land, viz., the Prime Minister of India and also the various functionaries in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Being unable to locate her husband, habeas corpus petition as noticed above was filed on 10th of July, 1984.

(3.) THE stand taken by the respondent No. 3 be seen. According to him, Radhyeshyam had lodged a complaint in Police Station Kotwali Vidisha under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code on 9th November, 1983. This was registered as Crime case No. 710/83. Town Inspector entrusted this case to respondent No. 3 for investigation. Respondent No. 3 went to village Bhatani on 9th November, 1983. Radhyeshyam was not available in the village. He was asked to meet the respondent No. 3 on 10th November, 1983. This summon was not complied with. Respondent No. 3 then asked Radhyeshyam to visit Police Station on 11th November, 1983. He did not turn up. Respondent No. 3 thus proceeded to the village. It was noticed that on seeing the police a man started to run. He was chased by police party headed by respondent No. 3. This man fell down near the bank of river Nevan. This man was none else but Radhyeshyam. He is said to have sustained injuries. He was brought to the Police Station and, thereafter, sent to the hospital. It is a case of respondent No. 3 that Radhyeshyam left the hospital of his own accord. Respondent No. 3 went to the village with a view to make further investigation in the case registered with the police under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Radheshyam was not to be found in the village. Thus in a nut shell, the case of respondent No. 3 is that he has nothing to do with the disappearance of Siyabai's husband. There is no dispute that the detenu Radhyeshyam was admitted in a hospital. He remained there. What happened to him thereafter is something which is not known to respondent No. 3. Reply of respondent No. 3 was taken on record on 10th September, 1984. Records of the hospital were sent for. Looking to the nature of controversy involved and on going through the pleadings, it was found necessary to call for the record of the District Civil Hospital, Vidisha pertaining to the admission of Radhyeshyam son of Laxman Singh in the hospital vide letter Annexure P/3 and specially the Inward Register, the Indoor Patients Bed Head Ticket and the outward Register from 11th of November, 1983 to 18th August, 1984. Meanwhile search of detenu continued. Order for producing the detenu Radhyeshyam was made. The case was adjourned from time to time.