HC clears police officer of 1993 custodial death

The Bombay High Court discharged a police sub-inspector in a 1993 custodial death case, citing lack of evidence and significant discrepancies in prosecution arguments.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week discharged a police sub-inspector accused of involvement in a 1993 custodial death case, citing lack of evidence. The officer had been charged in connection with the death of a suspect who was allegedly subjected to third-degree treatment while in custody at Taloja police station. The court observed that the trial court failed to establish a prima facie case against the officer and noted significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s arguments.

HC clears police officer of 1993 custodial death

The case stemmed from the investigation of a theft reported on September 19, 1993, in Panvel, involving stolen gold ornaments. The police identified Pandurang Dharma Patil as a suspect, who, along with others, was detained at Taloja police station. On the night of September 28, 1993, Patil was reportedly assaulted by police constables and was later found dead, allegedly having committed suicide. The investigating officer, who was then on probation, was accused of directing the detention and questioning of Patil.

Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, representing the officer, argued that there was no evidence linking his client to the alleged third-degree treatment or the subsequent death. He highlighted that the station diary contained no entry recording Patil’s detention or the officer’s involvement in his questioning. Furthermore, the officer was not informed about the detention of Patil or the actions of the constables. The defence also cited a departmental inquiry report that absolved the officer of any wrongdoing, noting that the constables acted without his knowledge.

The state, represented by APP Manisha Tidke, contended that, as the investigating officer, he bore responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. However, the prosecution failed to present evidence of explicit involvement of the officer in the events leading to Patil’s death.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, presiding over the case, criticised the trial court for its vague reasoning in rejecting the officer’s earlier discharge application. The court emphasised that criminal liability cannot be established without clear evidence, noting the absence of any record indicating the officer’s role in detaining or questioning Patil. The judgment also highlighted that the departmental inquiry corroborated the defence’s argument, finding no evidence of the officer’s knowledge of or involvement in the alleged custodial violence.

The court concluded that the officer deserved the same treatment as the police station in-charge, who was earlier discharged on similar grounds. It quashed the trial court’s order and granted the officer’s discharge application, bringing an end to a case that spanned over three decades.