22/07/2025 Jitendra Singh Rajput, S/o Surendra Singh Rajput, Aged about 30 years, R/o Magla v. State of Chhattisgarh, through its A.J.K
Case Details
Page 1 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) 2025:CGHC:34873-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 611 of 2019 {Arising out of judgment dated 26-2-2019 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Janjgir-Champa in Special Sessions Trial No.27/2016} Judgment reserved on: 04/07/2025 Judgment delivered on: 22/07/2025 Jitendra Singh Rajput, S/o Surendra Singh Rajput, Aged about 30 years, R/o Magla, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (In Jail) --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through its A.J.K. Janjgir (not mentioned in the impugned judgment), District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 705 of 2019 Sunil Dhruv, S/o Late Shri Gangaram Dhruv, Aged about 28 years, R/o Near Bhima Talab, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (In Jail) --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station (Ajaak), Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 681 of 2019 Dilharan Miri, S/o Shri Umed Das, Aged about 26 years, R/o Binoridiah, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (In Jail) --- Appellant Page 2 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 609 of 2019 Rajesh Kumar, S/o Agnihotri Daud, Aged about 49 years, R/o Mission Compound, Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (In Jail) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through its A.J.K. Janjgir (not mentioned in the impugned judgment), District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent AND ACQA No. 676 of 2019 Usha Devi Norge, Wd/o Late Satish Norge, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village Nariyara, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station S.C./S.T., District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Jitendra Singh Rajput, S/o Surendra Singh Rajput, Aged about 30 years, R/o Magla, Thana Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1) in Cr.A.No.611/2019 For Appellant Sunil Dhruv (A-2) in Cr.A.No.705/2019 For Appellant Dilharan Miri (A-3) in Cr.A.No.681/2019 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. : Mr. Roshan Dubey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate. Page 3 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) For Appellant Rajesh Kumar (A-4) in Cr.A.No.609/2019 For Appellant Usha Devi Norge in Acq.A.No.676/2019 For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh and Ms. Vaishali Jeshwani, Advocates. : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate. : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ. CAV Judgment Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1.1) In this batch of criminal appeals and the acquittal appeal, we are tasked upon to decide legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-2- 2019 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Janjgir-Champa in Special Sessions Trial No.27/2016 convicting and sentencing “Men in Khaki” namely, Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1) – Sub-Inspector of Police, Sunil Dhruv (A-2) – Police Constable, Dilharan Miri (A-3) – Police Constable & Rajesh Kumar (A-4) – Sainik for custodial death of Satish Norge in police custody at Police Station Mulmula on 17-9-2016 at 5.30 p.m. in violation of the directives issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.1. Conviction and Sentences
Legal Reasoning
1.2) The trial Court while acquitting appellant Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1) of the charges under Sections 3(1)(j) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 1 (1997) 1 SCC 416 Page 4 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) ‘the Act of 1989’), convicted all the appellants herein namely, Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1), Sunil Dhruv (A-2), Dilharan Miri (A-3) & Rajesh Kumar (A-4) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life & pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month finding that on 17-9- 2016 at 5.30 p.m. at Police Station Mulmula, in furtherance of their common intention, A-1 to A-4 have assaulted Satish Norge (since deceased) knowing fully well that he is a member of Scheduled Caste by which he suffered 26 injuries over the body and died homicidal death against which these criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused persons (A-1 to A-4) invoking the criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereas the acquittal appeal has been preferred by the wife of deceased Satish Norge under Section 372 of the CrPC for convicting the accused persons (A-1 to A-4) under Sections 3(1)(j) & 3(2) (v) of the Act of 1989. 2. Custodial Death 2.1) Custodial death represents the gravest transgression of human dignity and the highest degree of violation of fundamental and human rights. It is not merely a denial of life but an assertion of unlawful state power through violence and torture, executed behind the veil of authority. When the protectors of the law become perpetrators of Page 5 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) such cruelty, it signals a systematic breakdown of constitutional values and accountability. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, such deaths are not just tragic—they are intolerable betrayals of justice. The State, as a constitutional entity, must be held to the highest standards of accountability and moral responsibility. 2.2) In D.K. Basu (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court while declaring that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India required to be jealously and scrupulously protected, held that life or personal liberty in Article 21 includes right to live with human dignity, and observed as under: - “17. … The expression “life or personal liberty” in Article 21 has been held to include the right to live with human dignity and thus it would also include within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries. ...” 2.3) In the matter of Bhagwan Singh and another v. State of Punjab2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the duties of the police officers and the consequences of their act which may have a bearing on the facts of the present case. It reads as under: - “7. A case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that the dead body is not traced when the other evidence clinchingly establishes that the deceased met his death at the hands of the accused. It may be a legitimate right of any police officer to interrogate or arrest any suspect on some credible material but it is needless to say that such an arrest must be in accordance with the law and the interrogation does not mean inflicting injuries. It should be in its true sense and purposeful namely to make the 2 (1992) 3 SCC 249 Page 6 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) investigation effective. Torturing a person and using third- degree methods are of medieval nature and they are barbaric and contrary to law. The police would be accomplishing behind their closed doors precisely what the demands of our legal order forbid. ... 8. It is a pity that some of the police officers, as it has happened in this case, have not shed such methods even in the modern age. They must adopt some scientific methods than resorting to physical torture. If the custodians of law themselves indulge in committing crimes then no member of the society is safe and secure. If police officers who have to provide security and protection to the citizens indulge in such methods they are creating a sense of insecurity in the minds of the citizens. It is more heinous than a gamekeeper becoming a poacher.” 2.4) Similarly, in the matter of Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra3, the Supreme Court observed as under: (SCC p. 92, para 88) “… The police, with their wide powers, are apt to overstep their zeal to detect crimes and are tempted to use the strong arm against those who happen to fall under their secluded jurisdiction. That tendency and that temptation must in the larger interest of justice be nipped in the bud.” Prosecution Case 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17-9-2016, Devendra Kumar Sahu (PW-20), Operator, CSPDCL, posted at Electric Sub-Station, Nariyara, vide Ex.P-31, informed the police of Police Station Mulmula that Satish Norge (since deceased), R/o Village Nariyara, is making nuisance after consuming alcohol at Sub-Station Nariyara, which was recorded vide Ex.P-31A in roznamcha sanha. Immediately thereafter, Station In-charge J.S. Rajput (Station House Officer) after registering the said information vide Ex.P-32 along with Constables Dilharan Miri 3 (1977) 3 SCC 68 Page 7 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) A-3) & Sunil Dhruv (A-2) started for Sub-Station Nariyara for confirmation of the said roznamcha sanha Ex.P-31A and on reaching there, they found that Satish Norge was in drunken condition and excessive smell of alcohol was coming from his mouth and there was redness of eyes. Satish Norge was taken to Community Health Centre, Pamgarh for medical examination as per Section 53 of the CrPC upon
Legal Reasoning
which Dr. Smt. Rashmi Dahire (PW-11) performed his MLC vide Ex.P-14 and found that Satish Norge (now deceased) is in drunken condition, excessive smell of alcohol was coming from mouth, there was redness of eyes and he was not able to stand properly. 4. A-1 to A-3 after reaching to Police Station seen Satish Norge (now deceased) in intoxicated condition and making nuisance at Sub-Station Office Nariyara and drawn proceedings under Sections 107 & 116(3) of the CrPC. Thereafter, vide roznamcha sanha No.603, Satish Norge was arrested and information to his family members was sent regarding his arrest and thereafter, again roznamcha sanha No.604 was registered citing that medical condition of Satish Norge is not well and he is vomiting and therefore he was taken to Community Health Centre, Pamgarh for treatment by A-2 to A-4 where the doctor has informed that he has been brought dead. Information regarding death of Satish Norge that he has been brought dead at CHC, Pamgarh was given by Dr. Smt. Rashmi Dahire (PW-11) on 17-9-2016 vide Ex.P-9. Merg intimation was given by Ramphal (PW-6), Washerman at CHC, Page 8 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) Pamgarh which was recorded vide Ex.P-10. Inquest over the dead body of Satish Norge was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and thereafter, a team of three doctors namely Dr. R.S. Joshi, Dr. Anwita Dhruv & Dr. K.K. Dahire (PW-12) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P-15 in which they found total 26 injuries on the dead body and cause of death was stated to be multiple contusion injuries over the body leading to congestion and cardio-respiratory arrest. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-17 on 19-9- 2016 at 3 p.m. after merg inquiry and Crime Details Form was prepared vide Ex.P-16. Seizure of internal organs of the deceased body was made vide Ex.P-18 and vide viscera report Ex.P-23A, no poison was found in the internal organs. 5. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused/appellants were charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and in addition, Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1) was also charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 3(1)(j) & 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 and charge- sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Janjgir-Champa, from where the learned Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities), District Janjgir-Champa, received the case on transfer for conducting trial and hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 6. The accused/appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as Page 9 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) thirty witnesses and exhibited 37 documents apart from Article A-1, copy of Caste Certificate. The defence has not examined any witness, however, exhibited nine documents, in support of its case. Findings of trial Court 7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, while acquitting appellant Jitendra Singh Rajput (A- 1) of the charges under Sections 3(1)(j) & 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, convicted and sentenced the appellants (A-1 to A-4) in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC have been preferred, whereas, complainant Usha Devi Norge, wife of deceased Satish Norge, has preferred acquittal appeal. 8. The trial Court came to the conclusion that death of Satish Norge was homicidal in nature and it took place after he was taken into custody by police and further recorded a finding that death of Satish Norge occurred in police custody and his death has been homicidal. The trial Court has also recorded a finding that the injuries found over the body of Satish Norge are on account of the fact that he was beaten in the police custody and the appellants have not explained how Satish Norge died in police custody on account of custodial violence and it has further been proved by the evidence of Sukhsagar (PW-2) – Village Sarpanch, Prakash Norge (PW-3) – son of the deceased, Mithailal Page 10 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) Norge (PW-4) – uncle of the deceased, Ravindra Kumar (PW-5) & Vinita Norge (PW-13). Submissions on behalf of Appellants 9. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused/appellant Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1) in Cr.A.No.611/2019, would vehemently submit that cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained to be homicidal in nature as it has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by expert i.e. Dr. K.K. Dahire (PW-12), who could not ascertain that cause of death was homicidal in nature. He would further submit that there was huge crowd of villagers at Sub- Station Nariyara and villagers have assembled therein and Satish Norge was beaten by the villagers on account of which he died and it is not the case where he died in the custody of Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1). In alternative, learned Senior Counsel would also submit that there is no evidence that A-1 has beaten Satish Norge with intention to cause his death and at the most, it would fall under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A-1 is already in custody since 25- 9-2016, therefore, he be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10.Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused/ appellant Sunil Dhruv (A-2) in Cr.A.No.705/2019, would submit that except taking the deceased to the hospital and bringing him back as mentioned in the roznamcha sanha (Ex.P-32), presence of Sunil Dhruv Page 11 of 33 (Cr.A.Nos.611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 & Acq.A.No.676/2019) (A-2) is not at all established, therefore, he is entitled for clean acquittal. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and others4 and Sunil Mahadeo Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra5 to buttress his submission. 11. Mr. Roshan Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused/ appellant Dilharan Miri (A-3) in Cr.A.No.681/2019, would submit that the role of Dilharan Miri (A-3) is limited as mentioned in roznamcha sanha Ex.P-32 and as such, his case is alike to that of Sunil Dhruv (A-2) and therefore he is also entitled for acquittal. 12. Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused/ appellant Rajesh Kumar (A-4) in Cr.A.No.609/2019, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting Rajesh Kumar (A-4) as he was a driver, his role is limited to driving of vehicle owned and possessed by the police station, he has not played any active role in the alleged crime and the deceased was not in his custody, as such, he could not have been convicted by the trial Court, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balu alias Bala Subramaniam and another v. State (UT of Pondicherry)6 in support of his contention.