PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY,HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/1996 BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) CITATION: 1996 AIR 1925 JT 1996 (5) 88 1996 SCALE (4)290 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
SEN, J.
This case arises out of a notice issued to A K. Sinha
Cassyap, Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi to show cause
why he should not be held guilty of Contempt of Court. The
allegation against the contemner is that a shocking case of
police brutality leading to the death of an undertrial
prisoner was sought to be covered up by him by an untrue and
misleading report sent to this Court followed by a false
affidavit.
The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association, forwarded to
this Court a copy of the resolution passed by the
Association at an emergent meetings held on 16th March, 1993
condemning the brutal assault leading to the death of an
undertrial prisoner Nurul Haque.
Having regard to the serious nature of the complaint,
this Court by an order dated 20th August, 1993 decided to
treat the copy of the resolution forwarded by the Secretary,
Hailakandi Bar Association as Writ Petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India. The Director General of
Police, State of Assam, was directed to inquire into the
matter and send a detailed report in regard to the events
leading to the death of Nurul Haque. Pursuant to the said
order, the Director General of Police forwarded his report
under letter No.C-150/91/107 dated 13th September, 1993. In
the letter it was stated that the Director General of police
got the matter investigated by the Superintendent of Police,
Hailakandi, who prepared a report which was forwarded to
this Court along with a medical certificate dated 10th
March, 1993 and particulars of medical examination of Nurul
Haque done on 11th March, 1993. In the report prepared by
the Superintendent of Police, it was specifically stated,
“Nurul Haque neither died in police lock-up nor in police
custody. He died while in judicial custody as UTP
(undertrial prisoner). He was not tortured during the period
of police custody.”
To say the least, the report was not satisfactory. The
inconsistency in the statement of facts made in the report
was pointed out in the Order of this Court dated 24th
January, 1994. It was noted in the Order that the report of
the Superintendent of Police that “the P.M. Report did not
indicate any external injury over the dead body” was
factually incorrect and misleading. The Superintendent of
Police, A.K. Sinha Cassyap, was asked to explain the same by
affidavit and he stated the word ‘not’ had inadvertently
appeared for which he tendered apology. This explanation was
also found to be unsatisfactory. It was pointed out that
deletion of not’ will leave the sentence grammatically
incorrect. The senior police officers were reminded to show
extra care while forwarding their comments to this Court and
not to mechanically forward the information collected by
their subordinates. The Court had called for the report of
the Director General of Police because the Court reposed
confidence in the objectivity of a person holding such a
high office. It was further noted in the Order that another
disturbing feature of the case was that the police had
registered the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against
unknown members of the public. The story given out by the
police that the members of the public had beaten Nurul Haque
before he was apprehended by the police was not borne out by
the reaction of the public and also the Bar Association
which had taken up the cause of Nurul Haque. Neither the
report of medical examination done on 12th March, 1993 nor
the laboratory report on the viscera had been forwarded.
Having regard to the facts and especially to the fact that
the deceased had suffered a fracture, the possibility of the
injuries having been caused by the police could not be ruled
out altogether. It was ordered:-
“Since the local police at the
highest level have taken a stand
that the assault on the deceased
was by members of the public and
not the police after the
apprehension of the deceased, it is
futile to expect an independent and
wholly objective investigation by
the State Police. Even otherwise,
the people will have little
confidence in the investigation no
matter how honest and objective the
investigation be. In the
circumstances, we deem it most
appropriate that the investigation
of the crime in regard to the
murder of the deceased under CR
Case No.275/93 and/or F.I.R.
No.120/93 should be undertaken by
the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI). In doing so, the CBI will
bear in mind the allegation of the
wife and other relations of the
deceased that he died on account of
the beating given to him after his
apprehension on 9.3.1993, without
being influenced by the fact that
in the F.I.R. No.120/93, it is
alleged that the assault was by the
members of the public.
The Registrar General will
write a letter to the Director of
CBI to take immediate steps to take
over the investigation of the crime
from the local police and try to
complete the same at an early date
and bring the real culprits to
book. This petition will stand so
disposed of.”
After the Writ Petition was disposed of on 24th
January, 1994. a report was received from Superintendent of
police, CBI, SPE Division, Silchar. Along with the report he
sent a forwarding letter dated 5th June, 1995 in which he
stated that the disdainful role played by Shri A.K. Sinha
Cassyap, the then Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi
District, was against all tenets of law and morality. He
submitted a false/fabricated affidavit/report to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The falsity of his report submitted to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is evident in every sentence, if not
every word of the report of said Shri A.K. Sinha Cassyap,
S.P. On consideration of the letter and the report submitted
by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, a Show Cause Notice
was served upon A.K. Sinha Cassyap for showing cause why he
should not be punished for the criminal contempt of this
Court for filing a false and fabricated report/affidavit in
this Court.
Since the allegation against Shri A.K. Sinha Cassyap is
that he had given an untrue report and filed a false
affidavit about the death of Nurul Haque to mislead the
Court, it is necessary to set out the facts found by the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
in detail.
On 9th March, 1993 being Tuesday was a market day. It
was the month of Ramzan. Nurul Haque, resident of Boalipar
under P.S. Hailakandi, was coming back from the market
towards his house at about 7.00/7.30 P.M. He was 35 years of
age and in good health. A Police party, led by Abdul Hye
Choudhury, S.I., arrested Nurul Haque. His house was about
400 yards from the market. As per the version of eye
witnesses, Nurul Haque was overpowered by S.I. Abdul Hye
Choudhury and party, who were all in plain clothes, and took
him into a Police Jeep to Hailakandi Police Station.
Although the Police later claimed that Nurul Haque was
assaulted by members of the public at the time of the
arrest, neither the villagers nor relatives nor market
people, who were eye witnesses to the incident, noticed any
such assault, nor was there any record of Nurul Haque being
treated for injury on 9th March, 1993.
On 10th March, 1993, in the early morning, Azizur
Rahman, brother of Nurul Haque, his wife and mother went to
meet Nurul Haque at Hailakandi Police Station, but were not
allowed to meet him. On 11th March, 1993, Azizur Rahman and
some other relatives of Nurul Haque went to the Court of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, where they met Nurul
Haque, who told them that he had been brutally beaten up by
S.I. Abdul Hye Choudhury, Roy Daroga (Rajan Roy S.I.) and
Home Guard Dalim in the lock-up. On 11th March, 1993, Nurul
Haque was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hailakandi, with a prayer for 72 hours police remand It was
also prayed that since Nurul Haque was assaulted by members
of the public, medical treatment may be provided to Nurul
Haque. The prayer was granted.
Even before this, on 10th March, 1993 Nurul Haque had
been taken to Hailakandi Civil Hospital at about 5.30 P M.
for treatment. He was brought back to the Police Station
after receiving treatment. Dr. M.L. Bhattacherjee, the
Medical Officer on duty, examined the patient and recorded
his findings in the Emergency Register as follows:-
“(i) Abrasion in cheek 1 cm x 1 cm.
This may be caused either by
hitting of a blunt object or by
falling.
(ii) One abrasion in left leg 2’5
cm x 1 cm. This might be due to
fall or some blunt object.
(iii) Abrasion on fore-head, 2 cm x
2 cm. It may be due to the same
reason as mentioned earlier.
(iv) Deep tenderness on right leg.
The patient was complaining that he
was having a severe pain on right
leg. As far as he remembers this
was just below the medial side. But
there was no external injury at the
spot.”
The patient complained that he had been beaten up by
the police. The police said that he was a dacoit and was
brought for medical treatment after arrest. The Doctor
advised X-Ray, A.P. and lateral view of right Tibia and the
Fibula. The Doctor noticed that all the injuries were fresh
and had been received within 24 hours. The patient was
healthy and could walk freely with a slight limp for pain on
the right leg. The patient was treated at Emergency Ward for
about 15 minutes and then discharged. As the X-Ray machine
of the Civil Hospital was not in order, the Doctor advised
the police party to get a X-Ray done outside. There is
nothing on record to show that Nurul Haque was given any
treatment thereafter nor any X-Ray was done as advised by
the Doctor. But, he was interrogated thoroughly.
On 11th March, 1993 at 1.15 P.M. Nurul Haque was taken
from Hailakandi Police Station to Civil Hospital for
treatment. The Doctor on duty, Dr. H.A. Ahmed, recorded the
following injuries suffered by the patient:
“(i) One lascerated injury present
over the left thumb of size 2’5cm x
l’5cm x skin deep.
(ii) One abrasion over the left
forearm at middle third of size 1
cm x 2 cm.
(iii) One abrasion present over the
left arm of size 2’5cm x 2cm.
(iv) One abrasion present over the
left leg. Over the tibin of size 2
cm x 2 cm.
(v) One lascerated wound present
over the right leg at upper third
over tibia of size l’5cm x l’5cm x
bone deep and causing severe
tenderness.”
At 2.15 P.M. Nurul Haque was brought back from the
hospital and kept in the lock-up of the Police Station. He
was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hailakandi, on 12th March, 1993, with a prayer for holding
Test Identification Parade. The prayer was allowed. In the
order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, it was
recorded that Nurul Haque had been given medical treatment
and that the jail doctor should provide treatment to Nurul
Haque. The jail doctor checked Nurul Haque and found that he
was suffering from multiple injuries and due to lack of
facilities he referred the patient to Civil Hospital,
Hailakandi. At 6.45 P.M. Nurul Haque was once again brought
to Hailakandi Civil Hospital. He was taken to the Casualty
Ward. In the Casualty Ward Register it was recorded that he
was suffering from multiple injury. Dr. Tapan Kumar
Bhattacharjee was the doctor on duty. However, later on an
extra word ‘old’ was inserted in between ‘multiple’ and
‘injury’ to give a wrong impression about the period when
the injuries were suffered. He was admitted at 7.20 P.M. in
the Indoor Ward. In the treatment report, the time of the
injury was apparently corrected from 12 hours to 40 hours.
It was recorded that the patient was healthy and fully
conscious and the following injuries were found:-
“(i) One lascerated injury in left
thumb.
(ii) One abrasion over left forum
at middle third.
(iii) One abrasion over left arm.
(iv) One abrasion over left leg
over Tibin.
(v) One lascerated injury present
in the right leg upper third to
Tibia.
And the all injuries were
found infected and there was no
record/report available for having
conducted X-ray examination.”
The patient received some treatment but he collapsed on
13th March, 1993 at 5.25 A.M. Dr. Gautam Pal, who was on
duty, noted that the patient was deeply unconscious, pulse
rate rapid and thready, blood pressure could not be felt.
The patient was injected Decadrum, a life saving drug. He
was put on oxygen and cardiac massage was also given. At
5.30 A.M. Nurul Haque died.
The Superintendent of Hailakandi Civil Hospital
informed the Superintendent, District Jail, Hailakandi, that
the undertrial prisioner Nurul Haque admitted on the
previous day with the multiple injuries had expired at 5.30
A.M. on 13th March, 1993 due to Cardio Respiratory failure
as per hospital record. The death was also recorded in the
Undertrial Prisioners Register of Hailakandi District Jail.
The deadbody was sent for burial. There was no record of
intimating family members.
Hailakandi police registered a case under Section 302
IPC in respect of the death of Nurul Haque against the
members of the public on the basis of complaint filed by
S.I. A.H. Choudhury. The case was to be investigated by
Dinanda Phukan. O.C. The inquest was conducted by N.
Borborah, S.I., Hailakandi Police Station on 13th March,
1993 in the Civil Hospital. There were eight injuries in the
lower portion of the right hand, in the right hand joint
etc. There was swelling and lasceration in the right hand
and also the right side of the waist. There was swelling on
the right and left knees.
On 14th March, 1993 the deadbody was sent to Hailakandi
Civil Hospital for post mortem examination which was done by
Dr. S.R. Roy who was only an L.M.F. doctor and not qualified
for the job. According to his finding the injuries were ante
mortem in nature and the death was due to Mayocardial
Infraction with heart failure.
The deadbody was collected and sent to family members
of Nurul Haque. It was refused by the family members. The
Superintendent of District Jail, Hailakandi, wrote to the
C.J.M., Hailakandi, that as the relatives of the deceased
were unwilling to take the deadbody for burial, he may be
allowed to dispose of the deadbody as per Jail Manual Rule
and Muslim Religious Rite. The prayer was allowed by the
C.J.M.
On 15th March, 1993, the Superintended of District
Jail, Hailakandi, requested the C.J.M. that no relative of
the deceased had come to take the deadbody from the Civil
Hospital for burial. The deadbody was getting decomposed
gradually and bad smell coming out from it. A prayer was
made for disposal of the body as per Muslim Religious Rites.
The prayer was allowed. The wife of the deceased, Fatema
Begum, filed an application for recalling the order and to
pass order for the post mortem examination of the deadbody
by a medical team in Silchar Medical College. The C.J.M.
called for a report from the Jail Superintendent about the.
disposal of the deadbody immediately. The Superintendent
reported that the deadbody was sent to Government land near
Basic Training Centre, but the public of that area strongly
objected to the burial of the deadbody. The deadbody was
lying in front of Police Station Hailekandi at the time when
the matter was reported.
The C.J.M. thereupon passed an order on the application
of the widow of Nurul Haque and noted the fact that a number
of lawyers appeared in his court and prayed for further post
mortem examination at Silchar Medical College. The C.J.M.
thereupon directed the deadbody to be sent to Silchar for
further medical examination. The wife of the deceased was
directed to accompany the deadbody and take delivery of the
deadbody after post mortem was over. On 16th March, 1993,
the deadbody was brought to Silchar Medical College and the
post mortem was conducted by Dr. B.K. Barah carried out the
post mortem examination and sent the viscera for further
examination. In the report of the Superintendent of Police,
CBI, it has been stated:-
” ….an accused who was arrested
in healthy condition was a dead
person at the hands of police and
the attending doctors. They neither
gave him food nor proper medical
treatment throughout this period.
In the C.D. of the I. O. nowhere it
is mentioned that he was provided
with even a glass of water, less to
say of food. Despite repeated
suggestion of the doctor to get him
X-rayed, no X-ray was got done
though his right leg was fractured.
The inevitable result was the death
of deceased Nurul Haque at the hand
of the Police to which all others
including doctors and the
Magistracy lent support. The cause
of death was ostensibly shown as
Cardiac Respiratory Failure which
was not a correct fact The deceased
had no history of Cardiac problem,
nor any ECG of him was got done
during his police custody nor he
had ever complained about this
problem to the police However,
anything could have happened to a
person subjected to physical
torture, shock and lack of sleep,
lack of food and having been kept
in the lock-up for last 72 hours.”
Commenting on the report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, to this Court, it has
been stated:-
“The report submitted by the S.P.,
Hailakandi, is full of
inaccuracies, lack of evidence and
false instances some of which are
as follows:-
1) Para 1, page-l of the report
says that Bheru Mia, Akkadas Ali
and others have confessed that
under the leadersbip of Nurul Haque
they committed 5/6 dacoities cannot
be proved and name of Nurul Haque
does not appear in any of the
charge sheet or FIR of the cases
The above mentioned persons were
examined by the I.O. and by the
Hon’ble Court and they have not
stated the above allegation.
2) The allegation of the S.P.
that Nurul Haque committed many
dacoity and rape in the locality
and he was beaten by the members of
the public do not have any evidence
to support it. That he was arrested
on 10.3.93 is also wrong and
clearly shows wrongful confinement,
The C.J.M., Hailakandi, allowed
police custody for 72 hours and not
24 hours. The statement of the SP
that Nurul Haque was again
forwarded to the Court on 12.3.93
after completing his interrogation
is slightly mistaken because Nurul
Haque was reproduced before the
Court only to conduct TIP for which
the C.J.M. Hailakandi fixed the
date on 15.3.93. The report of the
SP that the UTP was referred to
Hailakandi Civil Hospital on making
complaint of chest pain is also
false
3) The statement of the S.P. that
the P.M. report revealed that death
was due to Myocardial Infection
with Heart Failure and that the
P.M. report did not indicate any
external injury over the dead body
is also false as mentioned earlier.
4) That the re-post mortem
examination is conducted by a team
of doctor and that no opinion could
be given because of highly
decomposed state is also
wrong/inaccurate. In fact the re-
post mortem examination was
conducted by Police Surgeon and
Mediocolegal Expert Professor B.K.
Borah of S.M.C.
5) On para 1 page 3 the S.P. has
written that the viscera was
preserved and sent to F.S.L. for
chemical examination is not correct
because it was never sent to
S.F.S.L. It was kept at P.S.
Hailakandi only. Recently, it has
been traced at Police Station,
Hailakandi, itself and seized by
CBI and now it has been sent to
C.F.S.L. for opinion.”
In reply to the notice why action should not be taken
for contempt of court against him, A.K. Sinha Cassyap has
stated that he never intended to disobey or defy an order of
the Court or to mislead the Court. He has tendered his
unconditional and unqualified apology for this. It has been
stated that he was in a shocked state of mind because of
certain developments, particulars of which have been stated
in the affidavit. He has referred to a final report of the
CBI dated 24/25.8.1995 in which prosecution has been
recommended against certain police officers, but so far as
A.K. Sinha Cassyap is concerned, only recommendation is
conveying of displeasure by Government. It has been stated
by A.K. Sinha Cassyap that he was on leave at the time when
this incident took place. When he joined service, he got
only 48 hours time to make his report. He has made his
report on the basis of the material available. But A.K.
Sinha Cassyap has not only sent a report but has also filed
an affidavit pursuant to the order of this Court when the
report was found unsatisfactory. He had ample time to bring
the facts to the notice of the Court by that affidavit.
There is no explanation for the reason why he did not bring
the true facts to the notice of the Court which was his duty
to do,
It is true that the CBI Report has not recommended any
criminal proceeding against him. But the allegation against
A.K. Sinha Cassyap is that he suppressed true facts from the
Court and gave a false report to mislead the Court as to
what was the real cause of the death of Nurul Haque. It has
been stated by A.K. Sinha Cassyap that he had no personal
knowledge of the sequence of events from apprehension to the
death of Nurul Haque. He had returned from leave and had
resumed duty only in the afternoon on 16th March, 1993 when
Nurul Haque had already died. This explanation on the face
of it is not acceptable. As a responsible police officer it
was his duty to make proper investigation and give a report
to this Court. Assuming within the time frame of 48 hours he
could not prepare a report properly, he should have stated
that in his report. He could have even prayed for longer
time for furnishing a report. But the allegation against him
is that he deliberately gave a false report. In the
affidavit filed by him he had ample opportunity to make good
the lapses made in the report and bring the true facts to
the notice of the Court which he did not do. The affidavit
filed by A.K. Sinha Cassyap in this Court is dated 26th
November, 1993 pursuant to the direction given by this Court
on 29th October, 1993. As a responsible police officer it
was his duty to bring to the notice of the Court the police
brutality that had taken place and the false documentation
that was prepared by the various police personnel to
suppress the truth and to give a misleading picture. The
glaring inconsistencies in the affidavit filed by him have
been pointed out in the report of the CBI, particulars of
which have been set out hereinabove. A.K. Sinha Cassyap has
not dealt with those particulars. He has only stated that
that was not the final report of the CBI. The final report
does not contain anything to the contrary to what has been
stated in the report submitted to this Court. In our view,
A.K. Sinha Cassyap, the contemner, has committed gross
contempt of court by trying to mislead the Court as to the
cause of death of Nurul Haque. He has also tried to cover up
the excesses committed by the police which brought about the
death of Nurul Haque by narrating untrue facts and giving
false particulars.
We, therefore, hold that A.K. Sinha Cassyap is guilty
of contempt of this Court. The belated apology given by A.K.
Sinha Cassyap cannot be accepted because it has not been
given in good faith. He has tendered this apology only after
his report was found out to be misleading and his affidavit
was found to be false. He had unnecessarily highlighted in
his report that Nurul Haque was a dacoit for which there was
no clear evidence. He had stated in his report categorically
after reciting some misleading fact, “From the above facts
and circumstances, it is clear that, Dacoit, Nurul Haque
neither died in Police Lock-up nor in Police custody. He
died while in Judicial custody as UTP. He was not tortured
during the period of Police custody.”
A.K. Sinha Cassyap has stated that he had to make his
report on the basis of the records of the case as he had no
personal knowledge of this case. But the records reveal that
the particulars of injuries noted by Dr. H.A. Ahmed on 10th
March, 1993 at 1.50 P.M. were more than what were noticed by
Dr. M L Bhattacharya on 10th March, 1993 at 5.30 P.M. This
can only mean that more injuries had been inflicted upon
Narul Haque after he was examined by Dr. M L Bhattacharya.
It appears that the contemner has ignored even tell-tale
evidence available on the record.
We are of the view that this was a highly irresponsible
report regardless of the truth and also against the records
of the case. In spite of the nature of the injuries detected
and reported from time to time by Various doctors who
examined Nurul Haque after his apprehension by the police
and regardless of the recommendations for X-ray examination
of the injured leg, which was never done, the contemner has
boldly reported to this Court that Nurul Haque was not
tortured during the period of police custody. His report
begins under the heading “Death of veteran dacoit Nurul
Haque” and ends with the summing up “Dacoit, Nurul Haque
died neither in Police Lock-up nor in Police Custody”.
This goes to show that the contemner was trying to
highlight the fact that Nurul Haque was a veteran dacoit and
possibly deserved the treatment that he got at the hand of
the police. The CBI report indicates that there is no record
of any conviction of Nurul Haque in any dacoity case. Not
only that the story of saving Nurul Haque from public wrath
by the police party on 9th March, 1993 is also not borne out
by facts. He was not taken for medical examination on the
5th March immediately after the alleged assault by the
members of the public. He was taken to Hailakandi Civil
Hospital at 5.30 p.m. on 10th March when various fresh
injuries were noted on his body by the doctors. No case of
assault was also registered after rescuing Nurul Haque from
alleged public wrath. This case was made only after Narul
Haque’s death. The report from the very beginning has tried
to mislead the Court as to the cause of death of Nurul Haque
and the alleged events that led to his apprehension by the
police. The emphasis that he was a veteran dacoit was also
obviously with a view to create prejudice. Far from trying
to help the Court to do justice in this case, his report has
tried to mislead the Court and prevent the Court from
finding out the truth about the allegations made by the Bar
Association of Hailakandi.
We, therefore, hold that the contemner deliberately
forwarded an inaccurate report with a view to misleading
this Court and thereby interfered with the due course of
justice by attempting to obstruct this Court from reaching a
correct conclusion. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we cannot accept his apology and hereby reject it. We
hold him guilty of contempt under Article 129 of the
Constitution read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Having regard to the gravity of the case, we
sentence the contemner A.K. Sinha Cassyap to undergo simple
imprisonment for a term of three months. The contempt rule
is disposed of finally as above.
The Director General of Police, Assam is directed to
ensure that this order is carried out forthwith and the
contemner is taken into custody and imprisoned to serve the
sentence. The Registrar General will communicate this order
to Director General of Police, Assam, with a direction to
report compliance to him.