Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP - Case Analysis

Introduction of Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP

The decision in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh highlights the serious issue of custodial deaths in India. The case revolves around the death of Ram Dhiraj Tiwari who allegedly died due to police torture. The Supreme Court in this case reinstated the convictions of the police officers involved and highlighted the importance of accountability in law enforcement. The decision in this case underlines the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual rights and addressing abuses of power.

Historical Context and Facts of Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP

The case of Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP revolves around the custodial death of Ram Dhiraj Tiwari who was allegedly beaten to death by police personnel at the KureBhar police station in Uttar Pradesh. The accused included three police officials namely, Rafiuddin Khan (Accused No. 1), Shamsher Ali (Accused No. 2) and Gauri Shankar Sharma (Accused No. 3).

Arrest and Alleged Torture

On 19th October, 1971, Ram Dhiraj Tiwari was arrested from his residence by a team led by Accused No. 2 i.e., Shamsher Ali and was taken to the KureBhar police station. According to the Prosecution, Accused No. 1, Rafiuddin Khan who was a Sub-Inspector subjected Ram Dhiraj Tiwari to physical torture which resulted in 28 injuries. This was done in order to extract a confession about his involvement in a case of dacoity.

Demand for Bribe

It was also alleged by the Prosecution that Accused No. 1 i.e., Rfiuddin Khan demanded a bribe of Rs. 2000 to spare Ram Tiwari from further torture. 

Falsification of General Diary

It was also alleged that the Accused No. 3 i.e., Gauri Shankar Sharma who was Head Moharrir, was accused of falsifying the General Diary to cover up the custodial death.

Argument by the Defence

It was argued by the defence that the deceased was arrested on 20th October, 1971 and not on 19th October as stated by the defence. According to the defence, Tiwari resisted arrest near a culvert in his village and was injured during the struggle with Accused No. 2 and his companions.

Findings of the Trial Court

The Trial Court accepted the version submitted by the Prosecution and convicted Accused No. 1 i.e., Rafiuddin Khan under Sections 304 (Part II), 330, 201, and 218 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court also convicted Accused No. 3 under Sections 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court acquitted Accused No. 2.

Decision of the High Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the Appellant approached the High Court. However, the High Court overturned the decision of the Trial Court and acquitted Accused No. 1. The High Court also upheld the acquittal of Accused No. 2 but maintained the conviction of Accused No. 3 under Sections 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court of Accused No. 1 acquittal.

Issue addressed in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP

The main question which was addressed in this case-

• Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting Accused No. 1 despite the findings of the Trial Court?
• Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict Accused No. 1 for the custodial death of Ram Dhiraj Tiwari?
• Whether the falsification of records by Accused No. 3 was adequately proven to warrant his conviction under Section 201 and Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code?

Legal Provisions involved in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP

Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 201 of the Code deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offenders. It states that any person who, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed-

• intentionally causes the disappearance of evidence or 
• gives false information with the purpose of screening the offender from legal punishment, and can be held liable. 

This section applies in cases where the individual intentionally conceals or destroys evidence or misleads authorities regarding the commission of offence.

If the offence is punishable by-

• Death - Imprisonment for up to 7 years along with a fine.
• Life Imprisonment or Imprisonment extending to 10 years - Imprisonment for 3 years along with a fine.
• Imprisonment for less than 10 years - Imprisonment of up to one-fourth of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence or with a fine or both.

Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 218 of the Code deals with public servants who - 

• intentionally frame incorrect records or writings 
• with the intent to cause harm 
• save someone from punishment or 
• prevent the forfeiture of property

In such a case, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or both.

Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 304 of the Code deals with punishment for Culpable homicide not amounting murder. Section 304 (Part II) deals with acts done with knowledge but without intention. It states that if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death. In such a case, he shall be punishable with-

• Imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to 10 years or
• Fine or
• Both

Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 330 of the Code deals with voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or compel restoration of property. Anyone who commits such an offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Judgment and Impact of Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP

In the case of Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in its findings and determined that intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution was justified. The Court reinstated the conviction of Accused No. 1 i.e, Rafiuddin Khan while dismissing the appeal of Accused No. 3 i.e, Gauri Shankar Sharma.

The Court also criticised the High Court’s acceptance of the defence witness who had provided testimony in favour of the accused. The Court underscored the importance of scrutinising such testimony with caution. The Court also highlighted the gravity of custodial deaths in cases when law enforcement officers are involved. 

The Supreme Court found that the acquittal of Accused No. 1 i.e, Rafiuddin Khan, constituted a miscarriage of justice. The decision in this case served as a reminder of the role of the judiciary in addressing serious violations and ensuring accountability to uphold justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of UP, reinstated the convictions of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 and highlighted the gravity of custodial deaths and the need for accountability among law enforcement. The Court also underlined the importance of strict punishment to prevent the abuse of power by police officers and to uphold the rule of law.