The fact of the Case 

In the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of UP The ASJ, Shahdara, and Karkardooma Courts’ judgement of conviction against the accused for violations of Sections 365 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, was appealed by the appellants, who also sought the police officer’s acquittal for violations of Sections 365, 304, 220, and 167 of the IPC. When the father of the deceased stated that the Noida Police had taken his son Sonu, away while wearing civil attire, a FIR was filed under Section 302 IPC. Sonu’s suicide was revealed to him, according to the information. Following a post-mortem, he and his fellow villagers observed injuries on his son, including a burn mark close to his ear, which he assumed to be the result of torture and murder. Following an investigation by CBCID, police officers were charged with transporting the deceased, who was 26 years old, in their car without a valid purpose. According to the allegations, the deceased committed suicide as a result of false accusations in the robbery case and abuses done by the police. The charge sheet was submitted under the IPC sections 342, 320, 306, 167, and 218. Due to his interest in real estate negotiations, a police officer was discovered to have participated in torturing the deceased.

Analysis of Court order 

Justices Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench affirmed the police officer’s conviction and determined that the Trial Court had correctly exonerated the accused 4.

The doctor’s cross-examination of the post-mortem report, which showed a ligature mark suggesting death by hanging, was questioned by the court. There are questions about the doctor’s opinion because he did not review the materials he was not given. There were no signs of hanging, such as a bitten or swollen tongue or froth at the nostril or pulmonary artery mouth. Blood was discovered on the baniyan and pants, yet the postmortem report did not mention blood pouring from injuries on the deceased’s body. The assumption that the police were accountable for his kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and killing was drawn by the court correctly. The Court came to the conclusion that the chronology of events and the information on file showed that the deceased was subjected to custodial torture with the awareness that it was likely to result in death but without any purpose to do so. 

The Court stated that it would be difficult to conclude that the accused police officers would be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC because there is no evidence on file to demonstrate that they injured the deceased with the intent that, almost certainly, death will ensure, thereby leading to the deceased’s murder. Therefore, the Court held that the act of causing bodily injury that is likely to cause death would make the accused guilty. The Court further ruled that the Trial Court correctly convicted the accused of the crimes and that the Trial Court was justified to acquit the accused 4 for a lack of evidence because there was no evidence linking the accused’s presence to the location of the kidnapping.