Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


Date 2020-06-22

Words 1000

10% 90% Characters 6039

Plagiarised Unique

Content Checked For Plagiarism

gives up himself under the steady gaze of the court, remand request under Section 167 can't be passed, as he isn't in police guardianship
when the police apply for remand. In any case, on the off chance that he is taken to legal care on such acquiescence, the cop who is
researching the body of evidence against that charged can move toward the Magistrate with an application to give body warrant to jail
specialists to deliver the denounced under the watchful eye of the court, hear him and afterward pass appropriate requests to hand over him
to the cop for examination. D.K.BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL {WP (Crl.) No. 539/1986 with No. 592/1987} JUDGEMENT BY: - Justice
A.S. Anand. QUORUM: - Kuldip Singh, A.S. Anand, JJ. FACTS: - Mr. D.K. Basu, The Executive Chairman of West Bengal Legal Aid Services,
a registered nonpolitical organization, wrote to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to deaths in police custody. The letter noted that
efforts are often made to hush up the ‘lockup’ deaths and thus the crime goes unpunished and ‘flourishes’. The letter stated that it was
imperative that Court looks into the issue in depth, formulate modalities for awarding compensation to the victim and/or family members of the
victim and to provide for the accountability of the officers concerned. This letter was treated as a writ petition and notice was issued first to the
State of West Bengal, and by a subsequent order to all the State Governments and to the Law Commission of India. The State of West
Bengal denied the allegations and characterized the writ petition as misconceived, misleading and untenable in law. Further, Dr. A.M.Singhvi,
Senior Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. ISSUES: - • Growth in incidents of Custodial Torture and Deaths by
Police. • Arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person. OBSERVATIONS BY COURT: - 1. A number of Constitutional and Statutory
provisions seek to protect personal liberty, dignity and basic human rights of citizens. However, despite such provisions, the alarming growth
in the number of the cases of custodial torture and deaths are questioning the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice
system. 2. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and has been held to include the right to live with human dignity. It thus
also includes a guarantee against torture and assault by the state or its functionaries. 3. Article 22 guarantees protection against arrest and
detention in certain cases. It provides that no individuals who are arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds
of arrest and that arrested individuals shall not be denied the right to consult and defend themselves by a legal practitioner of their choice. 4.
Article 20(3) provides that a person accused of an offence shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself. 5. Parliament’s
attention is drawn to the urgent need to amend the rules of evidence regarding prosecution of police officials accused of custodial violence, in
particular the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 113 Report regarding a shift in the burden of proof, with the introduction
of a presumption of custodial violence if there is evidence that the detainee’s injury was caused during the period of detention, and the
consideration by the court of all relevant circumstances. HELD: - Relying on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa , the Court stated that any form
of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment falls within the ambit of Art 21, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or
otherwise. The rights guaranteed by Art. 21 cannot be denied to under trials, convicts, detents and other prisoners in custody, except
according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions on the right as are permitted by law. Even after laying
down procedural requirements by this Court in Joginder Kumar v State of UP , it has come to the Court’s notice that police have arrested a
person without a warrant in connection with the investigation of an offence, without recording the arrest, and the arrested person has been
subjected to torture to extract information from him or her for the purpose of further investigation, recovery of case property or in order to
extract a confession. The Court felt that it would be useful and effective to structure appropriate machinery for contemporaneous recording
and notification of all cases of arrest and detention to bring in transparency and accountability. The Court issued a list of 12 guidelines in
addition to the Constitutional and Statutory Safeguards which are to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention. The guidelines are as
follows: – (i) Police faculty doing capture and cross examination should wear precise, noticeable and demonstrate distinguishing proof and
innocence labels with their assignments, the subtleties of which ought to be recorded in a register; (ii) A notice of capture (counting the
applicable date and time) will be set up by the capturing cop and will be validated by in any event one observer (either a relative of the
arrestee or a good neighborhood individual) and countersigned by the arrestee; (iii) One companion or relative of the arrestee (or someone
else known to the person in question who has an enthusiasm for their government assistance) will be educated, as soon as practicable, of the
capture and detainment at the spot being referred to; (iv) Where the following companion or relative of the arrestee lives outside the area or
town being referred to, the individual in question must be informed by the police of the time, spot of capture and scene of care inside 8 to 12
hours of the capture; (v) The arrestee must be educated regarding this privilege when the person is captured or kept; (vi) A entry must be
made in the journal at the spot of confinement with respect to the capture of the individual, including the name companion

Matched Source

Similarity 9%
Title: [Case Brief] DK Basu v State of West Bengal, 1996
further, dr. a.m.singhvi, senior advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court.(3) the court severely criticised the existence of
custodial death and regarded it to be one of the worst crimes in a civilised society to be governed by the rule of law.

Similarity 5%
Title: 9 Non Muslim Prisoners Poorer detention facilities and... | Course Hero
additionally, they are not denied the right to consult and defend themselves by a legal practitioner of their choice (article- 10). similarly, no
person shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Similarity 4%
Title: Crpc Final Draft | Arrest | Criminal Procedure In South Africa
...of an offence, without recording the arrest, and the arrested person has been subjected to torture to extract information from him or her
foroffence and suspicion of complicity in offence. investigating officer is to see that arrest was justified. except in heinous offence, an arrest
must be...

Similarity 4%
Title: Crpc Final Draft | Arrest | Police | connection with a case. torture to extract information from him or her for the purpose of further investigation, recovery of case property or in order to extract a
confession.connection with a case. on 7-1-1994 at about 12.55 p.m. the brother of the petitioner being apprehensive of the intentions of
respondent no...