Dismissed

Budhnath Ram Badayeek v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jan 2014WPC/7480/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking Rs. 5 lacs compensation alleging brutal beating in police custody following false arrest. The High Court, after examining the medical report, FIR, and an independent enquiry report which found the petitioner assaulted a constable, rejected the claim as unsubstantiated and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Relief prayed for (compensation of Rs.5 lacs) was not granted as the petition was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Budhnath Ram Badayeek Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

\r't

¶2

1} C .1s (3T& ^__

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH'!.•'•' AT'.. • BILASPUR' (CG)

¶4

WRIT PETITION {C)NO./ySQ/2007

¶5

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

RESPONDENTS

¶8

..// -••••
^-^"^-
(^ ^-•^?
'^s^ /2.
-yy
/3.
.Aff ..••"
^
^x
^~ ^
^' ^ A
&-
/"6
.^

¶9

^'
-s~'<8.
\
^Kau^iji)^Js 8,
~. ^^/
"TA
IAW^

¶10

Budhnath Ram Badayeek, agea about 47 years, son of Shri Maliesh Ram Badayeek, resident of Putrichoyra, Police Chowki - Lodam, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of Horne Affairs, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, RaipurfC.G.) „

¶14

The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter - Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) '

¶16

The Station House Officer, Police Station^- Jashpur, Djstt. Jashpur :;(C-G:-)...:':''::;^ The Station House Officer, Potice Station - A.J.K., Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.):

¶17

A.D. Manikpuri, spn of Narayan Manikpuri, aged about 40 years, Incharge Police Chowki - Lodam, P.S. —Jashpur, Djstt. Jashpur through -S.P. Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶18

Ramchandra Sahu, son of Shivcharan Sahu, aged about 42 Head Constable No.139, years, Police Chowki - Lod'^m, Distt. Jashpur through-S.P.Jashpur, (C.G,)

¶19

Trinath Yadav, son of Madhusudan Yadav, aged about 34 years, GQnstabte No.274, Police Chowki - Lodam, Distt.Jashpur through - S.P. Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶20

¶21

/9. Dukhram Bhagat, son of Not known to the petitioner, aged about 35 years, Head Constable No.45, Police Chowki - Lodam, Distt. Jashpur through - S.P. Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶22

01. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER

¶23

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR

¶24

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶25

W.P.(C)No.7480of2007

¶26

PETITIONER Budhnath Ram Badayeek

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

RESPQNHENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶29

Present:

¶30

ShriA.N. Bhakta, counsel forthe petitioner. ShriArun Sao, Dy.A.G. for theState/respondents No. 1 to 5.

¶31

ORDER (1.1.2014)

¶32

Case of the petitioner is that his younger brother Nandkishore was implicated by the police in Crime No.68/05 and after his arrest, some illegal gratification was demanded from him to dilute the gravity of the offence. When the petitioner went to Police Chowki, Lodam and enquired from the police about the illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/-, he was brutatty beaten by the police authorities as a result of which he sustained various injuries on his body vide Annexure P/1. Further case of the petitioner is that after beating him brutally, a false criminal case bearing Crime No.76/05 for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 294, 332 & 307 of IPC was also registered against him and he was sent behind the bar.

¶33

It is further case of the petitioner that the case which was registered against his brother was uttimately found to be fake, his brother was acquitted of the charges, however, in the criminal case instituted against him on the basis of false report he was convicted and sentenced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur and against that judgment he has preferred an appeal, which is pending for adjudication.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the police custody, the petitioner was brutally beaten by the police authorities and this fact is evident from Annexure P/1 wherein number of injuries found

¶35

y^ ~'* ! v^
^'s^^^, y
§ '%£i>-a€,t? Slj

¶36

on the person ofthe petitioner have been mentioned. He submits that it is a case of police atrocity where the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5 lacs from the respondents.

¶37

Defence of the State Government is that on 24.4.2005 when complainant Ramchandra Sahu, Head Constable, was on his government duty, he was abused and assaulted by the petitioner with knife with intention to kill him as the said Head Constable along with other police authorities had investigated the case against the brother of the petitioner relating to offence punishable under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC.

¶38

Learned counsel for the State has argued that after receiving the complaint from the wife of the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Jashpur and a categorical finding was recorded by the said officer that the allegations of police atrocity are not correct and the petitioner in order to defend himself has cooked up a story. He has referred to the report of the said SDO(P) dated 20.5.2006 (Annexure R/1) wherein it has been stated that by exaggerating the story, allegations have been made against the police authorities.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶40

From the record it appears that on 24.4.2005 an FIR (Annexure P/3) was registered against the petitioner for assaulting Head • Constable Ramchandra Sahu. As per documents, after assaulting the said HeadConstable when the petitioner was trying to escape from the clutches of the police authorities, he fell down and sustained some injuries on his body. It further reveals that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at. the relevant time.

¶41

From the medical report of the petitioner (Annexure P/1), it does not appear that the injuries sustained by him were on account of brutal beating by the police authorities. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that at any point of time, the petitioner had filed any application before the Magistrate pointing out the police atrocity. That apart, had it been a case of police atrocity and brutal beating of the petitioner, he

¶42

i^;

¶43

ysi ^....^!:&^":^•l'?%s'."..'-s.y'^.•-y;-^'.;v ^^?'
'fS}i ~:^*^i.f'

¶44

s—

¶45

would have filed a complaint case against the police authorities. In absence of all these materials, it is difficult for this Court to believe the story as put forth by the petitioner. There is no material available on record to arrive at a conclusion that during police custody the petitioner was brutally beaten by the police authorities as alleged. On the contrary, FIR (Annexure P/3) reflects that it is the petitioner who had assaulted the Head Constable with a deadly weapon i.e. knife, on account of which Crime' No.76/05 was registered against him, he was tried and convicted by the trial Court.

¶46

Furthermore, an independent enquiry was also conducted by the SDO(P) in which statements of various persons were recorded and after considering all the aspects of the case, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that no such incident of beating of the petitioner by the police authorities had taken place and it is the petitioner who assaulted the Head Constable after consuming liquor and that the complaint of police atrocity appears to be exaggerated one.

¶47

Thus after considering all the aspects of the case, this Court finds it difficult to hold that the petitioner was brutally beaten by the police authorities while he was in police custody. As such, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner can not be granted to him. The petition being without substance deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶48

Sd/Pritinker Diwakar Judge

¶49

1</

Budhnath Ram Badayeek v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhnath Ram Badayeek v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adarsh Vipnan Sahkari Sam.Mar. Vs Add.Ragistrar and Ors.

Smt.Jhileshwari Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Adarsh Vipnan Sahkari Sam.Mar. Vs Add.Ragistrar and Ors.

Smt.Jhileshwari Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.