State of NCT Delhi Vs. Amit Sharma and Ors


This case comment has been written by Siddharth Kumar a student

at Gujarat National Law University.



Crl. A. 902/2013

FACTS OF THE CASE


In current, case which is related one Mr. Tarun Kumar which was kidnapped for some ransom amount. Police receive a complain regarding Tarun Kumar that he went missing since 25th September 2003 and even not receiving call of anybody. While doing call by Cousin of Tarun Kumar, someone pick call and demand amount of Rs 25 Lakhs as Ransom. In the Police investigation it was found that Tarun last seen with Amit who is friend of Tarun. Later on, 28th September 2003, dead body of Tarun recovered. In this case accused Amit is acquit by the session court, later an appeal is filed before the High Court of Delhi for compensation.


LEGAL ISSUE


1. Accountability of police in matter related acquittal of criminal due to distorted evidence and lack of investigation?

2. Weather the negligence of the government authority in sheer straight case when prosecution not able to proof the fact and result into acquaintance?

3. Remedy while be given to the party which suffer damage due to the false investigation of the police?


ARGUMENTS


Appellant (Plaintiff) state that due to carelessness of administrivia body in the present case which is police any common citizen suffers any loss or harm. It is the liability of state to give compensation to the plaintiff for there carelessness in the tort law. The Tortious liability can even arise out of criminal case. As in the current case no reasonableness care is maintain by the administrative bodies. In the current case, the conviction can easily be done, although that not happen because of state machinery. There State is responsible by the principle of vicarious liable due to negligence act of Police. The plaintiff is fully able get judicial remedy might enhance oversight for violation of constitutional right or the statutory provision.[1] Under article 246 of the Indian constitution, police fall in the state list there for the state is vicarious liable for each single and small act of the police officer which cause damage to the plaintiff in the question.[2]


Respondent, submitted that the description of clothes of the deceased given in the DD entry is different from those found on the dead body of the deceased. There is no evidence on record to establish the conviction of the accused. It is further submitted that no recovery, as alleged, has ever been made from the accused persons and no public witness was joined in the recovery proceedings. Moreover, the father of the deceased had not stated anything in his statements recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.[3] As there is no negligence on part of Police, therefore there is no vicarious liability of the state.


RATIO


In view of the totality of discussion made during the proceeding, Court view that though the prosecution has been able to raise doubts about the involvement of the accused persons, it has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against them. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the below Court is upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. The court also give order to take administrative action against the culprit police in the charge of negligence and breach of care on part of Police while performing duty.[4] If the person who assigned the work of investigation are negligence, then the appropriate action will be required by the authority.[5] Court although didn’t give any compensation in current case but it is found that in any situation, where employee of state is performance any negligent act state can be held liable for vicarious liability.


References

[1] Prakash vs Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1. [2] Constitution of India, 1950. [3] Criminal Procedure Act, 1973. [4] Hira Lal versus State,2011 (3) LRC 262 (Del) (DB). [5] Vineet Narian v. UOI (1998) 8 SCC 1



Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. NLR does not hold any liability arising out of this article.

1/21