PW-25, Bishamber @ Bishamber Dayal, was kept in illegal detention by the appellants at Police Station, Dharuhera, from 07.10.1992 to 10.10.1992. It is alleged that the said Bishamber was subjected to custodial torture by the appellants.

1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 283/2014
BHAGWAN DASS & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No(s). 284-285/2014
BISHAMBER DAYAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR. ETC. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Criminal Appeal No.283 of 2014:
(1) Being aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 326, 331,
343 and 346 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment of two
years imposed upon them, the appellants – Bhagwan Dass and
Magan Singh have preferred this appeal.
(2) The appellants, Bhagwan Dass and Magan Singh, were working
as Sub-Inspector/SHO and Assistant Sub-Inspector respectively
at the relevant point of time. The allegations against the
appellants is that PW-25, Bishamber @ Bishamber Dayal, was kept
in illegal detention by the appellants at Police Station,
Dharuhera, from 07.10.1992 to 10.10.1992. It is alleged that
the said Bishamber was subjected to custodial torture by the
appellants. After considering the evidence adduced by the
2
prosecution, including evidence of PW-24, Ram Pal, brother of
Bishamber Dayal and PW-26, Mahavir, the trial court acquitted
the appellants of all the charges framed against the
appellants. On appeal, the High Court has reversed the order
of acquittal and convicted the appellants as aforesaid.
(3) We have heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants, and Mr. Deepak Thukral,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. In spite
of notice, there was no representation for the victim-Bishamber
who has filed a separate appeal, Criminal Appeal NO(s).284-285
of 2014.
(4) Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain submitted that the occurrence was of
the year 1992 and the appellants, after acquittal recorded by
the trial court, also attained the age of superannuation.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that it was not
controverted by learned counsel appearing for the State that
the Victim, Bishamber, has been given government job and
presently working in the office of the District Commissioner at
Rewari. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the
appellant, Bhagwan Dass, as of now is 80 year old and the
second appellant, Magan Singh, is more than 70 years. He
further submitted that the appellants have already undergone
imprisonment of about fifteen months and prayed for leniency.
(5) Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and
having regard to the fact that the occurrence was of the year
1992, interest of justice would be met by reducing the
imprisonment of two years to the period already undergone by
3
the appellants. Ordered accordingly.
(6) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(7) We make it clear that the reduction of sentence is in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the
same may not be treated as precedent.
Criminal Appeal NO(s).284-285 of 2014 :
In view of order passed in Criminal Appeal NO.283 of 2014,
these appeals shall also stand disposed of.
……………………..J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………..J.
(VINEET SARAN)
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 14, 2018.