Court emphasizes failure of prosecution to prove torture beyond reasonable doubt; highlights absence of medical and independent witness support in landmark judgment
In a significant judgment delivered on 24 February 2026, the Gujarat High Court acquitted accused police officer S.S. Khandwawala of all charges related to allegations of custodial torture, wrongful confinement, and grievous hurt. The judgment arose from a long-pending criminal case dating back to 1976, wherein the complainant, Merag Haja, accused police officers of severe physical abuse during police custody aimed at extorting a confession.
The case originated from a police raid on Merag Haja’s residence on 7 October 1976, which was part of a larger investigation into the murder of the Porbandar Municipal President. The complainant alleged that after the raid, he was unlawfully confined and brutally beaten by police personnel, including accused Khandwawala, resulting in a fractured femur and permanent disability.
However, the High Court’s detailed analysis revealed critical gaps in the prosecution’s case. The complainant failed to present any complaint or request for medical examination before the Magistrate at the time of arrest or during bail proceedings, as mandated under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The medical evidence presented by doctors who treated the complainant did not corroborate the torture allegations; no injuries consistent with the claimed beatings were recorded by the Civil Surgeon who examined the complainant while in police custody.
The Court highlighted the absence of any independent witness testimony to support the complainant’s claims. Notably, individuals who were allegedly present with the complainant in custody, such as Bhikha Deva and Jusab Habib, did not file any complaints of torture. The prosecution’s failure to examine these key witnesses was considered detrimental to the case.
The Court further scrutinized the prosecution’s reliance on medical documents, noting that relevant medical papers were missing or destroyed, and the doctors’ testimonies were inconclusive about the cause and timing of injuries. The complainant’s claims were also undermined by evidence that he was lawfully arrested under the Arms Act, 1959, for possession of weapons, and that his treatment in hospital was under police protection, not due to police neglect or abuse.
The judgment reaffirmed the principles established in landmark cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, emphasizing that custodial torture is illegal, but the burden lies on the prosecution to prove such allegations beyond reasonable doubt with credible, corroborative evidence. The Court noted the suspicious delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of any complaint before the Magistrate, which weakened the prosecution’s position.
In conclusion, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court in 2003, acquitting the accused officer and dismissing the State’s appeal for enhancement of sentence. The complainant was also directed to pay compensatory costs.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s balanced approach in custodial torture cases, protecting fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India while ensuring that unsubstantiated allegations do not result in wrongful convictions.
Bottom Line:
Failure to prove custodial torture beyond reasonable doubt and absence of corroborative medical or independent witness evidence leads to acquittal of accused police officers despite victim’s claim of police torture.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 331, 336, 337, 344, 346, 348, 352, 355, 365, 34, 114;
Criminal Procedure Code Sections 46, 49, 54, 57, 145, 172;
Arms Act Section 20
This news report provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, highlighting the legal principles applied, evidence considered, and the Court’s reasoning leading to acquittal. It reflects the procedural and substantive aspects of the case, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in custodial torture allegations.
State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2860512
