REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2047-2049 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 8485-87 of 2009]

Central Bureau of Investigation .. Appellant

-versus-

Kishore Singh & others ..    Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. What should be done to policemen who `bobbitt’ a person in  

a police station and think that they can get away with it?  That is  

the question to be decided in this case.

1

3. These appeals by special  leave have been filed against the  

impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2008  passed in D.B.  

Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006, SB Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006  

& SB Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006 of Rajasthan High Court at  

Jodhpur.

4. This case reveals how some policemen in our country have  

not got over their old colonial mentality and are still persisting in  

barbaric  acts  in  a  free  country  which  claims  to  be  run  by  a  

democratic Constitution and the rule of law.  It also reveals a grisly  

state of affairs prevailing in our police set up even today.

5. Heard Mr. J.S. Atri, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

appellant,  CBI,   Mr.  KTS  Tulsi,  learned  senior  counsel  for  

respondent constable Kishore Singh, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned  

senior counsel for respondent Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumer Dan  

and  Ms.  Aishwarya  Bhati,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  

respondent S.H.O. Sohan Singh.  

2

6. The  prosecution  case  is  that  one  Jugta  Ram,  the  injured  

witness in this case, was an employee of one Bheru Singh and was  

working in his liquor shop.  Jugta Ram also lived in the house of  

Bheru Singh in one room of the upper floor, while the family of  

Bheru Singh was living in the ground floor. Bheru Singh had two  

sons and three daughters.  Jugta Ram is said to have had an affair  

with Bheru Singh’s wife and eldest daughter.  This was suspected  

by  Bheru  Singh,  whose  relative  was  accused  constable  Kishore  

Singh.

7. On 2.2.1994, at about 8 P.M. Jugta Ram was carrying a bottle  

of  liquor  when  accused  constable  Kishore  Singh  met  him  and  

snatched the liquor bottle and in the course of the scuffle the bottle  

fell down and got broken.  Kishore Singh then took Jugta Ram to  

the Sadar police station where the accused SHO Sohan Singh and  

some  policemen  were  also  present.   Sohan  Singh  allegedly  

assaulted Jugta Ram and at that time Bheru Singh also came to the  

3

police  station.  Accused  Kishore  Singh,  constable,  is  the  son  of  

Bheru Singh’s brother-in-law (sala).  

8. Jugta Ram was taken to the police station on 2.2.1994 and  

kept locked up there till 5.2.1994.  He was beaten up in the police  

lockup by Bheru Singh, constable Kishore Singh and A.S.I. Sumer  

Dan.   On 4.2.1994 at  about  2  or  3 P.M.,   Jugta Ram’s  brother  

Kheraj  Ram  came  to  the  police  station  and  he  stated  that  the  

policemen demanded Rs. 40-50 thousand otherwise Jugta Ram will  

not be released.

9. On 5.2.1994, Jugta Ram was again assaulted by Bheru Singh,  

Sumer Dan and Kishore Singh who kept asking about his illicit  

relationship and then he stated that he had illicit relationship with  

Gaj  Kanwar,  wife  of  Bheru  Singh.   At  this,  Bheru  Singh  and  

Sumer Dan caught hold of Jugta Ram.  Accused A.S.I. Sumer Dan  

held Jugta Ram by the neck and put his hand on his mouth and  

then accused constable  Kishore Singh chopped off  Jugta  Ram’s  

4

penis with a sharp edged weapon (‘ustra’ or barber’s razor).  At  

this,  Jugta  Ram  became  unconscious  and  when  he  gained  

consciousness he found that he was admitted in Barmer hospital.

10. Jugta Ram related the story to the doctors in the hospital and  

also his brother Kheraj Ram who came there with some persons.

11. The police registered the F.I.R.  of Jugta Ram on 5.2.1994  

under sub-Section 307/326.  Initially the investigation was handed  

over  to  the  Additional  S.P.,  Barmer,  but  thereafter  it  was  

transferred to the C.I.D., Crime Branch which added the offences  

of Sections 343 and 120B I.P.C.  Thereafter, at the instance of the  

State Government the investigation was transferred to the C.B.I.,  

which investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet.  

12. The accused denied the prosecution case, but the trial court  

found  all  the  three  accused  guilty  vide  its  judgment  dated  

21.12.2005.  The fourth accused Bheru Singh died during the trial.

5

13. The trial court sentenced accused Kishore Singh to rigorous  

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 326  

IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-  

under Section 308 IPC.  It also sentenced him under Sections 323  

and 343 IPC.  The trial court sentenced accused Sohan Singh to 6  

months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC and 1 years’  

rigorous imprisonment under Section 343 IPC.   

14. The trial court also sentenced accused Sumer Dan to 10 years  

rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Sections  

326/114 IPC and also 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of  

Rs.  2000/-  under  Sections  308/114  IPC  and  further  5  years’  

rigorous imprisonment  under Section 120B IPC read with some  

other provisions of  the IPC.

15. In appeal the High Court acquitted Sohan Singh and Sumer  

Dan and reduced the sentence of Kishore Singh to the sentence  

already undergone for the conviction under Section 326 IPC and a  

6

fine of Rs.  1 lakh,  and 1 years’ rigorous imprisonment   for the  

offence under Section 343 IPC  which was altered to Section 342  

IPC.

16. Now this appeal has come up before us against the judgment  

of the High Court.

17. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court  

acquitting accused Sohan Singh and Sumer Dan and reducing the  

sentence  of  accused  Kishore  Singh  cannot  be  sustained  as  it  

amounts to gross travesty of justice.

18. Mr. KTS Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for accused  

Kishore Singh, submitted that in this case Section 335 of the IPC  

applies and hence Section 326 is not applicable.  He argued that  

there  was  a  sudden  and  grave  provocation  to  accused  Kishore  

Singh by the injured witness Jugta Ram whose penis was chopped  

off.   Learned  counsel  submitted  that  before  5.2.1994 there  was  

7

only a suspicion that Jugta Ram was having an affair with the wife  

of Bheru Singh, but on 5.2.1994 when he admitted this fact there  

was  a  sudden  and  grave  provocation  since  Kishore  Singh  is  a  

relative of Bheru Singh.  With respect, we do not agree.

19. It may be mentioned that Jugta Ram had been kept in police  

lockup  from  2.2.1994  to  5.2.1994  without  even  producing  him  

before a magistrate as is required by Article 22 of the Constitution  

and Section 57 Cr.P.C..  Jugta Ram’s penis was cut off by accused  

Kishore Singh by a razor after accused Sumer Dan held Jugta Ram.  

In  our  opinion,  it  cannot  be  said  there  was  a  sudden  grave  

provocation so as to attract Section 335 IPC, rather it was a pre-

meditated act by Sumer Dan and Kishore Singh.  Kishore Singh  

was carrying a sharp edged weapon with him at the time when he  

cut off Jugta Ram’s penis.  Policemen do not normally carry any  

sharp edged weapon,  like  a  barber’s  razor,  with  them.   Thus it  

evident  that  it  was  a  pre-meditated  act  on  the  part  of  Kishore  

Singh.  Also, Sumer Dan cannot say that there was a sudden and  

8

grave provocation to him when he held Jugta Ram.  Sumer Dan is  

not related to Bheru Singh or his wife.   Hence, neither Kishore  

Singh  nor  Sumer  Dan  could  have  any  sudden  and  grave  

provocation.    The evidence  on record reveals  that  third-degree  

methods were applied to Jugta Ram ever since he was brought to  

the police station on 2.2.1994.  Thus Section 335 will not apply  

and instead Section 326 IPC applies in this case.

20. We have carefully perused the evidence on record  and we  

see no reason to disbelieve the deposition of the injured witness  

Jugta Ram.

21. As regards the argument that there were no witnesses other  

than  Jugta  Ram,  in  our  opinion  in  a  police  station  it  is  hardly  

possible for there to be any witness there except the policemen and  

the victim.  A police station is not a public road or public place  

where people can see what is going on.

9

22. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for Sumer Dan  

submitted  that  Sumer  Dan was not  present  at  the police  station  

when the incident occurred.  We do not agree. Jugta Ram clearly  

stated in his deposition before the court (and earlier in his FIR) that  

Sumer Dan had caught his neck and put his hand on Jugta Ram’s  

mouth and Kishore Singh chopped off his penis with a sharp edged  

weapon.  Jugta Ram had no enmity with Sumer Dan and hence  

there  was  no reason  for  him to  make  a  false  statement  against  

Sumer  Dan.   Moreover,  we  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  one  

person unaided can chop off the penis of an adult.   

23. Mr.  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  counsel  then  submitted  that  

some  of  the  witnesses  who  are  CBI  officials  had  deposed  that  

Sumer Dan was not present at the police station at the time of the  

incident.  We are not inclined to believe those witnesses.  At any  

rate their version is based on inferences drawn from the case diary  

maintained  by  the  accused  police  officers.   On the  other  hand,  

1

there  is  no  reason  for  disbelieving  Jugta  Ram,  for  the  reasons  

already stated above.  He is an injured witness, and normally the  

Court gives more weight to the evidence of an injured witness.

24. As regards SHO Sohan Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned  

counsel for this accused, submitted that the only evidence against  

him is that he was present at the police station when Jugta Ram  

was brought there and he slapped Jugta Ram.  However, being the  

SHO of the police station we find it difficult to believe that he was  

unaware of what was going on at the police station, and we see no  

reason to disbelieve Jugta Ram.

25. When a person is brought to the police station and locked up  

there, obviously he is under arrest. Article 22(2) of the Constitution  

requires that within 24 hours of the arrest the arrested person must  

be produced before a magistrate, and the same is the requirement  

in Section 57 Cr.P.C.  It is admitted by the accused that Jugta Ram  

was never produced before the magistrate within 24 hours, rather  

1

he was kept in the police station from 8 p.m. on 2.2.1994 upto 8  

a.m. on 5.2.1994 when he was tortured in the police station leading  

to the incident after which he was shifted to the hospital.  Sohan  

Singh  being the  S.H.O.  is  squarely  to  blame for  this  deliberate  

lapse.  It has come in the evidence of Jugta Ram that when he was  

brought to the police station on 2.2.1994 Sohan Singh was present  

there and he slapped Jugta Ram.  We see no reason to disbelieve  

this  statement.   Hence  it  cannot  be  said  that  Sohan  Singh  was  

unaware of the events.

26. Also  all  the  accused  are  guilty  of  totally  flouting  and  

throwing to the winds the directives of this Court in D.K. Basu  vs.  

State  of  West  Bengal 1997  (1)  SCC 416  (vide  paragraph  35).  

That decision outlaws third degree methods in police stations, but  

it is well known that third degree methods are still widely used in  

many of our police stations, as this case reveals.  Hence accused  

Sohan Singh cannot be absolved of the charge against him under  

Section 342 IPC.

1

27.   The doctor (Madan Mohan Purohit) who examined Jugta  

Ram  deposed that on 5.2.1994 he inspected Jugta Ram at Govt.  

hospital Barmer and he found an injury about 8 x 8 cm, deep up to  

the muscle.  There was no penis and blood was seeping from the  

injury.  The injury was up to the basis of the penis and towards the  

scrotum.  The injury was serious in  nature and was made by a  

sharp  edged  weapon  about  4  hours  earlier.    Jugta  Ram  was  

brought  to  the  hospital  by  two  constables  one  of  whom  was  

Moolaram.   Obviously  after  cutting  off  Jugta  Ram’s  penis  the  

accused must have got scared that Jugta Ram may die of bleeding,  

and hence they sent him to the hospital.  

28. Jugta Ram was also examined by Dr. M.L. Motiyani in the  

hospital and he found that Jugta Ram’s penis had been cut off.  We  

have  also  seen  the  deposition  of  Dr.   H.  K.  Singhal,  Medical  

Officer in the Barmer hospital who deposed to the same effect.  

1

29. We  have  also  seen  the  evidence  of   Jugta  Ram’s  brother  

Kheraj Ram, and the other witnesses.   

30. On the facts of the case we see no reason to disbelieve the  

prosecution  case and we are  surprised how the  High Court  has  

acquitted Sohan Singh and Sumer Dan and reduced the sentence of  

accused Kishore Singh.  It was a barbaric act on the part of the  

accused, who deserve no leniency.

31. In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve  

harsher  punishment  than  other  persons  who  commit  such  acts,  

because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and  

not  break  the  law  themselves.   If  the  protector  becomes  the  

predator civilized society will cease to exist.  As the Bible says “If  

the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it be salted? (Matthew  

5, Mark 9.50 and Luke 14.34-35)”, or as the ancient Romans used  

to say  “Who will guard the praetorian guards?”

1

32. On the facts of the case we enhance the sentence of accused  

Kishore Singh to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment  under Section  

326 IPC and a fine of Rs.50,000/- failing which he shall further  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.  Kishore Singh is  

also  found  guilty  under  Section  342  IPC  and  sentenced  to  six  

months  rigorous  imprisonment.   The  two  sentences  shall  run  

concurrently.  In case the fine is deposited the same shall be paid to  

the victim as compensation.

33. As regards accused Sumer Dan, his acquittal is set aside and  

he is  found guilty  of  the  offence  under  Sections  326 read with  

Section  120B  IPC  and  is  sentenced  to  3  years  rigorous  

imprisonment  and a  fine  of  Rs.  50,000/-  failing  which he  shall  

further suffer 1 years’ rigorous imprisonment.  He is also found  

guilty of the offence under Section 342 IPC and is sentenced to six

months  rigorous  imprisonment.   The  two  sentences  shall  run  

concurrently.   The amount  of  fine if  deposited shall  be  paid as  

compensation to the victim.

1

34. As regards accused Sohan Singh, we set aside his acquittal  

and hold him guilty under Section 342 IPC and sentence him to six  

months  simple  imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  Rs.  10,000/-  failing  

which he shall  further suffer one month’s simple imprisonment.  

The  amount  if  deposited  shall  be  paid  to  the  victim  as  

compensation.

35. The appeals filed by the CBI are allowed, and the High Court  

judgment is set aside.   

……………………….….J. (Markandey Katju)

…………………………..J. (T. S. Thakur)

New Delhi; October 25, 2010   

1