REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2002.

Mohammad Yasin .. Appellant

Versus

State (NCT of Delhi) & Others .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the  

Division  Bench  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  passed  in  

Criminal Writ Petition No.917 of 1999 on 28.9.2001.

2. The appellant Mohd. Yasin had filed a writ petition  

before  the  Delhi  High  Court  seeking  directions  to  

handover  the  investigation  to  the  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation into the death of his elder brother Yunus  

alias Anees who died on 4.8.1999 in police custody of the  

police  station  Okhla  Industrial  Area,  New  Delhi.   The

appellant  further  prayed  for  a  direction  to  the  station  

house officer of the police station Okhla Industrial Area  

to  register  a  case  under  section  302  IPC  against  the  

delinquent officer(s).

3. The  High  Court  in  the  impugned  order  after  

perusing the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and  

the  report  of  the  Board  of  Doctors  who  conducted  

postmortem examination of the deceased and came to the  

conclusion that the death of the appellant’s brother was  

caused due to cardiac arrhythmias and the petition was  

disposed of.

4. The  appellant  being  aggrieved  by  the  impugned  

judgment of the High Court has preferred this appeal.

5. Brief  facts which are necessary to dispose of  this  

appeal are recapitulated as under:

In  the  intervening  night  at  about  1.00  am  on  

4/5.8.1999, the appellant received a telephonic call from  

one Afroz  who is  a  friend  of  the  deceased  Yunus,  the  

elder  brother  of  the  appellant,  and  was  told  that  on  

4.8.1999  the  police  took  Yunus  to  the  police  station  

2

Okhla  Industrial  Area  and  that  he  also  accompanied  

Yunus to the police station.  He also told that Yunus was  

hospitalized at the ESI Hospital.  The appellant who was  

at Mumbai immediately came to Delhi and learnt that his  

brother Yunus had died while he was in police custody.   

6. It  is  also  submitted  that  respondent  no.5  Sub-

Inspector of Police Mukesh Walia had approached Afroz,  

a friend of Yunus and threatened to implicate him in a  

false  case  under  the  Narcotic  Drugs  &  Psychotropic  

Substances  Act,  1985  unless  he  helped  the  police  in  

nabbing  Yunus.   Under  the  said  threat  and  coercion,  

Afroz  went  to  the  village  of  Yunus  and  thereafter  the  

police  arrested  Yunus.   It  is  also  incorporated  in  the  

appeal that the inquiry was also conducted by the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Kalkaji, South District, New Delhi  

under section 176 Cr.P.C.  The statements of the police  

officials who went to arrest Yunus were recorded by the  

Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 5.8.1999.

7. It is further stated in the appeal that Yunus was in  

good health and he died in the police custody indicating  

that he did not die of natural death.  The postmortem  

3

examination was conducted on the body of the deceased  

Yunus  at  the  All  India  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences  

(AIIMS) on 6.8.1999 and thereafter  his  dead body was  

handed over  to  the  appellant  in  the  presence  of  other  

relatives  of  the  appellant.   At  that  time,  the  appellant  

noticed injuries on the face and head of the deceased.  It  

is  stated  that  the  clothes  of  the  deceased Yunus were  

sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL),  

New Delhi.   In the report of the CFSL, blood of group A+  

was detected on the shirt of the deceased Yunus.  It is  

pertinent  to  mention  that  the  doctors  opined  that  the  

cause  of  death  of  Yunus  was  due  to  ventricular  

arrhythmias consequent to old compromised heart in a  

person having hypertrophied heart (460 gms.) myocardial  

fibrosis; atherosclerosis of coronaries and that a person  

having heart weight of 460 gms. myocardial fibrosis and  

coronary atherosclerosis has high risk of sudden death  

with or without provocation.

8. In the instant case, the police apprehended Yunus  

at  1.30 pm on 4.8.1999 and he was taken to the ESI  

4

Hospital  at  3.10  pm  on  the  same  day  where  he  was  

declared brought dead.  

9. The appellant relied on the directions given by this  

court in  D.K. Basu  v.  State of West Bengal  (1997) 1  

SCC  416  and  submitted  that  the  respondents  had  

violated  these  directions.   In  Basu’s  case,  the  court  

observed that “the custodial death is perhaps one of the  

worst crime in a civilized society governed by the rule of  

law.  The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the  

Constitution  require  to  be  jealously  and  scrupulously  

protected.  Expression of life or personal liberty in Article  

21 includes right to live with human dignity and thus it  

would include within itself  a guarantee against torture  

and assault by the States or by its functionaries”.

10. The  instant  case  pertains  to  the  custodial  death.  

This court examines such cases with extreme care and  

cautions.   Despite  the  fact  that  the  matter  has  been  

examined by the High Court, this court also issued notice  

to  the  respondents  and examined the matter  de novo.  

Pursuant to the notice of this court, T.N. Mohan, DCP  

(HQ) in the office of Commissioner of Police, I.P. Estate,  

5

New  Delhi  filed  an  affidavit.   In  the  affidavit,  it  is  

mentioned that the deceased was a proclaimed offender  

and a bad character of the police station Okhla Industrial  

Area, Phase-I and was wanted by police in as many as  

nine cases, the details of which are as under:

1. FIR  No.783/97  under  Sections  407/379/411/120  IPC,  PS  Okhla  Industrial Area.

2. FIR  No.798/97  under  Sections  407/379/411/120  IPC,  PS  Okhla  Industrial Area.

3. FIR  No.804/97  under  Sections  407/379/411/120  IPC,  PS  Okhla  Industrial Area.

4. FIR  No.805/97  under  Sections  407/379/411/120  IPC,  PS  Okhla  Industrial Area.

5. FIR  No.828/97  under  Sections  407/379/411/120  IPC,  PS  Okhla  Industrial Area.

6. FIR  No.818/98  under  Sections  407/379/411/120  IPC,  PS  Okhla  Industrial Area.

7. FIR  No.855/97  under  Section  380  IPC,  PS Okhla Industrial Area.

8. FIR  No.947/98  under  Section  380  IPC,  PS Okhla Industrial Area.

9. FIR  No.33/99  under  Sections  380/411  IPC, PS Okhla Industrial Area.

6

11. It  is  mentioned in  the  counter  affidavit  that  after  

receiving the information, it was decided to send a police  

party from Delhi to the district Gurgaon for the arrest of  

Mohd. Yunus @ Anees and in this connection a team was  

constituted  and the necessary  permission to  go out  of  

Delhi  was  obtained  from  the  Additional  Deputy  

Commissioner  of  Police,  South  Delhi.   After  taking  

required  necessary  permission,  the  police  went  to  

Gurgaon.  It is submitted that, apart from being involved  

in  a  large  number  of  criminal  cases,  Mohd.  Yunus  @  

Anees  was  a  proclaimed  offender,  bad  character  of  

Bundle ‘A” and a desperate criminal.  Mohd. Yunus was  

arrested at about 1.30 pm on 4.8.1999 with the help of  

Afroz.   Mohd.  Yunus struggled to set  himself  free  and  

while  running  away  he  fell  down  and  sustained  two  

bruises.  The dimensions of the injuries are as under:  

“(i) Abraded bruise of  1.4 x 1 cm over (L)  side face below eye 1 cm.

(ii) Abraded bruise 3 x 2 cm over front part  of chin below lip.”     

7

Mohd.  Yunus  was  however,  overpowered  and  

apprehended.  When  the  van  crossed  Haryana-Delhi  

Border,  he  complained  of  uneasiness  and  discomfort,  

therefore, he was immediately rushed to the nearest ESI  

Hospital where he was declared brought dead.

12. In the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that despite  

the  admitted  position  that  the  deceased  Mohd.  Yunus  

had a past history of heart ailments, the appellant has  

deliberately suppressed this information from the court  

and on the contrary it  was asserted that the deceased  

was completely hale and hearty.  It is further submitted  

that the appellant has made a statement before the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate wherein in no uncertain terms he  

stated as under:

“Yunus got heart attack about eight months back  and bye-pass surgery was performed. At that time, I  was  at  Mumbai.   This  bye-pass  surgery  was  arranged  by  Afroz.  This  was  told  to  me  over  telephone,  in  Mumbai,  by  Afroz  seven  to  eight  months before.”

13. It  is  mentioned  in  the  counter  affidavit  that  

directions issued by this court in D.K. Basu (supra) have  

been followed in true spirits.  It is also mentioned that  

8

according  to  the  opinion  of  doctors,  a  normal  heart  

weighs around 240-300 grams whereas the heart of the  

deceased was 460 grams and had the high risk of sudden  

death  with  or  without  provocation.   Such  a  grossly  

enlarged and overweight heart does not happen in a day  

or two but it will take at least 5 to 10 years which in itself  

indicates a long heart ailment which is supported both by  

the medical evidence as well as the categorical statement  

of the appellant himself.   

14. It is also stated that the distance between the place  

of arrest and the ESI hospital is 96 kms.  One and half  

hour  driving  time  is  absolutely  normal,  therefore,  the  

allegation that the delay of one and half hour shows that  

the deceased was first taken to some place where he was  

tortured and injuries inflicted due to which he died, is  

not only false but preposterous.   

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at  

length  and  perused  all  relevant  documents  in  detail.  

Mohd.  Yunus  died  in  the  police  custody.   The  Sub-

Divisional Magistrate has made a comprehensive inquiry.  

In the inquiry report, it is mentioned that he reached at  

9

the  All  India  Institute  of  Medial  Sciences  (AIIMS)  

mortuary around 11.30 pm in the night of 4.8.1999 and  

inspected the dead body of the deceased Yunus @ Anees.  

The  Station  House  Officer,  Police  Station  Okhla  

Industrial Area was also present.  Two superficial injuries  

were found on the dead body.  According to the Board of  

Doctors, both the said injuries were simple in nature.  

16. It  was  submitted  that  immediately  after  the  

incident, on 5.8.1999 at 10.00 am, the information was  

sent  to  the  Chairman,  National  Human  Rights  

Commission and the copies of the same were sent to the  

District Magistrate, Delhi and the Deputy Commissioner  

(South) regarding the custodial death.  On the same day  

a Board of Doctors was constituted for the postmortem,  

which comprised the following doctors:

Dr.  O.P.  Murti,  Associate  Professor,  Department  of  Forensic  Medicine  and  Toxicology,  All  India  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences (AIIMS).

Dr.  D.N.  Bhardwaj,  Assistant  Professor,  Forensic  Medicine  and  Toxicology,  All  India  Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

Dr. Alexander Khaka, Specialist for Medicines,  Safdarjung Hospital.

10

17. The statements of the relatives of the deceased were  

recorded.   The statements  of  a  large  number of  police  

official were also recorded.  The Board of Doctors in their  

final report observed as under:

“To the best of our knowledge and belief we are  of considered opinion – Death in this case was  due to ventricular arrhythmias consequent to  old  compromised  heart  in  a  person  having  hypertrophied  heart  (460  gms.)  myocardial  fibrosis  and atherosclerosis  of  coronaries.   A  person  having  heart  weight  of  460  gms.  myocardial  fibrosis  and  coronary  atherosclerosis have high risk of sudden death  with or without provocation.”   

18. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after comprehensive  

inquiry arrived at the following conclusion:

“After perusal of the entire evidence on record,  along with the opinion of the experts (Board of  Doctors), the following points were come to the  notice.

Anees  @  Yunus  was  a  registered  Bad  Character of Bundle ‘A’ (the register which is  maintained  for  the  persons  who  are  under  constant  and  active  surveillance)  of  police  station P.S.  Okhla Industrial  Area wanted in  as  many  as  10  cases.   He  was  declared  proclaimed offender by the court of law.

The  police  team,  who  brought  the  deceased from district Gurgaon to Delhi after  arresting  him  were  quite  bonafide  in  their  action  and performed lawful  duties  arresting  the  deceased.  They  had  observed  all  the  

11

norms/legal formalities before proceeding out  station duty.   

The  death  of  Anees  @  Yunus  had  occurred in natural course as per the report of  the panel of doctors.

The deceased was having a past history  of  heart  ailment  consequent  to  old  compromised  heart  in  a  person  having  hypertrophied  heart  (460  grams)  myocardial  fibrosis atherosclerosis of coronaries.

The  admission  of  the  deceased  in  ESI  Hospital  after  he  fell  unconscious  near  Badarpur border clearly indicates the sincere  efforts of the police team who got him admitted  without any loss of time in the nearest possible  hospital in order to save his life.

Now  the  only  question  is,  how  the  injuries  were  inflicted  on  the  body  of  the  deceased (Anees @ Yunus) needs explanation.  In this  regard the panel  of  doctors  who had  conducted  the  postmortem  was  examined  separately  and  the  police  team  and  eye- witnesses.   Afroz  was  also  put  to  cross- examination about the infliction of the injuries.  The cause of injuries were explained by them  that the accused put resistance at the time of  his arrest and in the process the injuries were  inflicted  which  are  not  willingly,  were  not  sufficient to cause death.

In  the  light  of  above,  I  am  of  the  considered opinion that Anees @ Yunus died  due  to  heart  ailment  which  is  explained  by  doctors in details and categorically opined that  the  deceased had high risk of  sudden death  with or without provocation and thus a natural  death.  I don’t find any of the police officer of  the  team  individually  or  collectively  responsible in the death of the deceased Anees  @ Yunus and none of them is found guilty.”

12

19. It is indeed unfortunate that the deceased died in  

the police custody.  We have carefully examined this case  

from every angle particularly from the angle of his past  

criminal record.  The police and/or investigating agencies  

cannot  torture  any  criminal  despite  his  bad  criminal  

record.   

20. In  our  considered  view,  in  this  case,  the  

respondents have not violated the directions given by this  

court in D.K. Basu’s case (supra).  

21. The  Board  of  three  Doctors  gave  clear  and  

categorical  finding that the cause of  death was due to  

ventricular arrhythmias consequent to old compromised  

heart in a person having hypertrophied heart (460 gms)  

myocardial fibrosis and atherosclerosis of coronaries.  A  

person  having  heart  weight  of  460  gms.  myocardial  

fibrosis  and  coronary  atherosclerosis  has  high  risk  of  

sudden death with or without provocation.

22. The Board of Doctors further examined the injuries  

and came to the conclusion that all injuries present over  

the body were antemortem, recent in duration and were  

13

caused by blunt force.  All injuries were simple in nature  

and were insufficient to cause death individually as well  

as collectively in ordinary course of nature.  

23. In the instant case,  the deceased was arrested at  

1.30  pm  on  4.8.1999  and  he  was  taken  to  the  ESI  

hospital  at  3.10  pm  on  the  same  day  where  he  was  

declared brought dead.  The distance between the place  

from  where  the  accused  was  arrested  and  the  ESI  

Hospital is about 96 kms., therefore, it seems that from  

the point of arrest till the ESI hospital, the deceased was  

travelling  in  the  car  all  the  time  and  on  complaint  of  

uneasiness he was taken to the ESI hospital.  We have  

carefully  examined the matter  in great  detail  and with  

extreme care.

24. In view of the report of the Board of Doctors and the  

Sub-Divisional Magistrate inquiry, it is difficult to reach  

at  any other conclusion except  that  Mohd.  Yunus had  

died because of his serious heart disease.   

14

25. In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  no  

interference  is  called  for.   This  appeal  is  accordingly  

dismissed.                                           

…...….….……………………..J.  (Dalveer Bhandari)

……..…….……………………..J.  (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

New Delhi;   July 30, 2009.

15