http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY,HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1996

BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1925            JT 1996 (5)    88  1996 SCALE  (4)290

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T SEN, J.      This case  arises out  of a notice issued to A K. Sinha Cassyap, Superintendent  of Police, Hailakandi to show cause why he  should not  be held guilty of Contempt of Court. The allegation against  the contemner is that a shocking case of police brutality  leading to  the  death  of  an  undertrial prisoner was sought to be covered up by him by an untrue and misleading report  sent to  this Court  followed by  a false affidavit.      The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association, forwarded to this  Court   a  copy   of  the  resolution  passed  by  the Association at an emergent meetings held on 16th March, 1993 condemning the  brutal assault  leading to  the death  of an undertrial prisoner Nurul Haque.      Having regard  to the  serious nature of the complaint, this Court  by an  order dated  20th August, 1993 decided to treat the copy of the resolution forwarded by the Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association as Writ Petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution  of  India.  The  Director  General  of Police, State  of Assam,  was directed  to inquire  into the matter and  send a  detailed report  in regard to the events leading to  the death  of Nurul  Haque. Pursuant to the said order, the  Director General  of Police forwarded his report under letter  No.C-150/91/107 dated 13th September, 1993. In the letter it was stated that the Director General of police got the matter investigated by the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, who  prepared a  report which  was forwarded  to this Court  along with  a  medical  certificate  dated  10th March, 1993  and particulars of medical examination of Nurul Haque done  on 11th  March, 1993.  In the report prepared by the Superintendent  of Police,  it was  specifically stated, "Nurul Haque  neither died  in police  lock-up nor in police custody.  He   died  while   in  judicial   custody  as  UTP (undertrial prisoner). He was not tortured during the period

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

of police custody."      To say  the least, the report was not satisfactory. The inconsistency in  the statement  of facts made in the report was pointed  out in  the Order  of  this  Court  dated  24th January, 1994. It was noted in the Order that the report of the Superintendent  of Police  that "the P.M. Report did not indicate  any  external  injury  over  the  dead  body"  was factually incorrect  and misleading.  The Superintendent  of Police, A.K. Sinha Cassyap, was asked to explain the same by affidavit and  he stated  the word  ’not’ had  inadvertently appeared for which he tendered apology. This explanation was also found  to be  unsatisfactory. It  was pointed  out that deletion of  not’  will  leave  the  sentence  grammatically incorrect. The  senior police officers were reminded to show extra care while forwarding their comments to this Court and not to  mechanically forward  the information  collected  by their subordinates.  The Court  had called for the report of the Director  General of  Police because  the Court  reposed confidence in  the objectivity  of a  person holding  such a high office.  It was further noted in the Order that another disturbing feature  of the  case was  that  the  police  had registered the  offence under  Section  302  I.P.C.  against unknown members  of the  public. The  story given out by the police that the members of the public had beaten Nurul Haque before he was apprehended by the police was not borne out by the reaction  of the  public and  also the  Bar  Association which had  taken up  the cause  of Nurul  Haque. Neither the report of  medical examination  done on 12th March, 1993 nor the laboratory  report on  the viscera  had been  forwarded. Having regard  to the  facts and especially to the fact that the deceased had suffered a fracture, the possibility of the injuries having been caused by the police could not be ruled out altogether. It was ordered:-      "Since  the  local  police  at  the      highest level  have taken  a  stand      that the  assault on  the  deceased      was by  members of  the public  and      not   the    police    after    the      apprehension of the deceased, it is      futile to expect an independent and      wholly objective  investigation  by      the State  Police. Even  otherwise,      the   people   will   have   little      confidence in  the investigation no      matter how honest and objective the      investigation    be.     In     the      circumstances,  we   deem  it  most      appropriate that  the investigation      of  the  crime  in  regard  to  the      murder of  the  deceased  under  CR      Case   No.275/93    and/or   F.I.R.      No.120/93 should  be undertaken  by      the Central Bureau of Investigation      (CBI). In  doing so,  the CBI  will      bear in  mind the allegation of the      wife and  other  relations  of  the      deceased that he died on account of      the beating  given to him after his      apprehension on  9.3.1993,  without      being influenced  by the  fact that      in  the  F.I.R.  No.120/93,  it  is      alleged that the assault was by the      members of the public.           The  Registrar   General  will      write a  letter to  the Director of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    CBI to take immediate steps to take      over the investigation of the crime      from the  local police  and try  to      complete the  same at an early date      and  bring  the  real  culprits  to      book. This  petition will  stand so      disposed of."      After  the  Writ  Petition  was  disposed  of  on  24th January, 1994.  a report was received from Superintendent of police, CBI, SPE Division, Silchar. Along with the report he sent a  forwarding letter  dated 5th  June, 1995 in which he stated that  the disdainful  role played  by Shri A.K. Sinha Cassyap,  the  then  Superintendent  of  Police,  Hailakandi District, was  against all  tenets of  law and  morality. He submitted a false/fabricated affidavit/report to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The falsity  of his  report submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme  Court is  evident in every sentence, if not every word  of the  report of  said Shri A.K. Sinha Cassyap, S.P. On consideration of the letter and the report submitted by the  Superintendent of  Police, CBI,  a Show Cause Notice was served  upon A.K. Sinha Cassyap for showing cause why he should not  be punished  for the  criminal contempt  of this Court for  filing a false and fabricated report/affidavit in this Court.      Since the allegation against Shri A.K. Sinha Cassyap is that he  had given  an  untrue  report  and  filed  a  false affidavit about  the death  of Nurul  Haque to  mislead  the Court, it  is necessary  to set  out the  facts found by the Superintendent of  Police, Central  Bureau of Investigation, in detail.      On 9th  March, 1993  being Tuesday was a market day. It was the  month of  Ramzan. Nurul Haque, resident of Boalipar under P.S.  Hailakandi, was  coming  back  from  the  market towards his house at about 7.00/7.30 P.M. He was 35 years of age and  in good  health. A  Police party,  led by Abdul Hye Choudhury, S.I.,  arrested Nurul  Haque. His house was about 400 yards  from the  market.  As  per  the  version  of  eye witnesses, Nurul  Haque was  overpowered by  S.I. Abdul  Hye Choudhury and party, who were all in plain clothes, and took him into a Police Jeep to Hailakandi Police Station.      Although the Police later claimed that Nurul Haque  was assaulted by  members of  the public  at  the  time  of  the arrest, neither  the  villagers  nor  relatives  nor  market people, who  were eye witnesses to the incident, noticed any such assault,  nor was there any record of Nurul Haque being treated for injury on 9th March, 1993.      On 10th  March, 1993,  in  the  early  morning,  Azizur Rahman, brother  of Nurul Haque, his wife and mother went to meet Nurul  Haque at Hailakandi Police Station, but were not allowed to  meet him. On 11th March, 1993, Azizur Rahman and some other relatives of Nurul Haque went to the Court of the Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Hailakandi, where they met Nurul Haque, who  told them that he had been brutally beaten up by S.I. Abdul  Hye Choudhury,  Roy Daroga  (Rajan Roy S.I.) and Home Guard  Dalim in the lock-up. On 11th March, 1993, Nurul Haque was  produced before  the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate, Hailakandi, with  a prayer for 72 hours police remand It was also prayed  that since Nurul Haque was assaulted by members of the  public, medical  treatment may  be provided to Nurul Haque. The prayer was granted.      Even before  this, on  10th March, 1993 Nurul Haque had been taken  to Hailakandi  Civil Hospital at about 5.30 P M. for treatment.  He was  brought back  to the  Police Station after  receiving  treatment.  Dr.  M.L.  Bhattacherjee,  the Medical Officer  on duty,  examined the patient and recorded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

his findings in the Emergency Register as follows:-      "(i) Abrasion in cheek 1 cm x 1 cm.      This  may   be  caused   either  by      hitting of  a blunt  object  or  by      falling.      (ii) One  abrasion in  left leg 2’5      cm x  1 cm.  This might  be due  to      fall or some blunt object.      (iii) Abrasion on fore-head, 2 cm x      2 cm.  It may  be due  to the  same      reason as mentioned earlier.      (iv) Deep  tenderness on right leg.      The patient was complaining that he      was having  a severe  pain on right      leg. As  far as  he remembers  this      was just below the medial side. But      there was no external injury at the      spot."      The patient  complained that  he had  been beaten up by the police.  The police  said that  he was  a dacoit and was brought for  medical  treatment  after  arrest.  The  Doctor advised X-Ray,  A.P. and lateral view of right Tibia and the Fibula. The  Doctor noticed that all the injuries were fresh and had  been received  within 24  hours.  The  patient  was healthy and could walk freely with a slight limp for pain on the right leg. The patient was treated at Emergency Ward for about 15  minutes and  then discharged. As the X-Ray machine of the  Civil Hospital  was not in order, the Doctor advised the police  party to  get a  X-Ray done  outside.  There  is nothing on  record to  show that  Nurul Haque  was given any treatment thereafter  nor any  X-Ray was  done as advised by the Doctor. But, he was interrogated thoroughly.      On 11th  March, 1993 at 1.15 P.M. Nurul Haque was taken from  Hailakandi   Police  Station  to  Civil  Hospital  for treatment. The  Doctor on duty, Dr. H.A. Ahmed, recorded the following injuries suffered by the patient:      "(i) One  lascerated injury present      over the left thumb of size 2’5cm x      l’5cm x skin deep.      (ii) One  abrasion  over  the  left      forearm at  middle third  of size 1      cm x 2 cm.      (iii) One abrasion present over the      left arm of size 2’5cm x 2cm.      (iv) One  abrasion present over the      left leg.  Over the tibin of size 2      cm x 2 cm.      (v) One  lascerated  wound  present      over the  right leg  at upper third      over tibia  of size l’5cm x l’5cm x      bone  deep   and   causing   severe      tenderness."      At 2.15  P.M. Nurul  Haque was  brought back  from  the hospital and  kept in  the lock-up of the Police Station. He was  produced   before  the   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate, Hailakandi, on  12th March,  1993, with a prayer for holding Test Identification  Parade. The  prayer was allowed. In the order of  the Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, it was recorded that  Nurul Haque  had been given medical treatment and that  the jail  doctor should provide treatment to Nurul Haque. The jail doctor checked Nurul Haque and found that he was suffering  from multiple  injuries and  due to  lack  of facilities  he  referred  the  patient  to  Civil  Hospital, Hailakandi. At  6.45 P.M. Nurul Haque was once again brought to Hailakandi  Civil Hospital.  He was taken to the Casualty

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

Ward. In  the Casualty Ward Register it was recorded that he was  suffering   from  multiple   injury.  Dr.  Tapan  Kumar Bhattacharjee was  the doctor  on duty. However, later on an extra word  ’old’ was  inserted in  between  ’multiple’  and ’injury’ to  give a  wrong impression  about the period when the injuries  were suffered. He was admitted at 7.20 P.M. in the Indoor  Ward. In  the treatment  report, the time of the injury was  apparently corrected  from 12 hours to 40 hours. It was  recorded that  the patient  was  healthy  and  fully conscious and the following injuries were found:-      "(i) One  lascerated injury in left      thumb.      (ii) One  abrasion over  left forum      at middle third.      (iii) One abrasion over left arm.      (iv) One  abrasion  over  left  leg      over Tibin.      (v) One  lascerated injury  present      in the  right leg  upper  third  to      Tibia.           And  the   all  injuries  were      found infected  and  there  was  no      record/report available  for having      conducted X-ray examination."      The patient received some treatment but he collapsed on 13th March,  1993 at  5.25 A.M.  Dr. Gautam  Pal, who was on duty, noted  that the  patient was deeply unconscious, pulse rate rapid  and thready,  blood pressure  could not be felt. The patient  was injected  Decadrum, a  life saving drug. He was put  on oxygen  and cardiac  massage was  also given. At 5.30 A.M. Nurul Haque died.      The  Superintendent   of  Hailakandi   Civil   Hospital informed the Superintendent, District Jail, Hailakandi, that the  undertrial   prisioner  Nurul  Haque  admitted  on  the previous day  with the multiple injuries had expired at 5.30 A.M. on  13th March,  1993 due to Cardio Respiratory failure as per  hospital record.  The death was also recorded in the Undertrial Prisioners  Register of Hailakandi District Jail. The deadbody  was sent  for burial.  There was  no record of intimating family members.      Hailakandi police  registered a  case under Section 302 IPC in  respect of  the death  of Nurul  Haque  against  the members of  the public  on the  basis of  complaint filed by S.I. A.H.  Choudhury. The  case was  to be  investigated  by Dinanda  Phukan.  O.C.  The  inquest  was  conducted  by  N. Borborah, S.I.,  Hailakandi Police  Station on  13th  March, 1993 in the Civil Hospital. There were eight injuries in the lower portion  of the  right hand,  in the  right hand joint etc. There  was swelling  and lasceration  in the right hand and also  the right side of the waist. There was swelling on the right and left knees.      On 14th March, 1993 the deadbody was sent to Hailakandi Civil Hospital for post mortem examination which was done by Dr. S.R. Roy who was only an L.M.F. doctor and not qualified for the job. According to his finding the injuries were ante mortem in  nature and  the  death  was  due  to  Mayocardial Infraction with heart failure.      The deadbody  was collected  and sent to family members of Nurul  Haque. It  was refused  by the family members. The Superintendent of  District Jail,  Hailakandi, wrote  to the C.J.M., Hailakandi,  that as  the relatives  of the deceased were unwilling  to take  the deadbody  for burial, he may be allowed to  dispose of  the deadbody as per Jail Manual Rule and Muslim  Religious Rite.  The prayer  was allowed  by the C.J.M.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    On 15th  March, 1993,  the  Superintended  of  District Jail, Hailakandi,  requested the  C.J.M. that no relative of the deceased  had come  to take  the deadbody from the Civil Hospital for  burial. The  deadbody was  getting  decomposed gradually and  bad smell  coming out  from it.  A prayer was made for disposal of the body as per Muslim Religious Rites. The prayer  was allowed.  The wife  of the  deceased, Fatema Begum, filed  an application  for recalling the order and to pass order  for the  post mortem examination of the deadbody by a medical team in Silchar  Medical  College.  The  C.J.M. called for  a report from the Jail Superintendent about the. disposal of  the deadbody  immediately.  The  Superintendent reported that  the deadbody was sent to Government land near Basic Training  Centre, but the public of that area strongly objected to  the burial  of the  deadbody. The  deadbody was lying in front of Police Station Hailekandi at the time when the matter was reported.      The C.J.M. thereupon passed an order on the application of the widow of Nurul Haque and noted the fact that a number of lawyers appeared in his court and prayed for further post mortem examination  at Silchar  Medical College.  The C.J.M. thereupon directed  the deadbody  to be  sent to Silchar for further medical  examination. The  wife of  the deceased was directed to  accompany the deadbody and take delivery of the deadbody after  post mortem  was over.  On 16th March, 1993, the deadbody  was brought to Silchar Medical College and the post mortem  was conducted by Dr. B.K. Barah carried out the post mortem  examination and  sent the  viscera for  further examination. In  the report of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, it has been stated:-      " ....an  accused who  was arrested      in healthy  condition  was  a  dead      person at  the hands  of police and      the attending doctors. They neither      gave him  food nor  proper  medical      treatment throughout  this  period.      In the C.D. of the I. O. nowhere it      is mentioned  that he  was provided      with even a glass of water, less to      say  of   food.  Despite   repeated      suggestion of the doctor to get him      X-rayed,  no  X-ray  was  got  done      though his right leg was fractured.      The inevitable result was the death      of deceased Nurul Haque at the hand      of the  Police to  which all others      including    doctors     and    the      Magistracy lent  support. The cause      of death  was ostensibly  shown  as      Cardiac Respiratory  Failure  which      was not a correct fact The deceased      had no  history of Cardiac problem,      nor any  ECG of  him was  got  done      during his  police custody  nor  he      had  ever   complained  about  this      problem  to   the  police  However,      anything could  have happened  to a      person   subjected    to   physical      torture, shock  and lack  of sleep,      lack of  food and  having been kept      in the lock-up for last 72 hours."      Commenting   on    the   report    submitted   by   the Superintendent of  Police, Hailakandi, to this Court, it has been stated:-      "The report  submitted by the S.P.,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    Hailakandi,     is      full     of      inaccuracies, lack  of evidence and      false instances  some of  which are      as follows:-      1)   Para 1,  page-l of  the report      says that  Bheru Mia,  Akkadas  Ali      and  others   have  confessed  that      under the leadersbip of Nurul Haque      they committed 5/6 dacoities cannot      be proved  and name  of Nurul Haque      does  not  appear  in  any  of  the      charge sheet  or FIR  of the  cases      The above  mentioned  persons  were      examined by  the I.O.  and  by  the      Hon’ble Court  and  they  have  not      stated the above allegation.      2)   The  allegation  of  the  S.P.      that  Nurul  Haque  committed  many      dacoity and  rape in  the  locality      and he was beaten by the members of      the public do not have any evidence      to support it. That he was arrested      on  10.3.93   is  also   wrong  and      clearly shows wrongful confinement,      The  C.J.M.,   Hailakandi,  allowed      police custody for 72 hours and not      24 hours.  The statement  of the SP      that   Nurul    Haque   was   again      forwarded to  the Court  on 12.3.93      after completing  his interrogation      is slightly  mistaken because Nurul      Haque  was  reproduced  before  the      Court only to conduct TIP for which      the  C.J.M.  Hailakandi  fixed  the      date on  15.3.93. The report of the      SP that  the UTP  was  referred  to      Hailakandi Civil Hospital on making      complaint of  chest  pain  is  also      false      3)   The statement of the S.P. that      the P.M. report revealed that death      was  due  to  Myocardial  Infection      with Heart  Failure  and  that  the      P.M. report  did not  indicate  any      external injury  over the dead body      is also false as mentioned earlier.      4)     That   the  re-post   mortem      examination is  conducted by a team      of doctor and that no opinion could      be   given    because   of   highly      decomposed    state     is     also      wrong/inaccurate. In  fact the  re-      post   mortem    examination    was      conducted  by  Police  Surgeon  and      Mediocolegal Expert  Professor B.K.      Borah of S.M.C.      5)    On para 1 page 3 the S.P. has      written  that   the   viscera   was      preserved and  sent to  F.S.L.  for      chemical examination is not correct      because  it   was  never   sent  to      S.F.S.L.  It   was  kept   at  P.S.      Hailakandi only.  Recently, it  has      been  traced   at  Police  Station,      Hailakandi, itself  and  seized  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    CBI and  now it  has been  sent  to      C.F.S.L. for opinion."      In reply  to the  notice why action should not be taken for contempt  of court  against him,  A.K. Sinha Cassyap has stated that he never intended to disobey or defy an order of the Court  or to  mislead the  Court. He  has  tendered  his unconditional and  unqualified apology for this. It has been stated that  he was  in a  shocked state  of mind because of certain developments,  particulars of which have been stated in the  affidavit. He  has referred to a final report of the CBI  dated   24/25.8.1995  in  which  prosecution  has  been recommended against  certain police  officers, but so far as A.K. Sinha  Cassyap is  concerned,  only  recommendation  is conveying of  displeasure by  Government. It has been stated by A.K.  Sinha Cassyap that he was on leave at the time when this incident  took place.  When he  joined service,  he got only 48  hours time  to make  his report.  He has  made  his report on  the basis  of the  material available.  But  A.K. Sinha Cassyap  has not only sent a report but has also filed an affidavit  pursuant to  the order  of this Court when the report was  found unsatisfactory. He had ample time to bring the facts  to the  notice of  the Court  by that  affidavit. There is  no explanation for the reason why he did not bring the true facts to the notice of the Court which was his duty to do,      It is  true that the CBI Report has not recommended any criminal proceeding  against him. But the allegation against A.K. Sinha Cassyap is that he suppressed true facts from the Court and  gave a  false report  to mislead  the Court as to what was  the real cause of the death of Nurul Haque. It has been stated  by A.K.  Sinha Cassyap  that he had no personal knowledge of the sequence of events from apprehension to the death of  Nurul Haque.  He had  returned from  leave and had resumed duty  only in the afternoon on 16th March, 1993 when Nurul Haque  had already  died. This explanation on the face of it  is not acceptable. As a responsible police officer it was his  duty to make proper investigation and give a report to this Court. Assuming within the time frame of 48 hours he could not  prepare a  report properly, he should have stated that in  his report.  He could  have even  prayed for longer time for furnishing a report. But the allegation against him is  that  he  deliberately  gave  a  false  report.  In  the affidavit filed by him he had ample opportunity to make good the lapses  made in  the report  and bring the true facts to the notice  of the  Court which he did not do. The affidavit filed by  A.K. Sinha  Cassyap in  this Court  is dated  26th November, 1993 pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 29th  October, 1993.  As a  responsible police officer it was his  duty to bring to the notice of the Court the police brutality that  had taken  place and the false documentation that  was  prepared  by  the  various  police  personnel  to suppress the  truth and  to give  a misleading  picture. The glaring inconsistencies  in the  affidavit filed by him have been pointed  out in  the report  of the CBI, particulars of which have  been set out hereinabove. A.K. Sinha Cassyap has not dealt  with those  particulars. He  has only stated that that was  not the  final report of the CBI. The final report does not  contain anything  to the contrary to what has been stated in  the report  submitted to this Court. In our view, A.K. Sinha  Cassyap,  the  contemner,  has  committed  gross contempt of  court by  trying to mislead the Court as to the cause of death of Nurul Haque. He has also tried to cover up the excesses committed by the police which brought about the death of  Nurul Haque  by narrating  untrue facts and giving false particulars.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

    We, therefore,  hold that  A.K. Sinha Cassyap is guilty of contempt of this Court. The belated apology given by A.K. Sinha Cassyap  cannot be  accepted because  it has  not been given in good faith. He has tendered this apology only after his report  was found out to be misleading and his affidavit was found  to be  false. He had unnecessarily highlighted in his report that Nurul Haque was a dacoit for which there was no clear evidence. He had stated in his report categorically after reciting  some misleading  fact, "From the above facts and circumstances,  it is  clear that,  Dacoit, Nurul  Haque neither died  in Police  Lock-up nor  in Police  custody. He died while  in Judicial  custody as UTP. He was not tortured during the period of Police custody."      A.K. Sinha  Cassyap has  stated that he had to make his report on  the basis of the records of the case as he had no personal knowledge of this case. But the records reveal that the particulars  of injuries noted by Dr. H.A. Ahmed on 10th March, 1993 at 1.50 P.M. were more than what were noticed by Dr. M  L Bhattacharya  on 10th March, 1993 at 5.30 P.M. This can only  mean that  more injuries  had been  inflicted upon Narul Haque  after he  was examined by Dr. M L Bhattacharya. It appears  that the  contemner has  ignored even  tell-tale evidence available on the record.      We are of the view that this was a highly irresponsible report regardless  of the truth and also against the records of the case. In spite of the nature of the injuries detected and reported  from time  to  time  by  Various  doctors  who examined Nurul  Haque after  his apprehension  by the police and regardless  of the recommendations for X-ray examination of the  injured leg, which was never done, the contemner has boldly reported  to this  Court that  Nurul  Haque  was  not tortured during  the period  of police  custody. His  report begins under  the heading  "Death of  veteran  dacoit  Nurul Haque" and  ends with  the summing  up "Dacoit,  Nurul Haque died neither in Police Lock-up nor in Police Custody".      This goes  to show  that the  contemner was  trying  to highlight the fact that Nurul Haque was a veteran dacoit and possibly deserved  the treatment  that he got at the hand of the police. The CBI report indicates that there is no record of any  conviction of  Nurul Haque  in any dacoity case. Not only that  the story of saving Nurul Haque from public wrath by the police party on 9th March, 1993 is also not borne out by facts.  He was  not taken  for medical examination on the 5th March  immediately after  the  alleged  assault  by  the members of  the public.  He was  taken to  Hailakandi  Civil Hospital at  5.30 p.m.  on 10th  March  when  various  fresh injuries were  noted on  his body by the doctors. No case of assault was  also registered after rescuing Nurul Haque from alleged public  wrath. This  case was  made only after Narul Haque’s death.  The report from the very beginning has tried to mislead the Court as to the cause of death of Nurul Haque and the  alleged events  that led to his apprehension by the police. The  emphasis that  he was a veteran dacoit was also obviously with  a view  to create prejudice. Far from trying to help the Court to do justice in this case, his report has tried to  mislead the  Court  and  prevent  the  Court  from finding out  the truth about the allegations made by the Bar Association of Hailakandi.      We, therefore,  hold that  the  contemner  deliberately forwarded an  inaccurate report  with a  view to  misleading this Court  and thereby  interfered with  the due  course of justice by attempting to obstruct this Court from reaching a correct conclusion.  In the  facts and  circumstances of the case, we  cannot accept his apology and hereby reject it. We hold him  guilty  of  contempt  under  Article  129  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Constitution read  with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.  Having regard  to the  gravity of  the case,  we sentence the  contemner A.K. Sinha Cassyap to undergo simple imprisonment for  a term  of three months. The contempt rule is disposed of finally as above.      The Director  General of  Police, Assam  is directed to ensure that  this order  is carried  out forthwith  and  the contemner is  taken into custody and imprisoned to serve the sentence. The  Registrar General will communicate this order to Director  General of  Police, Assam,  with a direction to report compliance to him.