Supreme Court acquits 2 policemen in custodial death case, finds prosecution evidence unreliable
Justices BR Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [09-07-2024]

Read Order: VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS(DEAD) THROUGH LRs v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2038 OF 2017]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 10, 2024: The Supreme Court has acquitted two Gujarat police officials who were accused of causing the custodial death of a suspect in the year 1992. Both officers had passed away during the pendency of the case.

The victim, Jeeva, who had criminal antecedents, had surrendered before the Amraiwadi Police Station in Ahmedabad on June 10, 1992 in connection with a criminal case. He was allegedly subjected to custodial torture by Inspector Vinod Vyas and SP ChinubhaiPatel at the police station, leading to his death on June 12 after he was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Sabarmati Central Jail.

The trial court had convicted both officers for murder in 1997. The Gujarat High Court upheld their conviction in 2017 but altered the offense from section 302 IPC to (murder) to section 304(I)(culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

However, the Supreme Court, however, found serious discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including Jeeva's two sisters who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the assault. The top court noted that their conduct was unnatural as they failed to promptly inform the advocate or lodge a complaint about the alleged custodial torture despite having the opportunity.

The apex court noted that importantly, the medical evidence showed that Jeeva's injuries were fresh and caused within 6-8 hours before his death. This contradicted the prosecution's case that he was assaulted at the police station over 24 hours earlier. The possibility of the injuries being inflicted in judicial custody at Sabarmati jail could not be ruled out.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused officers by leading reliable evidence. Giving them the benefit of doubt, the court set aside their conviction and acquitted them of all charges. The top court found the testimony of key prosecution witnesses unreliable and contradicted by medical evidence and attending circumstances.