DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

SEMESTER V
(2015-16)
LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

UPHOLDING OF PRISONER RIGHTS BY POLICE PERSONNEL

(FOR THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF B.A.LLB (HON))

SUBMITTED BY

S UBMITTED TO

GARIMA PARAKH
GAUTAM

D R. P. K.

ROLL NO. 57
PROFESSOR (LAW)

A SST.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to

My teacher and my mentor Prof. P. K. Gautam for giving me this wonderful opportunity to work
on this project and for his able guidance and advice,
Vice Chancellor, Dr. Gurdeep Singh Sir and Dean (Academics), Prof. C.M. Jariwala for their
encouragement and Enthusiasm;
My seniors for sharing their valuable tips;
And my classmates for their constant support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
POWERS OF POLICE UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.............................2
GUARANTEE OF PRISONERS RIGHTS UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION.................5
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY.......................................................6
RIGHTS OF WOMEN PRISONERS.......................................................................................10
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................12
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abhinandan Jha v Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117.......................................................................3
Aseervadam, In re AIR 1956 AP 199................................................................................................4
Bhaktu Gorain v State 2010 Cri LJ 4524 (Cal).................................................................................3
Charles Shobraj v Supdt Central Jail AIR 1978 SC 1514................................................................5
Citizen for Democracy v State of Assam (1995) 3 SCC 743.............................................................7
Francis Coralie v Administrator AIR 1981 SC 746.........................................................................8
Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369................................................................8
Kashmeri Devi v Delhi Admin 1988 SCC (Cri) 864.........................................................................3
Khatri v State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 928.........................................................................................9
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 579........................................................................5
Manu Sharma v State (2010) 6 SCC 1..............................................................................................3
Nandini Satpath v PL Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424.................................................................................3
P Sirajuddin v State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595...........................................................................4
Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526....................................................7
Raj Kumar Karwal v UOI (1990) 2 SCC 409...................................................................................4
Ranchod v State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1143................................................................................9
Rudul Shah v State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086.............................................................................10
Rustom Cowasjee Cooper v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1318......................................................6
Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96..............................................................2, 10
Sukh Das v Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1986 SC 991.............................................9
Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675...............................................................5, 6
Statutes
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 155(2) and (3).............................................................................2
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 155(2) and s 3(1)(a)....................................................................2
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 173..............................................................................................5
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 36................................................................................................2
Books
R V Kelkar, Criminal Procedure (6th edn, EBC 2015) 124.............................................................3

Web Sources
Saket Singh, Role of Supreme Court towards New Prison Jurisprudence, (Student Advocate,
1994) vol 6, p 59............................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
As a key agency of the criminal justice administration the police is responsible for performing
multi-faceted functions such as the prevention of crime, maintenance of law and order, conduct of
investigation of crimes, production of under-trial persons before the courts and post sentence
surveillance over the criminals etc. In view of the functional peculiarities the police tends to
become the frontal formal agency to come in contact, with the ground realities of a crime
including dealing with the accused and victim(s). All this makes the police not only an all
pervasive criminal justice agency but also exposes it to frequent social censures both of formal as
well as informal nature, and makes them the centre of lot of controversies regarding their
professional roles.
Prison occupies a unique position in society, as it is the final repository for the society's failures,
of those persons who are labeled as losers and temporarily or semi-permanently or permanently
irredeemable. One cannot imagine this society without this institution. Prisons have four major
purposes. These purposes are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Retribution
means punishment for crimes against society. Depriving criminals of their freedom is a way of
making them pay a debt to society for their crimes. Incapacitation refers to the removal of
criminals from society so that they can no longer harm innocent people. Deterrence means the
prevention of future crime. It is hoped that prisons provide warnings to people thinking about
committing crimes, and that the possibility of going to prison will discourage people from
breaking the law. Rehabilitation refers to activities designed to change criminals into law abiding
citizens, and may include providing educational courses in prison, etc. However, practical
experience suggests that prisons are factories where criminals are made owing to regular
perpetration of State crime.
Prisoners rights has always been a much disputed issue in the history of India, and with the
growing awareness of human rights, the discussion of the right to life and personal liberty being
available o prisoners as well has taken new heights. Globally, the change in the trend of treating
prisoners as out-casts to treating them as human beings set in only in the last forty years with
the introduction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). But in India, the
change came only in the late seventies through the judgments of an activist Supreme Court1.
1 Saket Singh, Role of Supreme Court towards New Prison Jurisprudence, (Student Advocate, 1994) vol
6, p 59.
1

There is a long and elaborate list of judgments in which the Supreme Court has repeatedly laid
down that prisoners have rights as well and formulated several guidelines in this regard. Sheela
Barse v. State of Maharashtra2 is an example of this approach, and the Supreme Courts guidelines
on the treatment of female prisoners number one among many such guidelines laid down by the
Supreme Court. The focus of this project shall be on the duties of the police officer towards
prisoners as mentioned under CrPC, and the interpretation of the relevant provisions by the
Supreme Court.
POWERS OF POLICE UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
The CrPC confers specific powers on the police, for example, the power to make arrest,
search etc. The Code presupposes the existence of the police force and arms them with
certain powers and directs them to discharge certain duties. As per the Police Act, 1861 the
police force is an instrument for the prevention and detection of crime. Wider powers have
been given to police officers who are in charge of police stations, and they are also required
to discharge certain duties, such as, detection, investigation and prevention of offences.
Police officers above the rank of station-house officer are invested with the same powers, but
over larger local limits. 3 According to S. 23 of the Police Act, 1861
It shall be the duty of every police officerto collect and communicate intelligence
affecting the public peace; to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisance; to
detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whim he is legally
authorized to apprehend, and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist
As per S. 2 (c) and (l) of the CrPC, police officers can arrest without warrant in case of
cognizable offences and cannot do so without a warrant in case of non-cognizable offences,
respectively. In case of non-cognizable offences, a police officer has neither the duty nor the
power to investigate without the authority of a Judicial Magistrate. 4 Non-cognizable offences
are considered more in the nature of private wrongs and therefore the collection of evidence
and prosecution of accused are left to the initiative and efforts of private citizens. However,
if a Judicial Magistrate orders the police to investigate into a non-cognizable case, then they
2 Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra 1983 SCR (2) 337.
3 Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 36.
4 Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 155(2) and s 3(1)(a).
2

will have all the powers in respect of such investigation as he would have exercised had the
case been a cognizable one, except the power to arrest without a warrant. 5 In cases under
TADA and POTA, the police have wide ranging powers which often in result in violation of
human rights. These laws, through many of its provisions, disregard human rights, generating
a lot of controversy.
Powers to investigate
The powers of the police to investigate are elaborately laid down from S. 154 to S. 176 and
must be carried without causing any harassment to the accused (or prisoner) or any undue
delay. The same has been observed in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra 6 and right to fair
investigation of the accused has been recognized in Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admin 7 and
Manu Sharma v. State 8. Under S. 161 the police have the power to examine witnesses and
record their statements. This power is unfettered and the discretion is of the police whether to
record or not record their statements. 9 However, the powers of search, seizure and arrest are
subject to reasonable restrictions and control. 10 In case of a case consisting of both
cognizable and non-cognizable offences, S. 155(4) deems it to be investigated as if it is a
cognizable offence.
Power to examine witnesses and accused
The case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani 11 is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in
determining the scope and ambit of A. 20(3) and parameters of S. 161(2) of the CrPC. The
Court observed

5 Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 155(2) and (3).

6 Abhinandan Jha v Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117.
7 Kashmeri Devi v Delhi Admin 1988 SCC (Cri) 864.
8 Manu Sharma v State (2010) 6 SCC 1.
9 Bhaktu Gorain v State 2010 Cri LJ 4524 (Cal).
10 R V Kelkar, Criminal Procedure (6th edn, EBC 2015) 124.
11 Nandini Satpath v PL Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424.
3

The accused cannot be forced to answer questions merely because the answers thereto are
not implicative when viewed in isolation and confined to that particular case. He is entitled
to keep his mouth shut if the answer sought has a reasonable prospect of exposing him to
guilt in some other accusation actual or imminent, even though the investigation is not with
reference to that. However, fanciful claims, unreasonable apprehensions and vague
possibilities cannot be the hiding ground for an accused person. He is bound to answer when
there is no clear tendency to criminate.
Further, threat of a legal penalty may amount to duress if the manner of mentioning it to the
victim of interrogation, in case it introduces an element of tension and tone of command
perilously hovering near compulsion. 12 In this regard, the Supreme Court strongly suggested
adoption of the following guidelines
1. If an accused expresses the wish to have his lawyer by his side when the police
interrogate him, it shall not be denied to him. However, the police need not wait
beyond a reasonable time for the arrival of the lawyer of the accused.
2. The police must invariably warn and record that fact about the right to silence
against self incrimination; and where the accused is literate, take his written
acknowledgement.
3. After an examination of the accused, the police official must take him to a Magistrate,
doctor or other willing non-partisan official/non-official, so that the said accused can
unburden himself beyond the view of the police and tell whether he has suffered
duress, provided where the lawyer of his choice is not available. The collocutor may
briefly record the conversation and communicate it to the nearest Magistrate.
Under S. 161(3) the investigating officer is required to make a separate and true record of the
statement of each person whose statement he records. Omission to do so would amount to
circumventing the law. If the investigating officer records only one joint statement of several
witnesses during the investigation, such statement is in clear contravention of S. 161(3), but
can onl affect the weight of the evidence and not competency of the witness. Unless such
contravention or non-compliance has caused prejudice to the accused in his defence and has
resulted in failure of justice, it would not invalidate the trial. 13
S. 163 of the CrPC embodies the principle of fair investigation. Reading it with S. 24 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it can be said that S. 163 lays down an embargo on the
12 Ibid.
13 Aseervadam, In re AIR 1956 AP 199.
4

investigating authorities using any inducement, threat or promise to the maker of the
statement. Although, these guidelines were held to be applicable not only in respect of police
officers but also in respect of any person in authority, 14 in the case of Raj Kumar Karwal v.
UOI15 the Supreme Court held that a confessional statement recorded by an officer of the
Department of Internal Revenue who have been conferred with the powers of an officer of a
police station under Chapter XII of the Code, is admissible for examining the prima facie
existence of this case. The reasoning behind this was that since the hallmark of the police i.e.
requirement to submit a charge-sheet 16 was not applicable to the Officers of the Department
of Internal Revenue, they are not police officers and are not hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act.
GUARANTEE OF PRISONERS RIGHTS UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION
It is no more open to debate that convicts are not wholly denuded of their fundamental rights.
However, prisoners liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his
confinement. His interest in the limited liberty left to him is then all the more substantial
conviction for a crime does not reduce the person into a non-person whose rights are subject to
the whims of the prison administration and therefore, the imposition of any major punishment
within the prison system is condition upon the observance of procedural safeguards 17. In Sunil
Batra v. Delhi Administration18, Justice D. A. Desai, speaking for himself, the Honble Chief
Justice of India and two Honble Judges observed that a convict is in prison under the order and
direction of the Court and the Court has, therefore, to strike a just balance between the
dehumanizing prison atmosphere and the preservation of interval order and discipline, the
maintenance of institutional security against escape, and rehabilitation of the prisoners.
Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. Though couched in the negative it
confers the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India19,
Justice Bhagwati observed that if a law depriving a person of personal liberty and prescribing a
14 P Sirajuddin v State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595.
15 Raj Kumar Karwal v UOI (1990) 2 SCC 409.
16 Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 173.
17 Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675.
18 Ibid.
5

procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of
the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19, which may be applicable in a given situation, it
must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Charles Shobraj Supdt v. Central Jail20, observed that imprisonment
does not spell farewell to fundamental rights although, by a realistic re-appraisal, Courts will
refuse to recognize the full panoply of part III enjoyed by free citizens. Further, observed that the
axiom of prison justice is the Courts continuing duty and authority to ensure that the judicial
warrant which deprives a person of his life or liberty is not exceeded, subverted or stultified. It is
a sort of solemn covenant running with the power to sentence.
Referring to the decision of Supreme Court in Rustom Cowasjee Cooper v. Union of India 21, and
Maneka Gandhi, it was observed that Prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free litigants except
those lost necessary as an incident of confinement, the rights enjoyed by prisoners under Article
14, 19 and 21 though limited, are not static and will rise to human heights when challenging
situation arise.
The Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration22 observed
Prisons are built with stones of law.
Thus, it behoves the Court to insist that, in the eye of law, prisoners are persons, not animals and
punish the deviant guardians of the prison system where they go berserk and defile the dignity
of the human inmate. Prison houses are part of Indian earth and the Indian Constitution cannot be
held at bay by jail officials. For when a prisoner is traumatized, the constitution suffers a shock.
The Supreme Court further held that the Court has power and responsibility to intervene and
protect the prisoner against may how, crude behaviour.
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY

19 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 579.

20 Charles Shobraj v Supdt Central Jail AIR 1978 SC 1514.
21 Rustom Cowasjee Cooper v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1318.
22 Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675.
6

A person who is arrested and not released on bail shall be detained in a secure area of the Police
Station earmarked for such purposes, under constant watch. A prisoner whom the SHO considers
being dangerous and is likely to escape should be kept in the lock-up under continuous and
effective watch. This should be done only making a thorough search and necessary entries should
be made in the prisoners search register and guard or watch sentry relief book.
The first requirement is physical safety of the person in custody. This includes safety from injury
and death, whether self-inflicted or otherwise. As the psychological state of each individual
cannot be accurately gauged, it is necessary to realize that the general mental state of a person
arrested and brought to police station would be fear, shock, trauma, sense of guilt and shame etc.
Suicidal tendencies therefore develop. Hence the place where he is lodged should not contain
anything including his apparel or belongings that afford him any opportunity to attempt or commit
suicide
No police officer or IO shall use any force or cause any physical injury during interrogation of the
person in custody. If such injuries are caused and result in death of the person, the police officers
concerned will be liable for prosecution for homicide and the burden of proof of their innocence
lies on them.
Two blankets and two dhurries for rural stations and four blankets and four dhurries for town
police stations having lock-ups should be supplied for the use of persons in police custody for
each lock-up. These should be always kept clean, washed and dried. These articles will be treated
as station property and the officer in-charge of the station or outpost will be responsible for their
issue to such of the prisoners who do not provide themselves with their own bedding.23
Prisoners are not to be subjected to needless indignity or harsh treatment. At District Headquarters
or at places where police vehicles are available, prisoners should be conveyed from jail to court
and back in the police vehicles. Prisoners whose confessions are to be recorded should be taken to
the Court from the jail in a police van, when available, escorted by warders as a special case.
The use of handcuffs or leg chains should be avoided and if at all, it should be resorted to strictly
in accordance with the law mandated in judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla
v. Delhi Administration24 and Citizen for Democracy v. State of Assam25. When an accused is in
Court during the trial, he must be held to be in the custody of the Court. If an accused is so
23 http://bprd.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/6798203243-Volume%202.pdf
24 Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526.
7

dangerous that it is necessary to handcuff him, representation should be made to the Court, and
the Court will issue appropriate instructions in the matter. Accused persons while in Court during
trial should not be handcuffed except with the permission of the Court. Under-trial prisoners and
other accused persons shall not be handcuffed and chained without specific permission of the
court and only if there is a reasonable apprehension, either due to heinous nature of the crimes
with which they are charged or from their character or behaviour that such persons will use
violence or will attempt to escape or that an attempt will be made to rescue them. The same
principle shall be applied to convicts proceeding in public while in police custody. When a
prisoner, who arrives at a police station, is seriously ill, medical aid should be provided. When not
available, the prisoner should be sent by the quickest conveyance available, if his condition
admits of it, to the nearest station where medical assistance can be procured.
In case of death of a prisoner admitted to the hospital, the officer in-charge of the police station in
whose jurisdiction the hospital is situated shall register a case under Section 174 CrPC and inform
the Executive Magistrate to hold inquest and make such other enquiries.
Rights of the Prisoners
There is no specific provision in the Constitution which deals with prisoners rights. Hence the
Supreme Court adopted an activist role and interpreted Articles 14, 19 and 21 in Part III along
with Articles 38, 39, 39A and 42 in Part IV to spell out the various fundamental rights available to
the prisoners.
The study of the various rights of the prisoners, enunciated in the catena of judgments in the post
Maneka Gandhi period can be done under four sub headings:
(a) Torture
The Supreme Court while exploiting the 'Charter of Unenumerated Rights' i.e., Article 21, held in
Francis Coralie v. Administrator26, Delhi that "there is implicit in Article 21 the rights to
protection against torture and human degrading treatment". In other words a convicted man is not
reduced from a person to a non-person so as to be subject to the whim of the prison
administration.

25 Citizen for Democracy v State of Assam (1995) 3 SCC 743.

26 Francis Coralie v Administrator AIR 1981 SC 746.
8

This trend is clearly reflected in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration27 where it was held that
keeping a man 'under sentence of death' in solitary confinement is violative of Article 21 and that
the bar-fetters should not be put for an unusually long period without justification.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 28, the Supreme Court laid down five principles. First,
under-trial prisoners should be separated from convicted prisoners. Secondly, hard labour is not
harsh labour. Hard labour under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code must be given a humane
meaning. Thirdly, young prisoners should not be exposed to sexually frustrated adult prisoners.
Fourthly, the visits of the family members of the prisoner to him should be fairly increased. And
lastly, confinement in irons should be allowed only where safe custody is impossible.
(b) Right to Speedy Trial
In the leading case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar29, it was held that where under-trial
prisoners have been in jail for periods longer than the maximum term to which they could have
been sentenced if convicted, then their detention in jail is unjustified and violative of Article 21.
Developing this, it further held that the right to speedy trial is an integral and essential part or tile
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 and the courts have wide powers to
direct the state to take proper measures like selling up new courts appointing more judges, etc.
(c) Right to Legal Aid
It was held in Hussainara Khatoon 's case (II)30that
"Right to free legal aid as given under Article 39-A was implicit in Article21 because a procedure
which does not make available legal services to an accused person, who owing to hispoverty
cannot afford a lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through the trial without legal
assistance cannot possibly be treated as just, fair and reasonable procedure and is thus violative
of Article 21."

27 Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675.

28 Ibid.
29 Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369.
30 Ibid.
9

The Court further laid emphasis on thefact that "the State cannot take the excuse of inadequate
infrastructural facilities for its inability to provide free legal aid, as it is its duty to do so."
The principle laid down in Hussainara Khatoon's case gets further strengthened by Ranchod v.
State of Gujarat31 where it was held that adequate careshould be taken in providing competent
lawyers forlegal aid. In Khatri v. State of Bihar32, it was held that the legal aid should not be
provided at the commencement of the trial only, but it should be provided when the person is
brought before the magistrate for the first time.
Lastly, in the chain of these cases ensuring justice to the prisoners, comes the case of Sukh Das v.
Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh33 which held that it was an obligation on the part of the
Magistrate or Session Judge to tell the accused of his right to have a lawyer at Slate's cost.
(d) Right to Compensation
In the famous Bhagalpur Blinding Case34 the question that the Court addressed was whether the
Court which can certainly injunct a State from taking any action in contravention of Article 21
could give compensation as a form of relief when the State has already infringed upon the
person's rights to life.
The Court taking recourse to dynamic Constitutional Jurisprudence held that it was not helpless
and can certainly devise new tools and new remedies and hence, can compensate.
This view of the Court was reinforced in Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar35 where the Court awarded
35,000/- Rs as compensation for illegal detention for 14 years. It pointed out that "Under Article
32 the Supreme Court could pass an order for the payment of money in the

nature of

compensation that would be one of the effective ways by which the Supreme Court could prevent
gross violation of the Fundamental Rights by the administrators."

31 Ranchod v State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1143.

32 Khatri v State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 928.
33 Sukh Das v Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1986 SC 991.
34Ibid at n 18.
35 Rudul Shah v State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086.
10

RIGHTS OF WOMEN PRISONERS

The Supreme Court in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra 36, devised number of guidelines to
ensure protection of woman prisoners:(i) The court directed that four or five police lock-ups should be selected in reasonably good
localities where only female suspects should be kept and they should be guarded by female
constables. Female suspects should not be kept in a police lock-up in which male suspects are
detained. The State of Maharashtra has intimated to us that there are already three cells where
female suspects are kept and are guarded by female constables and has assured the Court that two
more cells with similar arrangements will be provided exclusively for female suspects.
(ii) They further directed that interrogation of females should be carried out only in the presence
of female police officers/constables.
(iii) Whenever a person is arrested by the police without warrant, he must be immediately
informed of the grounds of his arrest and in case of every arrest it must immediately be made
known to the arrested person that he is entitled to apply for bail. The Maharashtra State Board of
Legal Aid and Advice will forthwith get a pamphlet prepared setting out the legal rights of an
arrested person and the State of Maharashtra will bring out sufficient number of printed copies of
the pamphlet in Marathi which is the language of the people in the State of Maharashtra as also in
Hindi and English and printed copies of the pamphlet in all the three languages shall be affixed in
each cell in every police lock-up and shall be read out to the arrested person in any of the three
languages which he understands as soon as he is brought to the police station.
(iv) The court also directed that whenever a person is arrested by the police and taken to the
police lock-up, the police will immediately give intimation of the fact of such arrest to the nearest
Legal Aid Committee and such Legal Aid Committee will take immediate steps for the purpose of
providing legal assistance to the arrested person at State cost provided he is willing to accept such
legal assistance.
(v) They directed that the Magistrate before whom an arrested person is produced shall enquire
from the arrested person whether he has any complaint of torture or maltreatment in police
custody and inform him that he has right under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 to be medically examined. We are aware that Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
36 Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96.
11

1973 undoubtedly provides for examination of an arrested person by a medical practitioner at the
request of the arrested person and it is a right conferred on the arrested person. But, very often the
arrested person is not aware of this right and on account of his ignorance, he is unable to exercise
this right even though he may have been tortured or maltreated by the police in police lock-up. It
is for this reason that we are giving a specific direction requiring the Magistrate to inform the
arrested person about this right of medical examination in case he has any complaint of torture or
maltreatment in police custody.

CONCLUSION
It is evident from the above discussion that through various verdicts the Supreme Court has
continuously condemned the harsh treatment of prisoners by the State and made provisions so that
their Human Rights are not compromised. India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
12

Rights (ICESCR), which were adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nation on 16
December 1966. Though the Human Rights embodied in the covenants were substantially
protected by the Constitution there was growing concern in the country and abroad about issues
relating to human rights.
Therefore, the Government reviewed the existing laws, procedures, system of administration etc.,
and enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as an act to provide for the Constitution of
a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions in States and Human
Rights Courts for better protection of Human Rights and for matters connected therewith and
incidental thereto. Under Section 30 of the Act, the Human Rights Courts are established for
providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights. Section 2(d) defines
Human Rights to mean the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual
guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by
Court in India.
The General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the universal declaration of Human
Rights as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations to promote the rights
and freedoms and by progressive measures. The court has done its utmost to uphold these norms,
due to which India can now boast of a developed criminal jurisprudence. Although there are
lacunae in the criminal justice system where implementation is concerned, they can be overcome
through extensive training and sensitization of police officials.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Basu D D, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (4th Edition, Lexis Nexis Nagpur 2010)
Basu D D, Constitutional Law of India (8thedn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2008)
Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law (6thedn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2011)
Gopal R, Sohonis Criminal Procedure Code (20th Edition, Lexis Nexis 2002)
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Code of Criminal Procedure (16th Edition, Wadhwa & Co 2002)
13