Kupwara court says supervisory role alone insufficient to frame charges; finds prima facie evidence against remaining accused
A court in Jammu & Kashmir has discharged a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in a custodial torture case involving allegations of brutal assault and castration.
The Court held that mere supervisory responsibility is not enough to frame criminal charges.
The order was passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara, in a case arising from FIR No. RC-0482025S0008, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The case arose from a 2023 incident at the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC), Kupwara.
A police constable had alleged that police personnel illegally detained him and subjected him to severe custodial torture.
The allegations included illegal detention, wrongful confinement, and physical assault.
The alleged offences attracted Sections 120-B, 323, 325, 330, 331, and 343 of the Indian Penal Code.
The CBI investigated the case pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court.
After investigation, the CBI registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet against several police personnel.
The Court then considered whether it should frame charges against the accused officials, including the DSP.
The Court held that the material on record did not show the DSP’s direct or indirect involvement in the alleged custodial torture.
It observed that the DSP’s role was only supervisory.
The Court said suspicion against him did not rise to the level of “grave suspicion” required for framing charges.
The Court discharged the DSP from the case.
It held that supervisory control alone cannot justify criminal prosecution.
According to the Court, the prosecution must show material indicating participation, knowledge, or facilitation.
In the absence of such material, the Court found no basis to frame charges against the DSP.
However, the Court took a different view regarding the remaining accused.
It found that the material on record prima facie showed custodial violence.
The Court relied on the victim’s statement, medical evidence, and surrounding circumstances.
It also noted that the victim’s injuries matched physical assault. The Court said the injuries did not appear self-inflicted at this stage.
The Court ordered that seven other police personnel named in the chargesheet shall face trial.
They will face charges for offences including criminal conspiracy, wrongful confinement, and causing hurt to extract confession.
The Court held that the prosecution had satisfied the threshold for framing charges against them.
It found both a prima facie case and grave suspicion against the remaining accused.
The case will now proceed to trial against those police personnel.
