### Acquittal in Custodial Torture Case Due to Lack of Medical Corroboration and Failure to Complain Before Magistrate Summary: The Gujarat High Court set aside the conviction of a police officer for custodial torture and grievous hurt under Sections 331, 348, 352, and 365 IPC. The Court observed that the complainant failed to prove he was in police custody on the alleged dates of torture and noted the absence of medical evidence corroborating the specific injuries described. Crucially, the Court held that the complainant’s failure to report the alleged ill-treatment to the Magistrate during his initial production in a related Arms Act case, combined with an unexplained delay in filing a private complaint, created reasonable doubt, vitiating the prosecution's case.

The complainant, Merag Haja, alleged that on 07.10.1976, police officers (including the appellants) searched his house for illegal weapons but found nothing, drawing a "NIL Panchnama".

He further alleged he was taken into custody without a warrant and transported to Porbandar Police Station, where, on 08.10.1976, he was subjected to brutal custodial torture—including being beaten with sticks and hung from a ceiling—to extort a confession regarding illegal weapons.

He sustained a fracture of the left leg femur.

The defense contended that the complainant was lawfully arrested in a separate case (CR No. II-43/76) under the Arms Act and that his injury resulted from an accidental fall from a ladder while retrieving a hidden revolver for the police.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 365, 348, 352, and 331 of the IPC.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was subjected to custodial torture by the accused for the purpose of extorting a confession.

2. Whether the complainant’s injuries were caused by the alleged third-degree methods or by an accidental fall as contended by the defense.

3. Whether the detention of the complainant was illegal (kidnapping/wrongful confinement) or a localized lawful arrest under the Arms Act.

The court applied Section 331 (causing grievous hurt to extort confession), Section 348 (wrongful confinement to extort confession), and Section 365 (kidnapping/abducting with intent to confine) of the IPC.

It scrutinized the procedural safeguards under Section 54 of the CrPC regarding the medical examination of arrested persons.

It scrutinized Rule 14 of the Criminal Manual concerning allegations of ill-treatment.

The court relied on the principles of custodial interrogation and human rights established in *D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal* [(1997) 1 SCC 416] regarding Article 21 rights.

The court relied on the principles from *Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.* [(2005) 9 SCC 631] regarding the rise of false accusations of custodial torture.

The High Court found the prosecution’s version inconsistent with the medical and documentary evidence.

First, the medical testimonies (PW1, PW2, PW3) failed to record a history of police assault or categorize the case as "Medico-Legal" (MLC) despite the severity of the alleged torture.

The court noted that if the complainant had been hung and dropped as alleged, bilateral injuries would be present, yet only a left femur fracture was confirmed.

Second, the complainant failed to utilize statutory remedies; he neither complained of torture to the Magistrate during his production for the Arms Act case nor mentioned it in his bail application filed by PW5.

Third, the court accepted the defense's "Rule of Probability" regarding the lawful arrest in CR No. II-43/76, supported by the Case Diary (Exh. 204), which recorded the injury as an accidental fall.

The court emphasized that while custodial torture is grave, the burden of proof shifts only when custody and the specific cause of injury are established with certainty, which the complainant failed to do.

The court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2003, setting aside the conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2003, and acquitted the appellant (accused no. 1) of all charges.

Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 1509/2003 for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.

The appellant was also declared entitled to recover Rs. 10,000 as costs from the complainant.