PRAVAT CHANDRA MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ODISHA

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

In a recent, insightful, and landmark judgment in the case of Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2021), delivered on February 11, 2021, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Ajay Rastogi, rejected the plea for compounding the offences of two police officers accused of custodial violence. Along side reducing their sentences considering their age, the Bench increased the compensation to Rs 3.5 lakhs each, in addition to the compensation awarded by the High Court, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The Supreme Court rightly emphasized that custodial violence is unacceptable in a civilized society and must be met with zero tolerance. Consequently, the Apex Court dismissed the police officers’ request for compounding in light of the settlement.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha & Anr., refused the plea for compounding offences of two police officers accused of custodial violence.
2. The judgment was delivered on February 11, 2021, by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Ajay Rastogi.
3. Despite reducing the sentences due to the officers’ ages, the Court increased the compensation to Rs 3.5 lakhs each, in addition to what was awarded by the High Court, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
4. The Court emphasized that custodial violence is unacceptable in civilized society and must be met with zero tolerance.
5. The Supreme Court rejected the police officers’ plea for compounding in light of a settlement.
6. The High Court had previously dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants, maintaining convictions under various sections of the IPC, but reducing some sentences.
7. The prosecution presented a detailed case, including testimonies from 39 witnesses and various exhibits.
8. The trial court found a direct connection between the accused officers’ actions and the death of the deceased, convicting them under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 IPC.
9. The High Court upheld some convictions and altered others but ultimately confirmed the involvement of the accused in causing the deceased’s injuries and death.
10. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and upheld the findings of both the trial court and the High Court, emphasizing the serious nature of the custodial violence committed by the police officers.

ISSUES RAISED

1. What is the guiding factor for the Court when deciding to grant or refuse leave for the composition of an offence?What are the potential grounds for denying specific performance?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision flawed for failing to consider the clause “at the time of registration of sale deeds,” which led to an incorrect ruling. This clause indicated that the balance amount was payable at the time of registration, which should occur immediately after the disposal of the petitions. The Court agreed with the appellants that the delay in filing the suit was justified due to the appeal filed by the Income Tax authority. It further held that non-payment of the balance amount could not be the sole ground for denying specific relief.

The Court also ruled that the failure to plead the manner in which possession was received by the appellants could not be a ground to deny relief. Specific relief could not be denied based on allegations of trespass and disturbance caused by the appellants, as Indian Bank was not a tenant but a creditor. Frivolous complaints, non-pleading of possession details, and allegations of trespass could not justify denying equitable relief. Additionally, the escalation of property prices could not be the sole factor for denying specific performance. A suit for specific performance could not be denied solely on the grounds of delay or laches, except in cases of immovable property where time is of the essence. In this case, the delay was not due to the appellants’ fault.

The Court noted that the decision to provide or not provide an additional amount depends on the circumstances of each case. Here, since ninety percent of the amount had already been paid before 1994, the respondents were not entitled to any additional amount. The judgement emphasized the principles of fairness and equity in enforcing specific performance, clarifying that minor technicalities and delays beyond the appellants’ control should not be used to deny relief. This ruling underscore the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding equitable relief and ensuring justice is served based on substantial merits rather than technical grounds.

ANALYSIS

The case of Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs. The State of Odisha & Anr. (2021) serves as a critical examination of custodial violence and the judicial stance on compounding such offenses. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, rejected the plea for compounding the offenses committed by two police officers accused of custodial violence, reinforcing the principle that such acts are intolerable in a civilized society. Despite considering the officers’ advanced age and reducing their sentences, the Court increased the compensation to Rs. 3.5 lakhs each for the legal heirs of the deceased, thereby emphasizing the gravity of custodial violence. The judgment also highlighted that procedural delays and technicalities, such as non-payment of the balance amount or minor procedural lapses, cannot solely justify the denial of specific performance. By upholding the principles of fairness and equity, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of substantial justice over technical grounds, setting a precedent that custodial violence must be met with zero tolerance while balancing the need for equitable relief in civil matters.

CONCLUSION

This judgment is decisive and well-balanced, emphasizing zero tolerance for custodial violence. It highlights that law enforcement officers engaging in such acts will face severe consequences. The compensation for the legal heirs was increased from Rs 3 lakhs to Rs 3.5 lakhs each. However, considering the officers’ advanced age of 75 years, their sentence for conviction under Section 324 of the IPC was reduced from one year to six months. This reflects a balanced approach in delivering justice.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pravat-chandra-mohanty-vs-state-of-odisha-ll-2021-sc-80-389065.pdf
2. https://section1.in/supreme-court-explains-procedure-to-compound-the-offence-u-s-324-ipc/

This Article is written by Ayushi Sinha student of Lloyd School of Law, Greater Noida; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin