NCJ Number
84245
Journal
Social Defence Volume: 17 Issue: 66 Dated: (October 1981) Pages: 23-33
Date Published
1981
Length
11 pages
Annotation
Although torture is an offense under the Indian Penal Code and has been ruled unconstitutional by the Indian Supreme Court, police and prison officials continue to practice it, such that new procedural safeguards against torture are required.
Abstract
Along with United Nations pronouncements against torture, the Indian Penal Code condemns torture and provides for 7 years imprisonment and a fine for voluntarily causing hurt to gain a confession, information, or obtain the return of property. The 7 years imprisonment is provided if grievous hurt results from torture. These provisions, however, only cover torture as bodily hurt. The infliction of mental suffering is not covered. Although the existence of these sections of the code is intended to deter official use of torture, the provisions are rarely applied except where torture results in death or when there is strong public protest or political scandal. Charges of torture are customarily investigated by a regular police officer, generally from the same department as the suspect. Sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction is almost never secured. A special criminal procedure should be instituted for charges of torture by public officials. Torture cases should be investigated by a senior police officer not below the rank of superintendent. It should be binding on the magistrate having jurisdiction over the case to inquire into the alleged complaints of torture. Upon the request of the complainant, the magistrate should be permitted to direct the medical examination to secure evidence of torture. Further, the burden of proving innocence should be on the accused. Bail should be denied in all torture cases, and death resulting from torture should be classified as murder punishable by death. A total of 40 references are listed.