JAWANT P. SANKPAL versus SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.

JAWANT P. SANKPAL versus SUMAN GHOLAP & ORS.

There is sufficient material to uphold the Commission and High Court’s findings that the complainant’s son was subjected to custodial torture in violation of human rights, and there is no reason to interfere with the compensation and findings of the Human Rights Commission as affirmed by the High Court. Except for bare denial, the petitioner failed to refute the material supporting the complaint of torture.

Parties
Petitioner: Jawant P. Sankpal; Respondent No. 1: Suman Gholap; Respondent: State of Maharashtra; Respondent No. 3: PSI G.G. Navele; Respondent No. 4: PSI K.R. Kubel; Respondent No. 5: PSI J.P. Sankpal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 July 2010
Procedural Posture
SLP (criminal) / Appeal Against Dismissal of Writ Petition and Order of State Human Rights Commission
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Custodial Torture, State Human Rights Commission, Police Misconduct, Compensation for Violation of Human Rights
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Custodial Torture State Human Rights Commission Police Misconduct Compensation for Violation of Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jawant P. Sankpal

Petitioner

Suman Gholap

Respondent No. 1

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

PSI G.G. Navele

Respondent No. 3

PSI K.R. Kubel

Respondent No. 4

PSI J.P. Sankpal

Respondent No. 5

Procedural Posture

SLP (criminal) / Appeal Against Dismissal of Writ Petition and Order of State Human Rights Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner and police officials violated the human rights of the complainant's son through custodial torture
  2. 2 Whether the recommendations and compensation awarded by the State Human Rights Commission were justified

Ratio Decidendi

There is sufficient material to uphold the Commission and High Court’s findings that the complainant’s son was subjected to custodial torture in violation of human rights, and there is no reason to interfere with the compensation and findings of the Human Rights Commission as affirmed by the High Court. Except for bare denial, the petitioner failed to refute the material supporting the complaint of torture.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed

Orders

  • There is no reason to differ with the order of the State Human Rights Commission which was upheld by the High Court.
  • Compensation of Rs. 45,000 as directed by the Commission to be paid to the complainant and recovered equally from the involved police officials.