Custodial Deaths And Investigations
What is Custodial Death?
Custodial death refers to the death of a person while in police or judicial custody, whether in police lock-ups, jails, or during the process of arrest, interrogation, or detention. It often raises serious concerns about human rights violations, including torture, brutality, neglect, or medical negligence by authorities.
Importance of Investigating Custodial Deaths
Human Rights Protection: Custodial deaths often implicate violation of fundamental rights, especially the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Accountability: To hold the police and officials accountable to prevent abuse of power.
Rule of Law: Ensures law enforcement agencies act within the bounds of the law.
Public Confidence: Transparent investigation helps maintain trust in the justice system.
Investigation Procedure
FIR and Registration: Immediate registration of an FIR (First Information Report) for the death.
Post-Mortem Examination: Conducted by a medical officer, preferably independent, to determine the cause of death.
Magisterial Inquiry: The Judicial Magistrate is typically required to conduct an inquiry immediately.
Police Investigation: Separate from the agency involved in the custody, sometimes by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or CBI in sensitive cases.
Reports to Higher Authorities: Filing reports to courts and state human rights commissions.
Compensation and Rehabilitation: In case of custodial death due to police misconduct, courts often direct compensation to the victim’s family.
Landmark Case Laws on Custodial Deaths and Investigations
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial deaths and torture.
Key Directions:
Police must prepare a memo of arrest.
The arrested person should be informed of the grounds of arrest.
The police must notify a relative or friend of the arrested person.
The arrested person should be medically examined.
The police custody of the accused should be limited to 15 days.
Significance: This case established safeguards against custodial violence and mandated detailed procedural rules for arrests and detention.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
Facts: A custodial death occurred due to police brutality.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held the state liable for custodial death and ordered compensation to the victim's family.
Significance: This case recognized compensation as a remedy for violation of fundamental rights and emphasized state responsibility.
3. Prakash Singh v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1
Facts: Several directions issued to reform police forces and address police excesses, including custodial deaths.
Key Points: The Court mandated structural reforms in police, including:
Setting up Police Complaints Authority.
Ensuring police accountability.
Significance: Helped create mechanisms to prevent custodial torture and deaths by increasing police transparency.
4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1349
Facts: The Court held that unlawful detention without following the procedure leads to custodial torture and death.
Judgment: The Court emphasized safeguards against illegal arrest and detention, stating that liberty is the norm, and detention is the exception.
Significance: Reinforced the principle of legality and procedural safeguards in arrest, helping prevent custodial deaths.
5. Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, AIR 2014 SC 1
Facts: The Supreme Court made FIR registration mandatory upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.
Relevance to Custodial Deaths: Ensures that custodial death complaints and allegations are registered promptly for investigation, preventing police inaction.
Significance: Strengthened the procedural basis for custodial death investigations by mandating FIR registration.
6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974
Facts: Concerned custodial interrogation methods and use of narco-analysis.
Judgment: The Court ruled such techniques violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
Significance: Helped prevent physical and psychological torture in custody, indirectly curbing custodial deaths.
7. Human Rights Watch v. Union of India (NHRC Case), AIR 1997 SC 1009
Facts: Related to custodial deaths and police brutality.
Judgment: Directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to inquire into custodial deaths and abuses.
Significance: Strengthened the role of NHRC in monitoring and investigating custodial deaths.
Summary
Custodial deaths represent a grave violation of human rights, often stemming from police excess, torture, or neglect. The judiciary in India has played a pivotal role in formulating guidelines and ensuring accountability through landmark judgments. These cases collectively form a framework mandating procedural safeguards, swift investigations, compensation, and reforms aimed at preventing such deaths.
RELATED Blog
0 comments