Custodial Deaths And Torture Allegations
1. Introduction
Custodial death refers to the death of a person while in police or judicial custody. Torture allegations involve any act of physical or mental suffering inflicted on a person in custody to extract information, confession, or as punishment. These issues are serious human rights violations and have been repeatedly addressed by the Indian judiciary.
Under Indian law, custodial deaths and torture are violations of:
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination
Section 330 & 331 IPC – Causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession
Section 197 CrPC – Sanction for prosecution of public servants
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the state has an obligation to protect the life and dignity of persons in custody.
2. Landmark Cases
Case 1: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
D.K. Basu, a retired police officer, filed a PIL highlighting rampant custodial deaths in West Bengal.
Observations:
Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent custodial deaths and torture.
Guidelines included:
Arrest memo must be prepared at the time of arrest.
Informing a relative or friend of the arrestee.
Medical examination of the detainee at regular intervals.
Police officer’s accountability for violations.
Significance:
It created a procedural safeguard framework to prevent custodial torture and deaths. It is considered the cornerstone for custodial rights in India.
Case 2: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts:
PUCL filed a PIL seeking compensation for victims of custodial violence and guidelines to prevent torture.
Observations:
Supreme Court emphasized that custodial deaths violate Article 21.
It reiterated that the State has a duty to ensure life and dignity of detainees.
Compensation must be awarded in cases of custodial death due to police negligence or torture.
Significance:
Established that monetary compensation and accountability are remedies against custodial death.
Case 3: Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260
Facts:
Joginder Kumar was detained without following proper procedures, allegedly tortured by police.
Observations:
Supreme Court ruled that arbitrary detention violates Article 21.
Arrest cannot be made merely for investigation; it must satisfy reasonableness criteria.
Police must follow safeguards like those in D.K. Basu.
Significance:
This case is crucial for preventing unlawful detention, which is a common precursor to custodial torture and deaths.
Case 4: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
Nilabati Behera’s son died in police custody under suspicious circumstances.
Observations:
Supreme Court held the State liable for custodial deaths.
Awarded compensation to the family under tort principles.
Held that the right to life includes right to live with human dignity, and police cannot abuse their authority.
Significance:
First case where monetary compensation was explicitly granted for custodial death in India.
Case 5: Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
Prakash Singh PIL addressed police reforms including custodial deaths and torture.
Observations:
Supreme Court highlighted the importance of accountable police practices.
Ordered reforms like fixed tenure of police officers, public grievance redressal, and modernized police training.
Significance:
It emphasized that structural reforms are necessary to prevent torture and custodial deaths.
Case 6: Nilanjan Mukherjee v. State of W.B. (1997) 5 SCC 151
Facts:
A man was allegedly tortured to death in police custody.
Observations:
Court held that custodial torture is a serious violation of Article 21.
State officers are personally liable and criminal proceedings cannot be shielded by mere official position.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of accountability of law enforcement officers.
Case 7: Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627
Facts:
Several deaths occurred in police custody due to torture and negligence.
Observations:
Court held that custodial deaths are prima facie evidence of police misconduct.
Police must prove that death was not due to torture; otherwise, strict liability applies.
Significance:
This case introduced the reversal of burden of proof in custodial death cases.
3. Torture Allegations and International Norms
India is also bound by international human rights conventions, such as:
UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) – prohibits torture.
Supreme Court has referenced international law to strengthen domestic remedies in custodial cases.
4. Key Takeaways from Case Law
Custodial deaths violate Article 21 (Right to Life).
Compensation is a recognized remedy in addition to criminal action.
Police accountability and procedural safeguards are essential.
Unlawful detention often leads to torture and is strictly prohibited.
Courts favor human dignity over state immunity in custodial cases.
RELATED Blog
comments