Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Charge Against 7 Cops In 2014 Custodial Death Case, Notes 'Disgusting' Sexual Abuse Allegations

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 07) cleared the decks for a special court in the city to frame charges of murder and outraging religious sentiments against seven officers of the Mumbai Police, named in the 2014 custodial death case of Agnello Valdaris.

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak upheld the September 17, 2022 order passed by the special POCSO Court which had framed charges under sections 377 (unnatural sex), 302 (murder), 295-A (outraging religious sentiments) among other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.

For context, the Special Court's order was challenged by six officers in a revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by single-judge Justice Amit Borkar by passing an order on December 16, 2022.

A separate revision petition preferred by the 7th cop was however, decided by coordinate bench of single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre on April 20, 2023, who quashed and set aside the order of the special court to the extent of framing charges under sections 302 and 295-A by pointing out to some 'inconsistencies' in the evidence.

Justice Dangre's order was then challenged before the Supreme Court by Agnello's father Leonard. The top court noting the differing opinions in the two single judge's orders, referred the matter back to the High Court with a finding that Justice Dangre, while differing with Justice Borkar's order ought to had referred the matter to a division bench.

Accordingly, the bench led by Justice Gadkari was assigned the reference to decide whether the trial court rightly invoked section 302 and 295A against the erring cops. 

In their 32-page judgment, the judges held, "We hold that, the trial Court has considered the material on record as expected in law and by recording proper reasons, arrived at just conclusion that the said material if not rebutted would entail in conviction of the accused persons in the case. Accordingly, the trial Court has passed the impugned order. Having reached to this conclusion, we see no reason to treat the impugned order as illegal or erroneous."

The judges recorded that they were in 'unison' with the view taken by Justice Borkar in the December 16, 2022 order while dismissing the revision pleas of the accused cops. 

For context, Agnello along with three others including a minor, were allegedly apprehended by the Wadala Police Station officers in the intervening night of April 15 and April 16, 2014 in a robbery case. After picking them up, they were assaulted and tortured both physically and mentally. The police showed the three accused as arrested on April 17 and it is then that Leonard complained to the Magistrate (before whom the three others were produced) and then the cops showed Agnello to be arrested on April 18. He was ordered to be produced on the same day before the Night Court but the police did not comply with the order as during his medical check-up, the deceased had complained to the doctor on duty about the torture by the police.

However, post his arrest and medical check up, Agnello was not produced before the court as ordered and when he tried to escape from the custody, he rushed towards a running local train at Wadala Railway Station and was hit by the said train and died on the spot. 

As regards the evidence on record, the judges noted from the testimony of the three other boys, who were picked up along with Agnello, who testified that besides physical and mental torture, they were forced to sexually abuse each other and even by the accused cops. 

"The sexual abuse was so disgusting that one would not be able to imagine that such an insult may occur in police station under coercion by police. Considering the central issue, we do not deem it proper to mention that abuse herein to protect the police image in general," the bench said in the order. 

The bench relied on the post mortem reports and other medical records, which indicated that there were several injuries on Agnello's person, of which some were more than 12 hours old and some were 24 hours to 96 hours old. The judges noted that Agnello, during his medical check up complained to one Dr Aejaz Hussain about his injuries and police torture and the fact that the police officers tried to show the same injuries as 'self-inflicted' ones. 

"Since Agnello had complained to Dr. Aejaz Husain about his torture, there was apprehension in the mind of accused police officers of some legal action against them. Therefore, somehow the accused persons wanted to control Agnello to prepare him to withdraw his complaint of torture made to Dr. Aejaz Husain or not to take the matter further. But the tide did not turn in favour of the accused police officers as Agnello died in the circumstances which were within the knowledge of the accused," the bench held. 

Since beginning, only the accused persons were present around Agnello and his three associates and were involved in the circumstances that lead to his death, the bench pointed out.

"Therefore, adverse inference is permissible against the police whomsoever he/she may be. In the backdrop, even if for the sake of argument we agree with the counsel for the accused police officers, that the old injuries of Agnello had no nexus with his death, the fact remains that he died in the circumstances otherwise than normal while he was in the police custody. Additionally, he was tortured to such an extent that, he ran towards a moving train to save further torture by the accused police," the judges observed. 

With these observations, the bench upheld the special court's order framing charges against the following cops - Jitendra Rathod (Sr Police Inspector), Archana Poojari, Assistant Inspector, Shatrughan Tondse Police Sub-Inspector, Suresh Mane, Head Constable and Constables Ravindra Mane, Vikas Suryavanshi, Satyajeet Kamble and Tushar Khairnar.

Appearance:

Advocates Rizwan Merchant, Sultan Khan and Sagar Shete appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocates Kuldeep Patil, Saili Dhuru, Digvijay Kachare, Anay Joshi, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar and Sanika Joshi represented the CBI.

Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta P. Shinde represented the State.

Advocates Yug Chaudhry, Payoshi Roy, Anush Shetty and Sidhartha Sharma represented Leonard Valdaris. 

Case Title: Jitendra Ramnarayan Rathod vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Writ Petition 4451 of 2022)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 164

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment