Kupwara Custodial Torture Case: J&K Court Discharges DSP, Orders Trial Of 7 Cops For Illegal Detention & Assault

The Court was hearing arguments on charge in an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following directions of the Supreme Court. The accused included eight police personnel, one DSP, one Sub-Inspector, one Special Police Officer, two Head Constables, two Selection Grade Constables, and one Constable, all stated to have been posted at JIC Kupwara during the relevant period.

The bench of Principal Sessions Judge S.A. Qalandar observed,

“It is true that A-1 occupied a supervisory position; however, mere holding of such a position, without accompanying material indicating knowledge coupled with active or passive participation, cannot justify framing of a charge.”

The case has its genesis in a petition filed by the victim's wife before the Supreme Court after the J&K High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against her husband under Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide). In 2025, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered a CBI probe into the allegations, awarded Rs. 50 lakh compensation to the victim for “gross violation of his fundamental rights”, and quashed the FIR against him. The Court observed that the “complete mutilation of his genitalia, use of pepper/chilly powder and electric shocks on his genitalia” were “grave reminders of inhuman torture”.

Following the Supreme Court's direction, the CBI registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet on October 22, 2025 against eight police personnel. The chargesheet alleged that the victim was illegally detained and wrongfully confined at JIC Kupwara from February 20 to 26, 2023, and was subjected to physical assault with a view to extracting a confession in relation to alleged narcotic smuggling activities.

Medical evidence placed on record indicated that the victim sustained injuries on buttocks, thighs, feet and other regions, with the Multi-Institutional Medical Board opining that the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma and custodial torture, not self-inflicted.

Court's Observation:

The Court delineated the scope of inquiry at the stage of charge, holding that the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry into the truthfulness of allegations nor to evaluate evidence with a view to arriving at a definitive conclusion regarding guilt or innocence. The exercise is confined to ascertaining whether the material, if accepted at its face value, discloses existence of a prima facie case giving rise to grave suspicion against the accused, it underscored.

Regarding the supervisory role of A-1 (DSP Aijaz Ahmad Naik), the Court found that as per the statement of the then SSP Kupwara (PW-48), JIC Kupwara was a joint interrogation centre where multiple activities were investigated and the role of A-1 was supervisory in nature. PW-51, the Investigating Officer of the narcotics case in which the victim was being questioned, stated that A-1 was present while questioning the victim, meaning A-1 was facilitating the interrogation.

However, the Court held that there was no material to suggest that A-1 physically participated in the alleged acts, nor any material to suggest that A-2 to A-8 acted on his directions so as to attribute conspiracy.

The Court observed that the distinction between A-1 and the remaining accused was not merely of degree but of substance. While the latter are alleged to have been actively involved within the custodial setting, the material against A-1 did not disclose even prima facie participation, facilitation, or culpable omission. The Court held that to proceed against A-1 in the absence of such material would amount to stretching the threshold of prima facie satisfaction beyond permissible limits.

In contrast, for A-2 to A-8, the Court found that the material on record, taken cumulatively, disclosed their active and continued involvement in the alleged occurrences. The allegations were specific in attribution, continuous in nature, supported by medical evidence, and occurred within a custodial setting under their control.

The Court noted that the statement of the victim disclosed identification of individual accused, attribution of distinct acts at different points of time, and a sequence of events reflecting participation of different accused in a coordinated manner.

The Court further observed that the custodial environment carried a distinct legal and evidentiary implication. When a person is shown to be within the exclusive domain and control of police authorities, any injury sustained during such period assumes heightened significance. The Court held that the exact manner and authorship of injuries is a matter for trial; however, the existence of injuries within custody cannot be treated as a neutral circumstance.

Accordingly, the Court discharged A-1 (DSP Aijaz Ahmad Naik) from the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 323, 325, 330, 331, and 343 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it held that the material on record disclosed sufficient grounds for presuming that A-2 to A-8 had committed the aforesaid offences in furtherance of a common design, and ordered framing of charges against them.

Case Title: State through CBI Vs Aijaz Ahmad Naik & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment