Custodial Torture Not Part Of Official Duty: Kerala High Court Orders Framing Of Charges Against Cops Without 'Sanction'

The Kerala High Court has ordered the trial court to frame charges against four police officers accused of committing custodial torture on a woman in connection with her interrogation for an alleged theft.Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath set aside the order of the trial court, which discharged the accused police officers stating that previous sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) was not obtained. The Court found that protection as per Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend to criminal activities committed by public servants. Moreover, the bar on taking cognizance without previous sanction of the government is only with respect to offences committed while exercising or purporting to exercise official duty.Relying on G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram (2025), the Court observed:"The protection of Section 197 is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably and intrinsically connected with the discharge of, or purported discharge of, his official duty...It can never be said that a police officer acts or purports to act in discharge of his official duty when he inflicts custodial torture on an arrestee. Nor can it be said that inflicting unjustified custodial torture is reasonably and intrinsically connected with the discharge of, or purported discharge of, the official duty of the police officer concerned to avail the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C." The Court was considering the Revision petition preferred by the complainant against discharge of the police officers (accused no. 5 to 8) and the other accused persons.The complainant was a househelp, taken to the Police station by three women police constables (accused 6 to 8) for alleged theft at the house of accused Nos. 1 to 4. She alleged that the cops took her to the inner room and beat her with cane and stick, her head was hit against the wall and her neck was pressed and she was stamped on the abdomen, at the instructions of Sub-Inspector (accused no. 5).She claimed to have undergone treatment at a Government Hospital and later filed a private complaint under Sections 166, 211, 220, 323, 324, 330, 331, 341, 342, 348 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(ix)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.The Sessions Court trying the case discharged all the accused, finding no prima facie materials to proceed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and lack of sanction to prosecute accused Nos. 5 to 8.The High Court noted that the trial court had clearly found that the complainant had sustained injuries and there was prima facie material to show that she was tortured at the hands of the accused police officers. It thus refused to accept the finding of the trial court that the acts were done in furtherance of the official duty by the cops. It observed:“The medical records reveal that there were injuries on her body. These acts of the accused Nos.5 to 8 could have no reasonable connection with their official duties, and the pretended or fanciful claim that they committed these acts in the course of performance of their official duties cannot be entertained…Their official duties did not authorise them to assault or abuse the petitioner in custody, when there is nothing on record to show that there was any obstruction or resistance from her. There may be circumstances which may justify the use of force by the police while discharging their official duty. But that is not the case here.”Courts have a duty to keep a check on custodial tortureThe High Court remarked custodial torture is "one of the worst kinds of crime" in a civilised society and Police officers must not be permitted to consider themselves to be above the law.It highlighted the importance of courts in ensuring that police officers do not take law into their own hands and observed,“Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve; otherwise, the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself.” Case Title: Sudha v. State of Kerala and Ors.Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 1130/2017Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 401Click To Read/Download Judgment

Custodial Torture Not Part Of Official Duty: Kerala High Court Orders Framing Of Charges Against Cops Without 'Sanction'

K. Salma Jennath

Tags