'Why Beat Him In Custody?' Supreme Court Questions TN Police; Rejects Claim That Custodial Torture Led To Death

The Supreme Court today(January 29) today dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed against the Madras High Court's order which held that the death of the present petitioner's husband was not caused due to custodial torture. As per the brief facts, the petitioner's husband was arrested in an alleged sexual harassment case and after he was taken into judicial custody, he suddenly died in jail in 2016. It was the petitioner's case that the death was caused due to custodial torture which was evident from the 17 injuries he received.Based on a media report, a suo moto case was registered by the State Human Rights Commission against the police officers for allegedly subjecting the petitioner's husband to third-degree torture. After inquiry, the Commission found the police officers responsible and awarded compensation of 3 lacs. Against this order, the police officers went before the Madras High Court which on March 30, 2022, held that this was not a case of human rights violation. "Further, when the deceased was produced before the jail authorities at Ponneri, the proforma for health screening was prepared and there was no physical injury recorded therein. The deceased suffered 'epilepsy attack' at the Sub-Jail, Ponneri and died due to 'Asphyxia due to aspiration of food particles into respiratory tract'. Even as per the post mortem, the medical opinion is that the injuries noted in the gluteal region in the hand and the feet of the deceased are not sufficient to cause death. The petitioners/police personnel cannot be accused of human rights violation immediately without proper examination. Even as per the medical report, the death occurred not due to any untoward incident as alleged in the news report. Further, none of the witnesses had stated that the petitioners physically assaulted the deceased. Thus, the present case is not one which can be classified as a human rights violation."Against this order, SLP was filed and adequate compensation for violation of Article 21 was sought before the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the SLP on the grounds that the facts of the present matter remain hazy. Despite the highly disputed facts, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked that it cannot be conclusively negated that the deceased was not manhandled by the police. He also questioned why the police have to resort to such measures. He said: "All inquiries were almost 12-24 hours fresh. There is no doubt that he was thrashed by the police...He may not have died because of assault by the police. Something went wrong. But the fact is, either he might have been thrashed by public or by police when he was arrested...There are two ways of looking at it. There is no doubt that he was beaten by the police. At the same time, it is difficult to ascertain whether the cause of death was on account of assault by police. But why did you have to beat him? He may be a very hopeless man, you have to proceed in accordance with law. You arrest him, produce him and if you want police custody, pray for it. If you don't want, the magistrate will send him to judicial custody. He has to then pray for bail. While he was in your custody, it seems you thrashed him."Nevertheless, the Court passed the order as stated: "... the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, the wife of the deceased, came to be dismissed. To put it briefly, the husband of the deceased along with two other co-accused was arrested in connection with the first information report lodged for the offence punishable under Section 341, 294, 324, 506(2) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2022, respectively. The husband of the petitioner along with the other two accused was arrested by the police. They were thereafter produced before the Judicial Magistrate on the very same day and the Judicial Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody. Something went wrong in the night hours and the health of the petitioner's husband deteriorated and he ultimately died in jail premises. The body was sent for post-mortem. The port-mortem report prima facie indicates few external injuries in the form of abrasion etc. However, the list of pathological reports prima facie indicates the cause of death was due to aphasia on account of food particles getting into the respiratory tract thereby obstructing the smooth passage of air in the lungs. The report indicate that the man died due to asphyxiation caused by ingestion of food in the lung. The matter was taken up before the State Human Rights Commission. State Human Rights Commission upon inquiry concluded that the cause of death cannot be attributed to the allegations of third-degree methods that the police might have adopted yet the fact of the matter is, that the police manhandled the husband of the deceased and the compensation of Rs. 3 lacks was awarded. The petitioner herein ultimately went before the High Court and prayed for appropriate relief....

'Why Beat Him In Custody?' Supreme Court Questions TN Police; Rejects Claim That Custodial Torture Led To Death

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

'He may not have died due to assault, but he was definitely thrashed in custody,' the Court orally observed.

Tags