Custodial Death
Introduction =
"Justice is not only to be done but also must be seen to be done." – Palkhivala
India, is the county with the largest democracy, the longest written constitution in the world, with the second-largest population, around 141.72 crore. The nation gives the fundamental rights to citizens to freely speak, propagate, and profess their religion, extending some rights even to non-citizens.
Known for its criminal justice system. The criminal jurisprudence is based on “innocent until proven guilty”, a principle that the prosecution needs to establish or to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But the reality depicted by reports and statistics presents a concerning yet opposite picture of India’s criminal justice system, with increasing offences against the accused, which includes deaths and rapes in custody becoming common.
Custodial Death:- Meaning ==
There is no comprehensive definition of the term "custodial death" in Indian law, yet it generally refers to the deaths of an individual while being in custody, be it in police or judicial custody. Custodial violence also includes illegal detention, torture, rape, death, and even disappearance. These crimes are the greatest offence of any civilized country and they directly call upon human rights. The victims of such violence are not alone traumatized but have a great impact on their families too. This suffering also increases as no proper recourse, proper measures, and compensation provisions are available in Indian law, which explicitly deals with custodial death.
Another issue is that in the criminal system there are several unresolved cases, one such case is from 1984-1995 in Punjab, where 6,733 custodial deaths and encounters were reported, leaving many families without their sole breadwinners and still awaiting rehabilitation.
In 2024, the Supreme Court, in the case o[1]expressed the nature of the investigation which sometimes resulted in custodial deaths, and upheld that a stricter approach should be conducted against the police officers who are suspected of such grave offences. The 113th Law Commission becomes relevant here, in that report, it was recommended that in cases of suspected custodial violence, the burden of proof should be shifted to the police to prove that no offence was committed. However, this recommendation has not yet been noticed even in the new bill.
Provision for Custodial Death:- ==
Some provisions in Indian law directly or indirectly address the problem of custodial violence
[2] of the Constitution of India, guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court many times interpreted and held that it also encompasses the protection of individuals from torture, assault, or injury. The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity.
[3] states the production of an arrested person before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, allowing the detainee to disclose any mistreatment.
Sections 56, 57, and [4]of the Indian Penal Code specifically addresses rape while being in custody, also increases the punishment for such offences. Evidentiary Challenges and Judicial Interventions in Custodial Torture ==
The Supreme Court, in cases like [5] also considered that it might be difficult to obtain direct evidence of custodial torture due to the involvement of police personnel. In this case, the Court noted the circumstantial evidence, if points towards the guilt of the accused police officers, then such evidence must be carefully examined.
Similarly, a labour activist named[6] was beaten by the police after being lifted from the sister's house. Custodial violence is not confined to any single region; it is a nationwide problem. Reports from Uttar Pradesh, one of the most populous states, reveal frequent instances of custodial deaths and torture. Similar issues are reported in Meghalaya and Tripura in the Northeast, as well as Madhya Pradesh in central India. This widespread occurrence underscores the systemic nature of the problem and the necessity for a nationwide response.
Another significant case is [7], where the Supreme Court gave the rights of detainees and also addressed the issues of custodial deaths and held that this offence is a severe violation of human rights. The Court held that excessive torture while being in custody, irrespective of physical or mental, is a violation of Article 21.
The issue of custodial crimes is not limited to police custody but also extends to judicial. Article 21 allows only those restrictions on personal liberty that are permitted by law. The State must ensure no infringement on the rights to life and personal liberty of individuals in custody, whether they are convicts, undertrials, or other prisoners. The responsibility of police and prison authorities to safeguard these rights is immense, with no room for exceptions. If a person in custody is deprived of their life except by the procedure established by law, the State is accountable, and the defence of "sovereign immunity" is not available.
A way Forward ==
- Seeing the trend of not only custodial death but also custodial rape, I think there is a need to adopt a strict approach, it needs of an hour to implement the direction given by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2006, In the Landmark case of[8]where it was directed “'Police Establishment Board”, “Police Complain Authority”, Proper principles for 'Compensation to the victim.
- With rising cases of custodial deaths, the power of NHRC needs to be widened, Wherever there is suspicion about custodial death, NHRC and SHRC should be allowed to intervene. But as remarked by the Supreme Court, the legislature of India has not given any power to the National Human Rights Commission and made it a toothless tiger.
Conclusion:- =
Many cases of custodial death remain unreported due to the fact lack of legal awareness among people, the prevailing attitudes of police officers, and the pervasive fear of the police among local communities. The exact condition at the lower level is still unknown but what could be inferred from limited data is that the condition is not up to the mark that it should be.
One major problem in addressing custodial deaths is the frequent tampering with post-mortem reports in the cases that are reported. This manipulation of critical forensic evidence often results in the offenders being set free, thus undermining the justice system.
The Indian judiciary and legislative bodies must work together to eliminate custodial crimes, ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.
- ↑ https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/stricter-approach-towards-bail-in-custodial-torture-case-where-police-officers-are-accused-supreme-court-253656 f Ajay Kumar Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,
- ↑ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/ Article 21
- ↑ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/581566/#:~:text=(2)Every%20person%20who%20is,in%20custody%20beyond%20the%20said Article 22(2)
- ↑ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1677485/ Section 376(2)
- ↑ https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/02_Right_of_Prisoners/State_Of_Madhya_Pradesh_vs_Shyamsunder_Trivedi_And_Ors_on_9_May,_1995.PDF State of M.P v. Shyamsunder Trivedi,
- ↑ https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/law-student-allegedly-beaten-up-police-custody-mp-high-court-orders-probe-state-human-rights-commissions-212406 A law student
- ↑ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501198/ D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
- ↑ https://theleaflet.in/police-reforms-via-prakash-singh-judgment-a-boon-or-a-bane/ Prakash Singh Vs UOI,
- ↑ https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/134-paramvir-singh-saini-v-baljit-singh-21-feb-2023-460517.pdf Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others .