A REPORT

ON

CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE AND DEATH

BY
SARTHAK GUPTA

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

SR. ADVOCATE RAMESH GUPTA
 A REPORT
ON

CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE AND DEATH

BY
SARTHAK GUPTA

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements of BBA.LLB(Hons.) of
ICFAI Law School, IFHE-Hyderabad
 Acknowledgement

This project would not have been possible without the support of many people.

Many thanks to my Project Guide MR RAMESH GUPTA, who offered me

guidance and support for the completion of my project report he also read my

numerous revisions, helped me out with the alterations which were required to

pull out the best from my project report and also helped me in many occasion in

clearing out my confusion. I really want to thank my Faculty Guide, MR RAVI

BUNDELA, who permitted my project proposal about the topic I choose to move

forward with my project report.

Thanks to the University of ICFAI, ICFAI LAW COLLEGE, IFHE, HYDERABAD

for allowing me the chance to take part in the Legal Internship Program, providing

me the opportunity to write the project report.

And finally thanks to my father who endured this long process with me always

providing me with a constant support and motivation to write my project report.

 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement …

Abstract …

1. Introduction …
1.1 Brief explanation of the main topic …
1.2 Purpose …
1.3 Scope …
1.4 Methods …

2. Main Text …
2.1 What is Custodial Death? …
2.2 How the trial procedure works …
2.3 Fundamental rights (Article 21 and Article 22) …
2.4 Custodial death …

3. CONCLUSION
 II

Abstract

The aim of this project report is to understand the evolvement of judicial procedure

in case of police atrocities, custodial torture and death and face encounter by the

police. The act of judiciary to curb, control the menace with various

recommendation of majors to be taken by state, compensation to the victims and

punishment of the police personnel through a committee to erase this kind of

heinous and barbaric crime. The constitutional courts like Hon’ble High Courts

and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while discharging its auspicious duties,

responsibilities and obligations towards the Constitution of India. The court also

protects right of life, liberty and dignity when issues of custodial death / torture /

violence comes. The executive and legislature has also responsibility to ensure

that rule and procedure of law should be abided by the investigation agency while

making any enquiry or investigation, and they should not exceed their limitations

nor violate the basic fundamental rights and human rights, entrenching the dignity

of an accused person. From time to time while protecting the fundamental rights

of liberty and dignity of citizens, Supreme Court has bent down the system of hand
cuffing and knotting rope around the waist of accused at the time of presentation

in the court.

This project has dealt various aspects of investigating agency, discuss about the

rights of the accused while in custody, fundamental rights and human rights of an

accused person, sticking balance in between unearthing of the truth and third

degree and above all the project dealt with various judgment in number of cases

which came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressing and interpreting

the aim, object and scope of Article 21 and to render justice to the relatives of

III
deceased accused died in police custody. The significance of the study is that it

informs our theoretical understanding of custodial violence / death / torture by

introducing a focus on the role of police in this matter and the view of courts and

their judgments regarding this topic. This project will enlighten the topic and raise

a valid question among the readers and also solve it and also it will uplift the letter

and spirit of fundamental rights especially Article 21.

IV
 1. Introduction

1.1 Brief explanation of the main topic

“Beauty of the democracy depends on the proper exercise of duty by those who
work it”
– Kurian Joseph Judge in Manoj Narula V. Union of India, 2014 (SCC 2014 vol 9 pg
108)

So, if the law protectors, those who work for the protection of law misuses the power and

violates against the rights of people, it compromises the whole structure of democracy.

Every time it occurs it marks a black spot in the beauty of our democracy.

Nowadays, getting news about brutality in the police custody has become very common,

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees right of life, dignity and liberty. In the

case of Urmila Devi V. Yudhvir Singh, 2013, Judge T.S Thakur quoted,

“Excesses by those in authority affect not only the immediate victims who suffer
them, but should such excesses go unnoticed and unpunished, they have a more
pernicious effect in that they tend to erode the rule of law, violate fundamental
rights and shake the faith confidence of the people in the efficacy and credibility
o the institutions that are meant to protect the citizens against them and eventually
lead to catastrophic results like anarchy and return of the dark days of barbarism”
- (SCC 2013 vol15 pg 624) Police as a machinery of the State is supposed to take

care of the life, dignity and liberty of the citizen living in it, but unfortunately in the name

of investigation, abusing its power and duty the police authority totally smashes all the

rights of life, liberty and dignity and starts atrocities which includes illegal detention,

custodial violence, torture sometimes eventually leading to death. Often the society

witnesses the death of a citizen by fake encounter or by custodial death due to heinous

tortures. Utterly violating the Constitutional rights, in case of

- -
Mhd. Arif V. Supreme Court of India, 2014 (SCC 2014 vol9 Pg 737) Justice Loginton

Fali Nariman has stated,

“Fundamental Right to life is among all Fundamental Rights is the most precious
to all human being”

Equality before law is a fundamental right “The concept of ‘justice’ encompasses not
just the right of the victim but also of the victims of crime, as well as of the law abiding
section of the society who look towards the court as vital instruments for preservation of
peace and encurtailment or containment of crime by punishing those transgresses the
law. If the convicts can circumvent the consequence of their conviction, peace, tranquility
and harmony in the society will be reduced to a chimera”

- Hon’ble Justice Vikramjit Sen in Suryabaksha Singh V. State of U.P, 2014(SCC 2014
vol4 pg 222).

The near dears of the victim have the right to get justce as well as the victim also has the

fundamental right to get free and fair trial. It is not unknown in the history of our judicial

system that police inflicting third degree torture or creating pressure to say or confess

untrue facts. By these illegal acts the police as the state machinery who are supposed

to investigate and find the truth are corrupting the process of fair justice. The act of the

investigation agencies are being misused, lack of insensitivity is lowering down esteems

of the police in the public domain.

In recent times no of cases about custodial torture and death has been emerged.

The investigation of those cases are being investigated by the higher authorities of the

police, which undoubtly raises question among the public at large. For e.g.

The case of custodial death of the father and son P Jeyaraj and J Bennik’s in 2020.

“The second part of Article 14 of Indian Constitution, which is corollary of the first
enjoins that equal protection shall be secured to all such persons in the enjoyment
of their rights and liberties without discrimination of favouritism. It is a pledge of

-9-
 the protection of equal laws, that is, laws that operate alike on all persons under
like circumstances”
R.M. Lodha, C.J in Subhramaniam Swamy V. CBI, 2014 (SCC 2014 vol8 pg 682)

Duty of the Honorable High Court and Supreme Court is to ensure the justice may given

to the keens of the accused who died due to the barbaric torture leading to custodial

death, because they also deserves equal rights (the right to free and fair trial) in the eyes

of law. From time to time no of social organizations through Public Interest Litigation

(PIL), relatives of the victim and High Courts and Supreme Court through suo moto has

taken cognizance of those custodial death cases, as the courts are the custodian of the

Constitution of India. The Constitutional Courts are the sentinels of justice and have been

vested with powers of judicial review to ensure that the rights of citizen are duly

protected.

In Subhramaniam Swamy V. CBI, 2014 (SCC 2014 vol8 pg 682), Justice R.M.
Lodha has stated,

“The criminal justice system mandates that any investigation should be fair in
accordance of law, and should not be tainted. It is equally important that interested
or influential are not able to misdirect or hijack the investigation as to throttle a fair
investigation resulting in offenders escaping in the punitive course of law. There
are important facts of the rule of law”

The Constitution of India from time to time test the cases of custodial deaths and the

conspiracies revolving around them and if found unjust unfair and unreasonable then the

miscreants police officers put into trial and keen of the accused person or deceased gets

compensation and the police officers get punishment. In number of cases Supreme Court

has come up with just right, proper and fair conclusions regarding the miscreants,

unlawful, illegal acts of police personnel/authority by torturing resulting to custodial

death. In these cases Supreme Court has also given monetary compensation to uplift

- 10 -
the letter and spirit of Article 21 of Constitution enshrine the right to life, liberty and dignity

in no of cases like:

1. Khatri (II) V. State of Bihar15,1980 2. Rudul

Sah V. State of Bihar18,1983 And many more
case to count.

We should also keep in mind about a statement

“The Constitution of a country flows like a river or even like blood in veins. It is an
environment for him. The bureaucratic bungling and executive misadventure
because as if its rupture like that of the ozone layer of the skies. Constitution is no
envelope. It is the basic letter written not by ink but by blood and sweat of a
struggling nation.”

1.2 Purpose

The purpose to of this project is first of all this whole topic of custodial death shook my

conscience I was very shocked when I came to know about it so the things which I came

to know going through this project I want to write about it to make the people and my

fellow classmates to know about this and also to know the rights of the arrestee and the

duties of police while in custody. I feel like this topic should gain more public interest so

that these barbaric actions be erased from the very roots of our Country.

1.3 Scope

From this project many people will come to know about the fundamental rights more

clearly and the arrestees will also know about their rights while in custody and if there is

any violation of their rights they could raise questions about it. And also the victim’s family

also will know their right to get justice and compensation for whatever happened to their

- 11 -
closed ones in the custody. I believe my project will be an instrument for the victims and

their relatives and family to get justice against what they have gone through.

1.4 Methods

For the completion of this project I have gone through a rigorous comprehensive method.

The methods are given below:

1) I studied about how the criminal procedure works.

2) Then I studied about the duties of police during investigation and while

arresting the accused person and how the court operates a criminal case and

the rights of an arrestee while in custody of police / lockup.

3) There after I read about the detailed information about Article 21 and 22 of

Indian Constitution and how it is connected with the project and also about

certain Sections of Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedural Court.

4) After that, I have gone through a lot of books regarding the cases of custodial

violence and have studied a lot amount of cases. I have cite cases from the

year 1965 to 2020.

2. MainText

2.1 What is Custodial Death?

Custodial deaths are the events of the demise of persons who are detained by police

during pre-trial or after conviction. Custodial death can be broadly classified into four

types :

1) Death in police custody

2) Death in judicial custody

- 12 -
 3) Death in custody in army or parliamentary force

4) Death in other government authorities like in the custody of investigation

department.

Custodial death is widely referred to as death that happens to a person who is under trial

or has already been convicted of a crime. It can be due to suicide, in fighting among

prisoners, sudden decoration of health of the arrestees, but in many instances it is police

brutality and torture that is the reason behind the death. Custodial death is one of the

worst forms of crime in civilized society.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in its reports from 2005 to 2018, revealed

that with respect to the death of 500 persons in remand, 281 cases were registered, 54

policemen were charge-sheeted, but not a single policeman was convicted during that

period. And among the 700 deaths of persons before remand, 312 cases were

registered, 132 persons were charge-sheeted and merely 7 persons were convicted. The

deaths before remand are during the first 24 hours after the arrest before the suspect is

produced before the magistrate.

From 2019 to 2020, the National Human Rights Commission, India (NHRC) reported

914 deaths in custody, 53 of these in police custody. As per their data, 714 people were

reported to have died in police custody in cases registered between 2013-14 and 2017-

18. These deaths do not include deaths in police encounters, which accounted for 837

cases during the same period.

Ubi jus, ibi remedium – There is no wrong without a remedy. The law wills that in every

case where a man is wronged and endamaged he must have a remedy. A mere

declaration of invalidity of a action or finding of custodial violence or death in lockup does

not by itself providing in meaningful remedy to a person whose fundamental right to life

has been infringed. Much more needs to be done.

- 13 -
2.2 How the trial procedure works

Before diving into detail discussion regarding custodial violence / death, let us first know

that how a criminal procedure / trial works.

(1) The criminal procedure starts right after a offence has been committed

(commission of an offence).

(2) Lodging a complaint by the complainant in police station (may be written or

oral).

(3) The police registers the complaint in the General Dairy (GD).

(4) After filing the GD the crime is specified and if it turns out to be a cognizable offence

then FIR (First Information Report) is filed.

(5) Investigation starts

The Investigating Officer (IO) starts the investigation and is head of the ongoing

investigation. IO can be the Inspector-in-charge (IC) of the police station or can hand

over the investigation to a Sub-Inspector (SI) or

Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), then that designated officer will be the IO.
(6) IO will then starts collecting evidence.

a) Visit the crime spot : The police personnel (IO) visits the spot where the crime is

committed and collect necessary evidence from the spot, then a site map is made

(where the crime is made).

b) Record the statements :

• Have to collect the statements of the people who were near the spot during the

commission of the crime.

• Have to collect the statement of the victim / complainant (if alive)

c) Collect the evidence :

- 14 -
 • Evidence is collected during the course of the investigation

• The collected evidence(s) are then sent to required place for examination e.g., if

a murder is committed then the body is sent to morgue for post mortem.

• All the things are done by following the police regulations (like in West

Bengal the PRB, Police Regulation of Bengal).

d) Arrest:

i) If required then the police arrests the accused person.

ii) Now, if the accused knows he is going to be arrested he can take the

help of anticipatory bail (Crpc 438) to get an early bail. Crpc 438: Direction for

grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest iii) In case of arrest there certain rights of the

arrestee which should be

taken in consideration by police and certain duties of police.

❖ Right of the arrestee

a) He/she should be informed why he/she is arrested (Crpc 50)

Crpc 50 : Person arrested to be informed of ground of arrest and of right to bail

b) he can urge for lawyer.

c) All of the human rights and the fundamental rights of the arrestee

should be observed and respected, should not be a victim of custodial torture

d) A doctor will do a check up after every 48 hours.

e) A relative / friend of arrestee shall be informed about the arrest.

f) He can ask for food or water.

❖ Duty of the officer

a) Within 24 hours of arrest the arrestee should be medically checked up for medical

condition and to check if there is any wound or injury before the arrest based on that

an investigation memo should be made.

- 15 -
b) An arrest memo should be made.

c) The arrestee’s right against custodial torture and death should be respected.

d) Within 24 hours of arrest the arrestee should be produced before the competent

court of law.

e) An FIR should also be filed in the appropriate police station, the place where the

arrestee resides.

Crpc(s) which are followed :

Crpc 49 : No unnecessary restraint

Crpc 53 : Examination by accused by medical practitioner at the request of police

officer.

Crpc 54 : Examination of arrested person by medical practitioner at the request of the arrested

person.

Crpc 56 : Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate of officer in charge of police station.

Crpc 57 : Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty- four hours.

Crpc 76 : Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay.

f) In case of the court having jurisdiction is far away an arrestee cannot be presented

within 24 hours the police has to take transit remand from the nearest Judicial

Magistrate.

Crpc 167 : Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.

g) From the FIR to evidences collected is recorded in the Case Dairy (CD) which will

be produced to the judge of the residing court.

The things given below are recorded in Case Diary :

• FIR
- 16 -
 • Site map

• Statements recorded

• Evidences collected

h) The arrestee is produced in court to Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) who can grant

bail or vice versa.

Crpc 437 : When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.

Crpc 439 : Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

If the court has not given bail

Places the arrestee will be staying if the bail is not granted.

➢ Police custody (PC)

When the arrestee is in the police custody the police will ask question to the

arrestee (Interrogation) may take the arrestee to certain places to gain more

evidence.

➢ Judicial custody (JC)

The arrestee will be staying in the jail but without the permission of judge the police

cannot operate with the arrestee, cannot take him anywhere unless the permission

is granted by the judge / magistrate.

➢ Police remand

The arrestee will be staying in the jail and will be produced to the court in the next

hearing.

After the completion of the investigation the police can do two things File a

charge sheet or, may file FRT (Final Report).

When will charge sheet be filed?

- 17 -
During the investigation if the police found the person (arrestee) to be guilty then a charge

sheet is filed.

For a charge sheet:

• If it is observed the crime committed is accountable for imprisonment for seven

years or more, in that case CJM, SDJM will send the case record before the

District Judge, Addl District Judge or ranked judicial officer

• If the offence committed is lower than imprisonment of seven years then the case

goes to the Judicial Magistrate.

When FRT is filed?

When the police find nothing about the person, the person is not guilty, the statements

are found to be false, FRT is filed.

For FRT :

• After receiving the FRT report the magistrate will inform the complainant

• If the magistrate is satisfied with the FRT then magistrate will discharge the

arrestee

• If the magistrate or the complainant is not satisfied with the FRT then the

magistrate can direct the police personnel for further investigation.

(7) Trail

When the charge sheet is submitted to the court by IO, IO with the Inspector-incharge

after consulting, files the charge sheet. Upon submission of charge sheet the court

determines whether the charges and sections put against the accused person (arrestee)

are applicable or not, then after giving a copy of charge sheet to the accused and his

lawyer, the trial starts.

When the punishment is more than seven years then the trial procedure is :

a) Charges before evidence

- 18 -
 b) Examination of the evidence

c) Charges after the evidence

d) Arguments

e) Judgements

So, first the court goes through the charge sheet, a detailed study of the charge sheet is

done and then the court puts charges against the accused person (charges before

evidence).

Then the court studies the evidences which are submitted. A detailed format of study

takes place the court asked questions to the accused, witness, cross examination take

place. Both the prosecutor and the defendant ask questions to the required persons and

cross examination take place (examination of the evidence).

After the examination of the evidences then the court puts the right charges on the

accused (arrestee) new charges are also added against the accused person if found

(charges after evidence).

Then after hearing of the both the parties, after going through all of the above discussed

steps the court passes the judgement on the case (judgement).

❖ Trial procedure for punishment of seven years or more Charges before

evidence

Examination of evidence

Charges after evidence

Arguments

Judgements
❖ Trial procedure for punishment less than seven years Charges before
evidence

- 19 -
 Examination of evidence

Arguments

Judgements

2.3 Fundamental rights

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life

or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

✓ Right to live with dignity

✓ Right to privacy

✓ Right to life

✓ Right against handcuffing of undertrial

✓ Right to die, attempt to suicide

✓ Right to vote

✓ Right to work

✓ Personal liberty

✓ Rights of prisoners

✓ Right against legal arrest

✓ Rights against illegal detention

✓ Right to health

✓ Right to shelter

✓ Right to death sentence without delay

✓ Right against custodial death/violence/torture

All these things falls under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

- 20 -
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed,

as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right

to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before

the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest

excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of

arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in

custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate

(3) Nothing in clauses ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) shall apply (a) to any person who for the time

being is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under

any law providing for preventive detention

(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person

for a longer period than three months unless (a) an Advisory Board consisting of

persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a

High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months

that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:

(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law

providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon

as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been

made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation

against the order

(6) Nothing in clause ( 5 ) shall require the authority making any such order as is

referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be

against the public interest to disclose

(7) Parliament may by law prescribe

- 21 -
 (a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in

which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under

any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an

Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause

( 4 );

(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or

classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive

detention; and

(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under

sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 ) Right against Exploitation.

Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,

including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo

warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any

of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 )

and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the

local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme

Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise

provided for by this Constitution.

- 22 -
Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,

throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any

person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those

territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas

corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for

the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any

Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court

exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,

wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the

seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within

those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or

stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any

proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in

support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an

application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy

of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the

counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a

period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on

which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where

the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the

- 23 -
 next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not

so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case

may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of

the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

2.4 Custodial death

Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the

rule of law. The rights inherent in Article 21 and 22(1) required to be jealously and

scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment will fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the

Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the

functionaries of the Government become law breaker, it is bound to bread contempt for

law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to

become law unto himself thereby leading anarchism. No civilized nation can permit that

to happen. Does a citizen sheds off his Fundamental Right to law, the moment a

policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest?

These questions touch the Human right’s jurisprudence. The answer to these questions

has to be an emphatic “No”. The precious rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the

Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other

prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by the law by placing

such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

The Supreme Court as the custodian and protector of Fundamental Rights and the basic

human rights of the citizen cannot wish away the problem. The right to interrogate the

detenus, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation, must take precedence over an

- 24 -
individual’s rights to personal liberty. The Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex (the

safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae suprema lex (the safety of

the Sate is the supreme law) coexists and are not only important and relevant but lie to

the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the

community.

In the case D.K Basu V. State OF West Bengal1, the Supreme Court made the following

order

“In almost every state there is allegations and these allegations are increasing in

frequency of deaths in custody described generally by newspaper as lock-up

deaths. At present there does not appear to be any machinery to effectively deal

with such allegations. Since this is all-Indiaquestion concerning all states, it is

desirable to issue notices to all the State Government to find out whether they

desire to say anything in the matter. Let notices issue to all the State Governments.

Let notices also issue to the Law commissions of India with a request that suitable

suggestions may be made in the matter. Notice be made returnable in two months

from today.”

The above case was a very interesting case and it can be considered as a treasure in

the matter of custodial deaths cases, the case provided us a lot of instructions in how to

curb out the menace of Custodial violence from the very roots of our country. From the

year 1986 there was a reported increase in the cases of custodial violence and deaths,

the Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services which is a non-political organisation of

West Bengal addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India at that time drawing his

attention to certain news reports published in The Telegram dated 20-07-1986, 21-07-

1986 and 22-071986 and in the Statesman and Indian express dated 22-07-1986

regarding deaths in police lock ups and custody. Executive Chairman after reproducing

- 25 -
the news items submitted that it was imperative to examine the issue in depth and to

develop “custody jurisprudence” and formulate modalities to award compensation to the

families and relatives of the victims for atrocities and death caused in police custody and

to provide for accountability of the officers concerned. It was also stated in the letter that,

efforts are often made to hush up the matter of lockup deaths and thus the crime goes

unpunished “flourishes”. It was requested that the letter along with the news items be

treated as a writ petition under “public interest litigation” category.

The court considering the importance of the issue raised in the letter and being

concerned by frequent complaints regarding custodial violence and deaths in police

lockup, the court treated the letter as a writ petition.

Crpc 46: Arrest how made.

(1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually
touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody
by word or action.
(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest,
such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.
(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of
an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.

Crpc 49: No unnecessary restraint. The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint
than is necessary to prevent his escape.

Crpc 50: Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.

- 26 -
(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for
such arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of
a non- bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on
bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

Crpc 56: Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate of officer in charge of police station.

Crpc 57: Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty- four hours. No police officer
shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the
circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special
order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary
for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate' s Court.

Crpc 53: Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer. (1)
When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to
have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall
be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below
the rank of sub- inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his
direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order
to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably for
that purpose.
(2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall
be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner.
Explanation.- In this section and in section 54," registered medical practitioner" means a medical
practitioner who possesses any recognized medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of
section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956 ) and whose name has been
entered in a State Medical Register.

Crpc 54: Examination of arrested person by medical practitioner at the request of the arrested
person. When a person who is arrested, whether on a charge or otherwise alleges, at the time
- 27 -
when he is produced before a Magistrate or at any time during the period of his detention in
custody that the examination of his body will afford evidence which will disprove the commission
by him of any offence or which will establish the commission by any other person of any offence
against his body, the Magistrate shall, if requested by the arrested person so to do direct the
examination of the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner unless the Magistrate
considers that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends
of justice.

Crpc167: Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours. (1)
Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation
cannot be completed within the period of twenty- four hours fixed by section 57, and there are
grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded, the officer in charge of
the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-
inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the
diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused
to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he
has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused
in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole;
and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention
unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction

Crpc 176: Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death.

(1) When any person dies while in the custody of the police or when the case is of the nature
referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub- section (3) of section 174] the nearest Magistrate-
empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub- section (1) of section
174, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of,
or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and if he does so, he shall have all
the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.
(2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in
connection therewith in any manner hereinafter prescribed according to the circumstances of the
case.

- 28 -
(3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead
body of any person who has been already interred, in order to discover the cause of his death,
the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.
(4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever
practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and
shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry.

Crpc174: Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.

(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially
empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has
committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an
accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other
person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest
Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule
prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-
divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is,
and there, in the presence of two' or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall
make an investiga- tion, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such
wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating
in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been
inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as
concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-
divisional Magistrate.
(3) When
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any
circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence
in relation to such woman; or
(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative
of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall. subject to such
rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to
- 29 -
 its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed
in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of
its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such
examination useless.
(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate
or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this
behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate.

IPC 218: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from
punishment or property from forfeiture.—Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such
public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record
or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be
likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby
to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or
with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or
other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

IPC 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen
offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed,
causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening
the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the
offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which
he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with
1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with
- 30 -
imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-
fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with
both. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention
of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years,
and also to fine.

IPC 342: Punishment for wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully confines any person
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

IPC 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal
act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

IPC 302: Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of
common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew
to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the
committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

IPC 147: Punishment for rioting.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.

Crpc 174: Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.

It needs no emphasis to say that when the crime goes unpunished, the criminals are

encouraged and the society suffers. The victim of crime or his kith and kin become

frustrated and contempt for law develops. We should consider the aspects that the Law

- 31 -
Commission in its 113th Report recommended the insertion of Section 114B in the Indian

Evidence Act. The Law Commission recommended in its 113th Report that in

prosecution of a police officer for an alleged offence of having caused bodily injury to a

person, if there was evidence that the injury was caused during the period when the

person was in the custody of the police, the Court may presume that the injury was

caused by the police officer having the custody of the person during that period. The

Commission further recommended that the court, while considering the question of

presumption, should have regard to all relevant circumstances including the period of

custody statement made by the victim, medical evidence and the evidence with the

Magistrate may have recorded. Change of burden of proof was, thus, advocated. In

Shyamsundar

Trivedi's case9,

“this Court also expressed the hope that the Government and the legislature would

give serious thought to the recommendation of the Law Commission.

Unfortunately, the suggested amendment, has not been incorporated in the statute

so far. The need of amendment requires no emphasis - sharp rise i custodial

violence, torture and death in custody, justifies the urgency for the amendment

and we invite Parliament's

attention to it.”

Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to

interrogate him during the investigation of a an offence but it must be remembered that

the law does not permit use of third degree methods or torture of accused in custody

during interrogation and investigation with that view to solve the crime. End cannot justify

the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense
- 32 -
purpose full to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using their

degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the

demands of our legal order forbid. No. society can permit it.

IPC 224: Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension. Whoever,

Intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of

Himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or

Escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any

Such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

May extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

IPC 218: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person

From punishment or property from forfeiture.—Whoever, being a public servant, and

Being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other Writing,

frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with Intent to

cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the Public or

to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he Will thereby

save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing That he is

likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it Is liable by

law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term Which may

extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

IPC 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen
offender.

IPC 120B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy

- 33 -
IPC 167: Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury.— Whoever,
being a public servant, and being, as 1[such public servant, charged with the preparation or
translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document
or electronic record] in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby
to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.

IPC 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for
by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both.

IPC 334: Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave
and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any
person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to
five hundred rupees, or with both.

IPC 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

IPC 331: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of
property.

IPC 348: Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property.—

Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined
or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may
lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person
confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of
any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which
may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

IPC 302: Punishment for murder.

- 34 -
Crpc 357: Order to pay compensation.
(1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of
which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of
the fine recovered to be applied-
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence,
when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil
Court;
(c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or
of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons
who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855 ), entitled to recover damages from
the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
(d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation,
criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of
having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for
the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.
(2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made
before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented,
before the decision of the appeal.
(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may,
when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount
as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of
the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court
or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.

(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same
matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this
section.

Crpc 357A: Victim Compensation Scheme Every State Government in co-ordination with the
Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation

- 35 -
to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who
require rehabilitation.

IPC 395: Punishment for dacoity.—Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC 397: Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.—If, at the
time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes
grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person,
the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven
years.

IPC 398: Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon.—If, at
the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly
weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less
than seven years.

IPC 224 : Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension.—Whoever

intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of
himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or
escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any
such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation.—The punishment in this
section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or
detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he
was convicted.

IPC 302: Punishment for murder

IPC 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a

criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each
of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

IPC 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to

screen offender.

- 36 -
Crpc 386(a): Power of the Appellate Court. After perusing such record and hearing the
appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in
case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the
Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering,
dismiss the appeal, or may

(a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further
inquiry be made, or that the accused be re- tried or committed for trial, as the case may
be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law

There is another case like the above where also because of insufficient evidence

the custodial death by the police was not proved,

Case: Prithipal Singh V. State of Punjab8,2012 Facts

of the case:

A. Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra, a human right activist, having allegiance to

Shiromani Akali Dal, was alleged to have been abducted from his residential

house No. 8, Kabir Park, Amritsar, on 6.9.1995 at 1.00 O'Clock. Shri Rajiv

Singh (PW.15) was present in the house of Shri Khalra at the time of abduction,

Kirpal

Singh Randhawa (PW.7) had seen Appellants, namely, Jaspal Singh, DSP,

Surinderpal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Satnam Singh alongwith other accused

persons rushing through Kabir Park with the deceased Jaswant Singh Khalra

inside a Maruti van.

B. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (PW.2) wife of the deceased, came to her house from the

University, where she was working, on being informed by Rajiv Singh (PW.15).

She made a search for her husband but in vain. She made a complaint on the
- 37 -
same day at 4.00 PM making a statement to SI Baldev Singh at Kabir Park that

her husband had been kidnapped at 1.00 O'Clock by some persons in police

uniform in Maruti van of white colour bearing No. DNB-5969. On the basis of the

said statement, an FIR No. 72 (Ex.PA) was registered on 7.9.1995 at P.S.

Islamabad, District Amritsar, at 9.30 AM under Section 365 Indian Penal Code.

However, no progress in investigation could be made and whereabouts of

Jaswant Singh Khalra could not be known.

C. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (PW.2), wife of the deceased, filed Criminal Writ Petition

No. 497 of 1995 before Supreme Court, wherein Supreme Court vide order

dated 5.11.1995 transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of

Investigation (hereinafter referred as `CBI'). The CBI registered R.C. No.

14/S/95/SCB-I/Delhi dated 18.12.1995 (Ex.PO) under Sections 365, 220 and

120B Indian Penal Code. In spite of best efforts made by the CBI, whereabouts

of said Jaswant Singh Khalra could not be traced. Even an award of Rs. 1 lakh

was announced for anyone giving information regarding his whereabouts.

IPC 302: Punishment of murder

IPC 364: Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts

any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be
put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life] or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine.

IPC 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to

screen offender.

IPC 342: Punishment for wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully confines any

person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

- 38 -
IPC 344: Wrongful confinement for ten or more days.—Whoever wrongfully confines
any person for ten days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC 346: Wrongful confinement in secret.—Whoever wrongfully confines any person in

such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be
known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that
the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or
public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment
to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.

IPC 120B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,
shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

IPC 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

IPC 220: Commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows
that he is acting contrary to law.—Whoever, being in any office which gives him legal
authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement,
corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or to confinement, or keeps any
person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority knowing that in so doing he is
acting contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Crpc 173(8): Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary
delay.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall
forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report,
a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating- (a) the names of the
parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information
relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the
report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so

- 39 -
directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the
Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation,
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused
has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order- for the discharge
of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police
officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report-
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to
rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements- recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant
to the subject- matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not
essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate
that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part
from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such
request.
(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may
furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub- section (5).

2.5 Punitive and preventive measures which can be adopted against the

custodial violenece

Some punitive provisions are contained in the Indian Penal Code which seek to

punish violation of right to life. Section 220 provides for punishment to an officer

or authority who detains or keeps a person in confinement with a corrupt or

malicious motive. Section 330 and 331 provide for punishment of those who inflict

injury of grievous hurt on a person to extort confession or information in regard to

commission of an offence. Illustration (a) and (b) to Section 330 make a police

officer guilty of torturing a person in order to induce him to confess the commission

of a crime or to induce him to confess the commission of a crime or to induce him

to point out places where stolen property is deposited. Section 330, therefore,

directly makes torture during interrogation and investigation punishable under the

Indian Penal Code. These Statutory provisions are, However, inadequate to

repair the wrong done to the citizen. Prosecution of the offender is an obligation

- 40 -
of the State in case of every crime but the victim of crime needs to be

compensated monetarily also. The Court, where the infringement of the

fundamental right is established, therefore, cannot stop by giving a mere

declaration. It must proceed further and give compensatory relief, nor by way of

damages as in a civil action but by way of compensation under the public law

jurisdiction for the wrong done, due to breach of public duty by the State of not

protecting the fundamental right to life of the citizen. To repair the wrong done

and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience.

IPC 220: Commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows
that he is acting contrary to law.

IPC 330: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of

property.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer
or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which
may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining
the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration
of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give
information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC 331: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel

restoration of property.—Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for the purpose of
extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer any confession or
any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the
purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or
to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security, or to satisfy any claim or
demand or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

3. Conclusion

So, uptill now there are not sufficient acts for the punishment of custodial
death in our country but, compensation is the only remedy available. The
country should be more aware with the fact of custodial death, more acts
should be enacted and awareness should be spread so that the issue
which is a matter of concern gains more importance. And to erase the
custodial torture from the very roots of our country. Mere punishment of
- 41 -
the offender for damages is a long drawn and cumbersome judicial
process but is not enough, it cannot give solace to the family of the victim.
Monetary compensation for redressal by the court finding the infringement
of the indefeasible right to life of the citizens, therefore, useful and at
times perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balms to the wounds of
the family members of the deceased victims, who may be sometimes the
bread winner of the family.

There was indeed no express provision in the Constitution of India for

grant of compensation for violation of a fundamental right to life,
nonetheless, But after the judgements of the cases which are discussed
above, Supreme Court has judicially evolved a right of compensation in
cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of person liberty or life.
Especially after the case of D.K Basu V.

State of W.B1 monetary compensation is regarded as the remedy for the

cases of custodial; torture/death/violence and in all the other cases where
the fundamental rights are infringement.

- 42 -
- 43 -