According to court proceedings before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete expressed severe displeasure with the police’s conduct and questioned the very legality of Ajith Kumar’s detention. The police allegedly took Ajith Kumar to the temple cattle shed and other secluded areas — avoiding CCTV surveillance — and beat him black and blue with plastic pipes and iron rods. He was later brought to the police station and eventually declared dead. This case of custodial torture has sparked outrage in Tamil Nadu and beyond.

Human rights lawyer Henri Tiphagne submitted video evidence allegedly showing Ajith being beaten by police officers inside Thiruppuvanam police station. The footage, captured by a temple employee named Sakthiswaran, was described by the court as shocking. In a revelation that shocked the bench, it was stated that the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Sivagangai district was present at the station during the torture.

Madras High Court: “Not even an FIR?”

The State informed the court that a CSR entry was made based on a complaint filed on June 28, 2025, regarding missing jewellery, but no FIR was registered. The court was aghast: “If this was merely a theft investigation, why was the suspect beaten to death?” questioned the bench. Judges demanded to know who authorised the special team that interrogated Ajith and whether such teams were formed on the basis of social media posts.

Adding to the irregularities, the court highlighted that the SP had merely been transferred and not suspended. The judges further criticised the government’s claim that action was being taken, calling it wholly insufficient.

Autopsy reveals 18 injuries, video confirms beating

India Today accessed an exclusive video showing Ajith being thrashed with a lathi by policemen. The autopsy confirmed 18 distinct injuries on his body. As outrage grew, the Tamil Nadu government handed over the case to the CB-CID. However, the court observed that police cannot investigate cases against their own ranks and called for independent accountability.

Tamil Nadu Custodial Death Case || ‘Clincher’ Video Emerges

On Cam: Temple security guard thrashed.

Guard Ajith Kumar was picked up by the police in connection with a gold theft case. In the video, police personnel can be seen beating him with sticks: @dharannniii shares more… pic.twitter.com/vBYL0jpRJE

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) July 1, 2025

Echoes of Sathankulam: Will Tamil Nadu ever learn?

The events chillingly mirror the Sathankulam case of 2020, where Jeyaraj and his son Bennix were brutally tortured and killed in custody for allegedly violating lockdown timings. In that case, the intervention of the judiciary and public outrage led to the arrest and prosecution of several police officials. The Madras High Court in that case had relied on the testimony of an independent judicial officer to uncover the truth.

Just like in Sathankulam, the initial attempt in Ajith Kumar’s case also seems to involve a cover-up, delayed documentation, and failure to follow legal procedure — from absence of FIR to delayed autopsy to vague accountability. The question haunting observers remains the same: Has anything changed in Tamil Nadu’s policing culture?

India’s international obligations: UNCAT still unratified

Ajith Kumar’s death also reopens the debate on India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Despite signing it in 1997, India has not enacted an anti-torture law. UNCAT mandates prohibition, criminalization, independent investigation, and compensation for custodial torture — all glaringly absent in this case.

In cases like DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized that third-degree methods have no place in a democratic setup. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty. Yet, as in Ajith Kumar’s case, these rights are repeatedly violated in police custody with impunity.

Widespread custodial deaths: A nationwide pattern of impunity

According to data shared by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Lok Sabha, there were 2,152 deaths in judicial custody and 155 in police custody in 2021–22 alone. Despite these alarming figures, disciplinary action was taken in only 21 cases in five years, with zero prosecutions.

The National Human Rights Commission had announced a total compensation of ₹4.53 crore in 137 custodial death cases in 2021–22 — a drop from ₹4.88 crore in the previous year. The data underscores a systemic failure to hold perpetrators accountable. Tamil Nadu, despite its history of custodial violence cases like Sathankulam and now Ajith Kumar, continues to exhibit a culture of impunity reinforced by the lack of anti-torture legislation.

The road ahead

The Madras High Court has ordered the Thirupuvanam Judicial Magistrate and the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital to file preliminary and post-mortem reports. Witnesses including temple officials and video documenter Shakthiswaran have been summoned. Petitions are pending seeking CBI/SIT probe and compensation to the victim’s family.

Whether the judiciary’s timely intervention will lead to accountability in this case — or fade into routine impunity — remains to be seen. But what is already clear is this: Ajith Kumar’s death is not an isolated tragedy. It is a systemic collapse.

(The author is a law student and a former intern at cjp.org.in.)

Related:

TN custodial death report establishes complicity of police, hospital staff and jail authorities

CBI chargesheet confirms brutal torture on Jeyaraj and Bennicks

Death in Chains: Indian Courts award reparation for deaths in custody, deaths rise alarmingly

The post Ajith Kumar’s custodial death exposes Tamil Nadu’s unbroken chain of police impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the heart of the case lies a disturbing sequence of events: a young tribal man taken from his own wedding ceremony by police officers, subjected to alleged third-degree torture, and found dead in custody; followed by delayed and diluted FIR registration, an ambiguous post-mortem, and retaliatory criminal cases against the sole eyewitness. The State’s response—marked by delays, lack of arrests, and superficial disciplinary action—led the Court to conclude that the investigation was neither fair nor credible.

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the constitutional requirement for independent, impartial, and transparent investigation, especially when State agents are themselves under suspicion. It underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding due process, witness protection, and accountability in custodial deaths, while reinforcing that the rule of law cannot be compromised by institutional camaraderie.

Factual background

The case emerges from a gruesome incident of custodial torture that took place in July 2024. Deva Pardhi, a tribal man from Guna district, Madhya Pradesh, was preparing for his wedding. On July 13, while the Haldi ceremony was underway, a team of around 30–40 police personnel stormed the premises, assaulting family members—including women and children—and arresting Deva along with his uncle Gangaram Pardhi.

They were taken not to the new police station equipped with CCTV cameras but to an older facility, allegedly to avoid surveillance. At the station, both men were subjected to severe third-degree torture. According to Gangaram’s account, Deva was:

• Beaten with ropes,
• Doused with hot water, petrol, salt, and chili powder,
• Suspended upside down from the ceiling,
• Suffocated with water.

Eventually, after three hours of this treatment, Deva collapsed and was moved to a hospital where he was declared dead on arrival.

Delayed and diluted FIR: The family of the deceased attempted to register an FIR immediately, but were obstructed by the local police. Only after a Magisterial Inquiry was completed, was FIR No. 341/2024 registered—eight days later. Even then, crucially, the charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 302 IPC) was excluded, and less serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were invoked:

• Section 105: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
• Section 115(2): Voluntarily causing hurt,
• Section 3(5): Joint criminal liability,
• Section 120: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession,
• Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Despite these charges, no arrest was made in eight months—a fact that became central to the Court’s conclusion of deliberate institutional shielding.

Eyewitness targeted: Gangaram Pardhi, the only eyewitness to Deva’s custodial torture and death, was illegally detained beyond 24 hours, remanded to custody, and then systematically implicated in at least four more criminal cases:

• FIR 247/2024 (Dharnawada),
• FIR 489/2023 (Dharnawada),
• FIR 434/2023 (Jaora),
• FIR 87/2023 (Chippabarod).

His bail plea was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, however, acknowledged the threat perception he faced and ordered his transfer from Guna District Jail to Gwalior Central Jail.

Medical evidence muzzled by influence: Post-mortem results revealed multiple abrasions and contusions. However, instead of ascribing cause of death to physical injuries, doctors later opined that Deva died of vasovagal shock leading to heart failure. The Court cast serious doubt on the credibility of this conclusion, noting that:

• The Medical Board failed to opine on cause of death despite clear injuries,
• The delay and change in findings suggested direct police interference.

This aspect was described as a symptom of a much broader institutional malaise, wherein even forensic medical systems are suborned by police influence.

Judicial censure from the bench during the April 29 hearing

The Supreme Court’s hearing on April 29, 2025, preceding the final judgment, was marked by a series of extraordinarily candid and stern oral observations by Justice Sandeep Mehta, laying bare the judicial frustration with the State’s apparent unwillingness to take decisive action against the police officials implicated in Deva Pardhi’s custodial death.

When Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, informed the bench that the two key officers had merely been transferred to line duty, Justice Mehta expressed serious displeasure, questioning the sincerity and seriousness of the State’s response. As per the report of LiveLaw, he criticised the administrative tokenism in lieu of criminal accountability, calling it a blatant instance of institutional favouritism.

““Great response to a case of custodial death! What better example of favouritism, shielding your own officers. Would you like yourself to be appointed as amicus or appointed on behalf of CBI to take over the case? Rather than representing the State police. Ridiculous and inhumane approach. Absolutely. Man dies in your custody and it takes you 10 months to lay hands on your own officers. Why did you send them to line duty? For what reason? Their complicity has been found true, why they are not been arrested?”

Justice Mehta went on to question the competence of the investigating authorities, emphasising that the State had failed to arrest even a single person despite the lapse of ten months since the incident. According to LiveLaw, he demanded to know under what provision of law the FIR had been registered and implied that the State’s conduct reflected a gross abdication of investigative duty.

“For the 10 months time you have not been able to arrest a single person. This reflects on your competence. What is the provision of law under which the FIR has been registered?”

When the State sought to justify the absence of arrests by citing that substances had been found in Deva’s body, Justice Mehta dismissed this as a crude attempt at a cover-up, further underlining the systemic efforts to derail the case.

“Can there be a better cover-up act?” Justice Mehta was noted as saying as per LiveLaw.

The Court also took strong exception to the postmortem report, which recorded no conclusive cause of death despite multiple injuries on Deva’s body. The bench described it as inexplicable and suspect, given the visible signs of torture. Justice Mehta lamented the persistent impunity for custodial violence, asserting that repeated judicial pronouncements had done little to deter such brutality.

“A 25-year-old boy killed by custodial violence and not a single injury on the body seen by the medical jurist? You say he died of a heart attack? Bruises all over the body. Sad state of affairs in this country that vice of custodial violence continues unabated despite repeated judgments by this Court, and offenders roam free. Horrendous. And you try to eliminate the sole witness.”

Witness vulnerability and the court’s reluctance to endanger Gangaram: The hearing also saw Advocate Payoshi Roy, appearing for Gangaram Pardhi, urge the Court to consider his bail application. She pointed out that Gangaram, the sole eyewitness to Deva’s death, continued to face relentless harassment by the police and was being falsely implicated in one case after another.

In response, Justice Mehta made a poignant and chilling observation, suggesting that while judicial custody was undesirable, it may ironically offer better protection than release, given the serious risk to Gangaram’s life if he were freed. His words starkly acknowledged the reality of extrajudicial killings and witness silencing:

“Presently, being in custody is better for your own health and safety. When he comes out, he is run over by a lorry and you won’t even know. It will be an accident and you will lose the single witness. Instance [like this] are not uncommon…We have even rejected bail petitions on grounds that there is a risk of the life of accused himself. It’s always better. You will see instances that the moment the accused came out on bail, he was eliminated by the other side. Don’t take that risk. Leave it to the Court,” Justice Mehta remarked, as per LiveLaw.

These remarks underscored the extraordinary vulnerability of witnesses in cases involving State actors, and served to justify the later directions issued in the final judgment for assigning responsibility to senior State officials for Gangaram’s safety.

Judicial assessment and findings in the judgment

The findings of the Court are among the most comprehensive judicial evaluations of systemic custodial abuse and the complicity of the State machinery in recent times. The Court made the following key observations:

1. Systemic failure to register and investigate FIR promptly

The Court noted that the victim’s family attempted to lodge an FIR immediately after the custodial death occurred. However, the local police actively prevented them from doing so, an action the Court regarded as a deliberate suppression of lawful process.

Only after the Magisterial Inquiry concluded was FIR No. 341 of 2024 registered. Even then, it included Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 (murder), thereby diluting the gravity of the offence.

This delay and selective invocation of penal provisions formed a crucial part of the Court’s reasoning that the investigation was neither independent nor fair. The Court termed this an engineered evasion of accountability.

“The victims’ family tried to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident, but the local police officials prevented them from doing so. It is only after the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR came to be registered wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted.” (Para 29)

2. Absolute Inaction for Eight Months: No arrests despite direct incrimination

The Supreme Court expressed deep concern that even after eight months, not a single police officer had been arrested despite the fact that the Magisterial Inquiry, medical evidence, and witness statements pointed toward clear custodial torture leading to death.

“Nearly eight months have passed since the FIR was registered but till date, not a single accused has been arrested.” (Para 29)

This inaction, according to the Court, was not accidental but a result of institutional camaraderie—a refusal to act against colleagues, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The Court emphasised that the deliberate delay had the effect of sabotaging the prosecution and undermining public confidence in the legal system.

“These circumstances give rise to a clear inference that the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner and there is an imminent possibility of the prosecution being subjugated by the accused if the investigation is left in the hands of the State police, who are apparently shielding their own fellow policemen owing to the camaraderie.” (Para 30)

3. Suppression and tampering of medical evidence

The post-mortem report, although documenting multiple contusions, abrasions, and visible injuries, made no conclusive finding on the cause of death. Instead, the medical board reserved opinion, and later attributed the death to “vasovagal shock leading to heart attack.”

The Supreme Court found this explanation medically implausible given the physical injuries and the timeline of events, and strongly suspected that the Medical Board was pressurised by the accused police officers. The doctors’ refusal to comment on the cause of death, in the Court’s view, reflected coercive interference by the police.

“The fact that the police officials have influenced the investigation right from the beginning is amply borne out from the circumstance that even the doctors, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of Deva Pardhi, seem to have been pressurised/influenced.” (Para 28)

“We are constrained to observe that despite taking note of the large number of the injuries on the body of Deva Pardhi, the victim of custodial torture, the members of the Medical Board which conducted post-mortem on his body, failed to express any opinion regarding the cause of his death. This omission seems to be deliberate rather unintentional and appears to be a direct result of influence being exercised by the local police officials.” (Para 29)

This finding is especially significant as it suggests institutional rot beyond the police force, implicating the medical system’s integrity in custodial death investigations.

4. Clear Credibility Crisis: Invoking Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

The Court invoked the foundational principle of natural justice — nemo judex in causa sua — which means that no one can be a judge in his own cause.

Given that the very individuals being investigated belonged to the same force tasked with investigating, the Court declared that any semblance of impartiality was fatally compromised. This foundational breach of investigative independence, in the Court’s eyes, necessitated transfer to the CBI.

“We are, therefore, convinced that this is a classic case warranting invocation of the Latin maxim ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ which means that ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’. The allegation of causing custodial death of Deva Pardhi is against the local police officials of Myana Police Station.” (Para 28)

5. Credible eyewitness testimony consistently ignored

The Court gave great evidentiary weight to the statement of Gangaram Pardhi, who not only witnessed the torture of Deva Pardhi, but also tried to intervene, and was himself assaulted and illegally detained.

Despite being a direct, material eyewitness, Gangaram’s testimony had not triggered arrests, nor had it been treated with legal seriousness. Instead, he was subjected to retaliatory incarceration and implicated in multiple subsequent cases.

“The involvement of the police officials in the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is clearly borne out from the statement of the sole eye-witness Gangaram Pardhi and stands further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry.” (Para 29)

6. Retaliatory framing and judicial recognition of witness intimidation

The Supreme Court unambiguously held that multiple FIRs filed against Gangaram Pardhi after the custodial death incident were deliberate acts meant to silence and neutralise him.

The Court recognised a pattern of conduct: entangling him in successive, allegedly concocted cases to keep him detained indefinitely, cripple his morale, and deter him from deposing against the police.

“So far as the aspect of grant of bail to Gangaram Pardhi is concerned, we may observe that the underlying facts narrated supra clearly indicate that a deliberate attempt is being made to somehow or the other, implicate Gangaram Pardhi in multiple cases, one after the other, so as to keep him behind bars indefinitely, and break his spirit and the spirit of his family members thereby ensuring that the said person being the star witness of the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is not only demoralized but is also prevented from deposing against the errant police officials.” (Para 33)

Directions anchored in constitutional and criminal law doctrine

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court issued firm and time-bound directions:

• The investigation was immediately transferred to the CBI.
• CBI was ordered to register a Regular Case (RC) and complete investigation within 90 days of arrest.
• The accused police officers were to be arrested within one month.
• Protection of Gangaram under the Witness Protection Scheme was mandated.
• Liberty was granted to apply for bail in all cases, with the High Court directed to consider this Court’s findings.
• The Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh were personally made responsible for ensuring Gangaram’s safety.

Significance and implications

This judgment is significant because it:

• Affirms Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional guardian under Articles 21 and 32 when State failure threatens liberty and life.
• Condemns the culture of custodial impunity, reinforcing that institutional allegiance cannot supersede justice.
• Clarifies that witness protection is not a procedural courtesy but a substantive right, especially when the witness is up against State forces.
• Lays down that transfer of investigation is not an affront to State police, but a necessity when bias taints the process.

Conclusion

The custodial death of Deva Pardhi is not merely a tragic event—it is a mirror held up to the systemic erosion of accountability in India’s criminal justice system. In transferring the case to the CBI and holding the State to account for its failures, the Supreme Court has emphatically reiterated that no State apparatus, however powerful, is above the Constitution. The judgment stands as a clarion call for legal reform, ethical policing, and the preservation of human dignity in custodial spaces.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

“No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order

FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check

The post “Shielding their own”: Supreme Court slams Madhya Pradesh police, transfers custodial death probe of a tribal man to CBI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Wednesday, the Mumbai Sessions Court rejected a plea by Asiya Begum, the mother of Khwaja Yunus, to add the names of four police officers as accused in the case pertaining to his alleged custodial death.

Readers would recall that Yunus had been named as an accused in the 2002 Ghatkopar blast case, where a bomb placed on a BEST bus exploded killing two and injuring 50 people on December 2, 2002. 27-year-old Sayed Khwaja Yunus Sayed Ayub, originally from Parbhani district in Maharashtra, worked as a software engineer in Dubai. He was arrested from Chikaldhara in connection with the case. According to the police, he allegedly escaped while being transported to Aurangabad.

But a Crime Investigation Division (CID) inquiry revealed that he had actually died in police custody in January 2003. The inquiry had indicted four policemen including ‘encounter specialist’ Sachin Vaze and constables Rajendra Tiwari, Rajendra Nikam and Sunil Desai. They have been charged with murder, voluntarily causing grievious hurt to extort confession, fabricating evidence and criminal conspiracy.

Trial in the custodial death case commenced at the Mumbai Sessions Court in 2017 where Dr Abdul Mateen, who was previously a co-accused in the Ghatkopar blast case and was subsequently exonerated, deposed that he saw Khwaja Yunus being beaten mercilessly till he vomited blood.

In 2018, Special Public Prosecutor Dhiraj Mirajkar had filed a plea seeking the addition of names of four more policemen to the case, namely – ACP Praful Bhosale, senior police inspectors Rajaram Vhanmane, Hemant Desai, and serving policeman Ashok Khot. This was after a witness named them and said that they had assaulted Yunus. But Mirajkar was then sacked by the government, allegedly for moving this plea. Pradip Gharat took over as the new SPP this year and sought to withdraw Mirajkar’s application.

According to the Indian Express, Gharat told the Sessions Court that the Bombay High Court had in 2012 rejected Asiya Begum’s plea challenging the lack of sanction to prosecute the four policemen and others, and the appeal against this decision was pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter pertaining to addition of the new names could not be decided until the outcome of that matter.

On Wednesday, Additional Sessions Judge VM Pathade allowed for the withdrawal of the prosecution’s plea.

It is noteworthy that at the previous hearing on August 25, Asiya Begum had filed a separate plea through advocate Chetan Mali to include the names of the four policemen as accused in the case. India Today quoted an excerpt from the plea: “The evidence clearly shows that they (proposed accused) have committed the offence. They must be tried in the interest of justice. All the proposed accused were named in the chargesheet, and it was only because of absence of sanction by the state to prosecute these men that the prosecution against them did not proceed.” But the Sessions Court rejected this plea on Wednesday as well.

Related:

Suspension order of accused cops revoked, Khwaja Yunus’s mother moves Bombay HC

The post Khwaja Yunus custodial death case: Sessions Court dismisses Asiya Begum’s plea to add four more policemen as accused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Ors v State of Orissa (CRA No. 207/210 of 1988), the Orissa High Court has directed two ex-police officers to serve simple imprisonment for a month for offences of acting in furtherance of a common intention and voluntarily causing hurt under the Indian Penal Code.

Simple imprisonment of one year has also been imposed on the appellants for voluntarily causing hurt by deadly weapons under the Code. They have also been directed to serve simple imprisonment for another three months for fraudulently using forged documents.

Further, Justice S.K Sahoo directed the the State Government to pay Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased within a period of one month from the date of this judgment, i.e. November 9, 2020.

Senior Advocate Yasobant Das and Devasish Panda appeared for the appellants. Additional Government Advocate Lalatendu Samantaray represented the State.

Observing that it is a thirty-two-year-old case of custodial violence, the court said, “Custodial violence on a person which may sometimes lead to his death is abhorrent and not acceptable in a civilised society and it is a crime against humanity and a clear violation of a person’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

“Police excesses and maltreatment of detainees, under trial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation. Stern measures are required to be taken to check the malady against those police officials who consider themselves to be above the law and bring disrepute to their department, otherwise the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and common man may lose faith in the judiciary”, Justice Sahoo added.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment Nilabati Behra (smt) @ Lalita Behra v State of Orissa 1993 (2) SCC 746, where the top court opined that even convicts, prisoners and undertrials cannot be denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Orissa High Court noted, “Act of custodial violence reflects tragic state of affairs indicating the apparent disdain of the State to the life and liberty of individuals, particularly those in custody and relief could be moulded by granting compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.”

Matter before the court

The Single-judge Bench was hearing criminal appeals by former inspector and senior sub inspector in a case pertaining to a person’s custodial death during an illegal confinement at Purighat police station in Cuttack in 1985.

In August 1988, the Assistant Sessions Judge -cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack had convicted the appellants for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years and eight years respectively.

They were also sentenced to a maximum sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment for offences of fraudulent preparation of FIR, wrongful confinement and voluntarily causing hurt.

Both appellants had filed criminal appeals in the High Court of Orissa and were subsequently released on bail in August and September, 1988.

Keeping in mind the age of the appellants and that “occurrence in question took place thirty five years back and the appellants must have suffered immense mental agony and pain facing criminal proceeding for a considerable period”, the court acquitted both officers of charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced the maximum sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment for other charges.

On the issue of why the imposition of sentence was necessary, Justice Sahoo opined, “One of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The quantum of sentence imposed should not shock the common man. It should reflect the public abhorrence of the crime. The Court has a duty to protect and promote public interest and build up public confidence in efficacy of rule of law.”

Accordingly, their criminal appeals were disposed of and were directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within two weeks from the date of the judgment for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.

The judgment may be read here: 

Related:

India’s dark history of custodial abuse
Custodial killings in Kerala: Deconstructing facts
Madras HC orders Judicial Magistrate to conduct inquiry into alleged custodial deaths in Tuticorin

The post Custodial death case: Orissa HC imposes sentence on ex cops appeared first on SabrangIndia.