Ajith never made it to a formal police station. As per the report of The News Minute, he was not produced before a magistrate. No official FIR named him an accused. And yet, he was driven across multiple remote locations overnight, tortured in front of his brother, and eventually died from what forensic experts called an “extremely painful” death caused by a combination of pain shock and hypovolemic shock, that is, severe blood loss.

A Catalogue of Torture: What the post-mortem revealed

The post-mortem conducted at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, began at 5:45 PM on June 29 and lasted nearly four hours. The report, accessed by The News Minute, recorded 44 visible injuries, many of them deep tissue wounds with the depth extending into the underlying muscle. Notably, these injuries were clustered across his arms, legs, chest, and abdomen.

Dr. Dekal Varadharajulu, forensic surgeon and Head of the Forensic Department at Meenakshi Medical College, reviewed the findings and explained that overlapping injuries masked the true count, with some areas showing multiple contusions layered over each other. For instance, injuries numbered 13 to 18 alone were said to include at least 15 separate blows. One single injury at the end of the report included five distinct wounds.

“This kind of trauma is consistent with repeated, targeted beatings using blunt instruments like lathis or wooden sticks,” he said. “Each injury would have bled. Taken together, the internal haemorrhaging would have caused his blood volume to plummet below survivable levels,” he added, while speaking to The News Minute.

A second government forensic expert confirmed that while none of the injuries were independently fatal, their cumulative impact would have caused death in a very short span of time, especially due to neurogenic or pain shock, caused by unbearable physical trauma.

What was the allegation?

The complaint that led to Ajith’s detention was alarmingly flimsy. Two women. Sivakami and her daughter Nikita, reported that 10 sovereigns of gold had gone missing from their car parked outside the temple. Ajith, who had only helped them park the vehicle, had no access to the car’s interior and did not drive it himself. He had briefly handed over the keys to another person before returning them.

Even so, Ajith and four other temple workers were detained by the Thiruppuvanam police for questioning. Though initially released, a “special team” of six policemen later picked them up again and began a night-long torture session across several secluded locations in and around Thiruppuvanam.

“He Collapsed in Front of Me”: The brother’s testimony

At around 4 am on June 28, Naveen Kumar, Ajith’s younger brother, was also picked up by the same special team. Naveen’s sworn statement to the Judicial Magistrate paints a harrowing picture of the ordeal. He recounted that Ajith was tied up and tortured in three locations:

• Near the Thiruppuvanam Veterinary Hospital
• Behind the Madapuram school hostel
• Near a lake behind the local bus depot

Under unbearable duress, Ajith falsely confessed that he knew where the missing gold was hidden. But when police took him to the spot, he broke down and admitted that he had lied—just to stop the beatings.

“He collapsed soon after,” Naveen told the magistrate, as per the TNM report, while adding that “They didn’t take us to a police station. They just drove us around all night, tying my brother’s hands and hitting me to make him confess”.

Ajith was taken to a private hospital, where doctors declared him brought dead.

High Court Slams Police: “Even a murderer would not inflict such injuries”

When the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reviewed the preliminary autopsy report on July 1, the reaction was damning. “Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused these many injuries,” observed Justices SM Subramaniam and AD Maria Clete. The Bench acknowledged that the state had “conceded the custodial death” and flagged the high risk of evidence tampering, especially of CCTV footage, by local police, as per the report of The Hindu.

Declaring the local police as “unsafe custodians”, the court ordered that all material evidence be placed under independent judicial custody. A judicial inquiry was also ordered under District Judge S. John Sundarlal Suresh, with findings due by July 8.

Arrests, revisions, and CBI transfer

Following public outrage and judicial scrutiny, five policemen—Raja, Anand, Sankaramanikandan, Praphu Ganesan, and Kannan—were arrested under Section 196(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which deals with custodial death, as reported by India Today.

Superintendent of Police Ashish Rawat was placed on compulsory wait, and DSP Shanumugasundaram of Manamadurai was suspended. Notably, the initial FIR, which absurdly claimed that Ajith “suffered a seizure while escaping custody”, was officially revised.

Under growing public pressure, Chief Minister MK Stalin transferred the investigation to the CBI. On July 2, Cooperation Minister KR Periyakaruppan visited Ajith’s family, handing over a technician job appointment letter to Naveen Kumar and a three-cent land patta and ₹5 lakh compensation to their mother Malathi.

Video evidence and witness intimidation

A shocking video showing Ajith being beaten with a stick while kneeling on the ground surfaced soon after his death. The footage was recorded by M Sakthiswaran, a 34-year-old temple worker from Madapuram, who later submitted it to the authorities.

In a letter dated July 2 to the DGP, Sakthiswaran claimed that he and other eyewitnesses were facing serious threats to their lives, particularly from S Raja, one of the accused officers. “We feel guilty for not protecting Ajith. I’m unable to sleep at night,” he wrote, requesting armed protection for himself and other witnesses in the Mayipuram area, according to the TNM report.

Not an Isolated Case: Another video, another assault

Even as the state was grappling with outrage over Ajith’s murder, another case of police brutality surfaced from Kacharapalayam police station in Kallakurichi district. A video showed a youth named Vicky being beaten inside the station on June 6.

The sequence began when Vicky’s aunt Malar approached police after her husband, Jayapal, returned from Dubai in deteriorated health. When she was ignored, Vicky confronted the police, only to be assaulted, as captured on video. Jayapal later died in hospital, as reported in The Hindu Tamil.

A pattern of brutality, a wall of impunity

Ajith Kumar’s death marks the 24^th custodial death in Tamil Nadu since the DMK came to power in 2021, according to civil society groups. Official data, however, remain lower- 13 deaths between 2020 and 2023, according to a response in the Lok Sabha, as reported by India Today.

But this is part of a national crisis. Between 2016 and 2022, Tamil Nadu recorded 490 custodial deaths, the highest in the South. Across India, 11,656 deaths in police or judicial custody were reported in the same period.

Despite this, not a single police officer in India was convicted for custodial death between 2017 and 2022, as per the report. Of 345 judicial inquiries, only 123 arrests and 79 chargesheets followed—but zero convictions.

Further, Scheduled Castes remain disproportionately affected. As of December 31, 2022, 38.5% of detenues in Tamil Nadu were SC, even though they represent just 20% of the population.

A colonial legacy, a reform deferred

Congress MP Karti Chidambaram called Ajith’s death the latest reminder of India’s colonial policing legacy. “The police are still using third-degree methods inherited from British rule,” he told India Today TV. “This is not about DMK or AIADMK. This is a national crisis”, Chidambaram added.

He called for systemic training in sensitivity and accountability, beginning from constables to DGPs, and urged the Centre to mandate nationwide police reforms.

Conclusion: A brutal system on autopilot

Ajith Kumar’s death is not just an aberration, rather it is a chilling reminder that police brutality in India operates without oversight, without consequence, and often without shame. Until the legal system guarantees institutional accountability, ensures protection for witnesses, and criminalises custodial torture, the cycle of violence and impunity will continue. Justice in Ajith’s case, if it comes at all, will only matter if it helps break that cycle.

Related:

Justice Deferred: J&K High Court stays repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported after Pahalgam attack, following MHA appeal

How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated

Bombay High Court orders FIR in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case, slams police for delay and bias

The post “Even a Murderer Wouldn’t Do This”: Ajith Kumar’s custodial death and Tamil Nadu’s shameful culture of impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the report of Hindustan Times, a division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh directed the Mondha Police Station to register the FIR within one week based on a complaint filed by Somnath’s mother, Vijayabai Suryawanshi, and asked the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, to transfer the case to an officer of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) rank. The bench also took strong exception to the delay in registration of the FIR, despite the presence of post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports that collectively indicated that Somnath had suffered grievous injuries in custody.

Background and arrest

Somnath Suryawanshi, a final-year law student from Pune, had travelled to Parbhani to appear for his examination when he was caught in the aftermath of large-scale protests that erupted on December 10, 2024. The protests were sparked by the desecration of a glass-encased replica of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, an act that allegedly followed a public meeting organised by the Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha, a far-right outfit. Police launched sweeping arrests following the violence, picking up over 50 men and women, most of them from marginalised and Dalit communities.

Somnath was allegedly detained on December 11, and according to police accounts, he died on December 15, four days later, after collapsing inside the Parbhani Central Prison. Authorities claimed he had complained of chest pain and was shifted to a state-run hospital, where he was declared dead.

However, this narrative was forcefully challenged in a writ petition filed by his mother in April 2025, alleging that her son had been brutally tortured in custody, and that the police had tried to cover up the custodial killing. Her legal team, led by advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, argued for immediate FIR registration, suspension of the concerned officers, and the formation of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Postmortem and magisterial inquiry findings

A magisterial inquiry, concluded on March 20, 2025, unequivocally held the police responsible for Somnath’s death, confirming multiple instances of custodial violence. His post-mortem report documented 24 visible external injuries and several internal injuries, concluding that the cause of death was “shock due to multiple injuries.” The inquest report too noted visible trauma on the body.

Despite these findings, the police failed to initiate criminal proceedings against their own personnel. In her petition, Vijayabai also alleged that police officer Ashok Ghorband had offered her ₹50 lakh to not file a complaint against the department. She accused the police of acting out of caste-based hatred, and demanded full disclosure of the magisterial report and an impartial probe.

April 29, 2025: High Court intervenes

In a significant first intervention, the Aurangabad Bench on April 29, 2025, expressed grave concern over the direction of the ongoing police-led investigation. The court observed that the inquiry appeared to be conducted with a “preconceived notion,” undermining the credibility of the process. It restrained the police from proceeding further with the investigation, pending further review, and set the next hearing for May 8, emphasising the need to safeguard the integrity of the process.

The restraint order marked a serious judicial rebuke and indicated that the court was unwilling to let the same police force accused of custodial violence investigate the case unilaterally. (Detailed report may be read here.)

May 8, 2025: Ongoing scrutiny

At the subsequent hearing on May 8, the court continued to press for accountability and demanded updated records, while public prosecutor A.B. Girase, appearing for the state, maintained that no illegality had occurred and that the CID-led probe was ongoing. The petitioner’s counsel rejected this, arguing that continuing the investigation under the same agency—despite it being accused—was a violation of basic legal norms and natural justice.

Advocate Hitendra Gandhi cited the 2023 Badlapur custodial death case as a precedent, where the Bombay High Court had constituted an SIT to probe the custodial killing of Akshay Shinde, an accused in a sexual assault case who was allegedly killed in a staged encounter. The court in that case had allowed Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam, to constitute his own team, drawing officers from any department of his choosing.

July 4, 2025: FIR ordered, CID criticised

At the July 4 hearing, the court finally ordered the mandatory registration of an FIR, noting that the post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports provided sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant criminal proceedings. The bench also criticised the CID for seeking a second medical opinion from JJ Hospital in Mumbai, bypassing the original seven-member autopsy team, calling the move suspicious and unnecessary.

“The post-mortem report shows that there were 24 visible injuries. Of course, there are internal injuries also,” the court observed, as per the HT report. It questioned why such strong medical findings had not yet translated into criminal proceedings.

Public prosecutor Girase again argued against premature FIR registration, claiming the inquiry was still incomplete. The bench, however, rejected this argument, noting that continuing delay in the face of clear evidence amounted to obstruction of justice.

Towards judicial accountability in custodial deaths

The High Court’s categorical order to file an FIR, its castigation of the CID, and its early restraint on a biased probe mark a significant step in holding law enforcement accountable for custodial deaths, particularly those involving caste-based violence. The court’s observations also signal growing judicial impatience with institutional delays and systemic obfuscation in such cases.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2025. The outcome could have wide-ranging implications for custodial death jurisprudence in Maharashtra, and may set a precedent for mandatory independent probes in all such incidents. If an SIT is constituted under judicial supervision, it could strengthen demands for structural reforms in how police misconduct, especially involving vulnerable communities, is investigated and prosecuted.

Related:

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

The post Bombay High Court orders FIR in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case, slams police for delay and bias appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.

Somnath Suryawanshi, a 35-year-old aspirant who had travelled from Pune to Parbhani to appear for a law entrance examination, was among the 50 individuals detained by the Parbhani police on December 11 and 12, 2024, in connection with the violence that erupted after the desecration of a replica of the Constitution on December 10. Suryawanshi was allegedly picked up by the police on December 11. He died four days later, on December 15, while in judicial custody. According to police accounts, he collapsed due to shock from multiple injuries and was taken to a government hospital after complaining of chest pain inside the Parbhani district central prison.

However, a magisterial inquiry concluded on March 20, 2025, had clearly held the police responsible for Suryawanshi’s custodial death. In response, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission had issued notices to top state officials, including the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Additional Director General of Police (CID – Crime), and the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Parbhani, seeking comprehensive reports.

Representing the petitioner Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, the deceased’s mother, advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by advocates Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, strongly argued for immediate registration of an FIR against the police officers allegedly responsible. The petitioner further demanded the constitution of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure an independent and impartial probe into the custodial death. Advocate Gandhi questioned the credibility of a police-led inquiry in a case where the police are themselves accused, asserting that continuing the current investigation would only further erode public trust in the system.

Drawing parallels with the precedent set in the 2023 Badlapur custodial death case, where the Bombay High Court had ordered an SIT to probe the custodial killing of Akshay Shinde—an accused in a sexual assault case allegedly killed in a staged encounter—advocate Gandhi urged the court to issue similar directions in Suryawanshi’s case. In the Badlapur matter, Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale had ordered an SIT led by Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam, and allowed him to form his own team, led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police, with officers from any department of his choosing.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, public prosecutor A.B. Girase, representing the Maharashtra government, informed the court that the state intends to file an affidavit in response to the concerns raised.

The court’s restraint order, along with its strong observations, underscores a growing judicial intolerance toward the mishandling of custodial death investigations. It also signals a potential shift towards stricter judicial oversight in such cases. If the court accedes to the petitioner’s demand for an SIT and guidelines for handling custodial deaths, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for accountability mechanisms in police custody cases across the state.

Related:

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

The post Biased and Preconceived: Bombay HC criticises police inquiry into Parbhani custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three-volume report of the Magisterial Inquiry that runs into 451 pages, was taken cognisance of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) which stated at its hearing on March 20 that it had clubbed multiple complaints concerning the incident to “avoid conflicting orders”. As reported in The Times of India and The Hindu, the MSHRC following the March 20 hearing has stated, “Perusal of the report of the magisterial inquiry shows that the Ld. judicial magistrate has concluded that Somnath Vyankat Suryawanshi was assaulted at police station.”

Apart from the stark case of death in custody related to Somnath Suryawanshi that is being heard by the MSHRC, allegations of police lawlessness included the brute handling of women and minors during combing operations following an incident of “desecration of the Preamble” on Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s statute on December 10. Combing operations began on December 11 itself and thereafter police took close to three dozen persons into custody. It was late on December 14 that Somnath was transferred to judicial custody. There were severe marks on his person and those of others detained. Thereafter, Suryavanshi developed chest pain and breathing difficulties, leading to his death on Dec 15 at a hospital. A panel of medical officers performed a post-mortem, with the provisional report stating the cause of death as “shock following multiple injuries”. The post-mortem findings and CCTV camera footage gathered during the investigation were instrumental in establishing police involvement in the assault.

The magisterial report may also contain remedial steps taken in the matter and the compensation, if any, quantified by the state in the matter, stated the MSHRC. The Commission then issued notices to the state government and police officials, seeking their response on the findings. Besides, MSHRC also stated, as reported in sections of the media, that the report of additional director general and Prabhani superintendent of police (CID) must contain the progress of inquiry into the accidental death case and consequent registration of the crime in the matter. The matter will be next heard on June 23.

On January 23, an independent fact-finding report had been released by citizens, backed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), uncovering a series of human rights violations and police atrocities in Parbhani, Maharashtra following the desecration of a Constitution replica on December 10, 2024. The incidents, marked by custodial violence, caste-based discrimination, and administrative failures, have shaken the conscience of the nation. The report, compiled by a team of legal experts, activists, and journalists, painted a sombre picture of systemic injustice against Dalit communities. The report is titledUnfettered Police Brutalities: PARBHANI –Fact-Finding Report on Allegations of Brute, Unlawful & Anti-Constitutional Conduct by Parbhani Police (December 10-15, 2024). “The report documents harrowing accounts of police combing operations in Dalit-majority areas like Bhim Nagar, Priyadarshini Nagar, and Sarang Nagar. Residents reported police breaking into homes, assaulting men and women, including minors and elderly individuals, and using caste-based slurs. Women recounted instances of extreme violence, including injuries on their private parts, and detainees were allegedly tortured in custody with blows to their feet and palms to conceal visible injuries. The brute violence and unchecked brutalities displayed by police during the beatings of women and the young in their homes during the combing operations and after that in custody have violated all laws and statutes including directions by the Supreme Court on police conduct towards those in custody.”

Now, in the latest developments, the MSHRC has issued notice to officers concerned, based on the magistrate’s findings. The MSHRC chairperson Justice A M Badar and its member Sanjay Kumar issued the directive after relying on and citing Parbhani judicial magistrate’s investigation report, seeking responses from chief secretary and senior officers over the issue, indicating that the magistrate “had indicted police officials in the custodial death of Somnath Venkat Suryawanshi.” According to the magistrate, Parbhani police officials named in his report are responsible for the custodial death of Suryawanshi, it added.

Suryavanshi’s brother, accompanied by his mother, appeared before the Commission and said they want to appoint their preferred advocate to pursue their complaint before the MSHRC. Earlier, the Suryavanshi family had declined a compensation of Rs 10 lakh offered by state govt. They had expressed disappointment over the token act of a mere suspension of the police personnel involved in the matter and had demanded that all 12 criminal complaints sought to be filed by the victim Dalit community including two by Vijayatai Suryawanshi, Somnath’s mother be registered as FIRs. They have also demanded that a case of culpable homicide be registered against the officers.

Related:

Fact-Finding report on Parbhani violence raises serious questions

Unfettered police brutalities in Parbhani

The post Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On January 20, 2025, Irfan, a 40-year-old resident of Sambhal, was detained by police following a complaint alleging non-repayment of a loan. Within hours of his detention, Irfan passed away. His family alleged that he was denied access to essential medications despite informing the police of his critical condition. They accused the authorities of custodial torture, a claim denied by the police, who asserted that Irfan suffered a heart attack and cited CCTV footage as evidence.

Eyewitnesses, including Irfan’s son, reported that the police ignored repeated pleas to allow Irfan to take his medication. His wife, Reshma, stated that the family had informed the officers of Irfan’s heart condition, yet their concerns were dismissed. This negligence was highlighted as not just an operational lapse but a systemic disregard for detainee rights and basic humanity. Testimonies from neighbours and community members described Irfan as a law-abiding individual whose arrest and subsequent death were deeply shocking for the local population

Medical reports submitted by the family suggested pre-existing cardiac ailments, further calling into question the police’s decision to ignore his health condition. Legal experts pointed out that procedural safeguards under the BNSS (earlier CrPC) and the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) were blatantly ignored. No medical evaluation was conducted before taking him into custody, a critical violation of NHRC mandates.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Quint (@thequint)

The custodial death unfolded in a state notorious for its high incidence of such cases. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Uttar Pradesh leads in custodial fatalities, pointing to systemic lapses in police accountability and adherence to legal procedures.

Outrage and protests

The news of Irfan’s death spread rapidly, sparking widespread public outrage in Sambhal. Hundreds of locals, activists, and political leaders gathered outside the Raisatti police outpost, demanding justice and accountability for what they termed an egregious instance of custodial torture. The protesters carried banners and chanted slogans, urging an independent investigation into the incident. Allegations of inhumane treatment, including the denial of essential medical care, intensified public anger. Eyewitnesses described how the police abandoned the outpost as tensions escalated, leaving it temporarily unmanned. Law enforcement reinforcements, including personnel from the Rapid Action Force, were eventually deployed to manage the situation and restore order.

Political reactions amplified the significance of the protests. Akhilesh Yadav, president of the Samajwadi Party, denounced the custodial death, calling it a “dark stain on the rule of law” under the BJP-led government. He accused the administration of institutionalizing impunity for police excesses. Similarly, Chandra Shekhar Azad, leader of the Bhim Army, pointed to a disturbing trend of custodial deaths disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. He demanded immediate action against the responsible officers and called for systemic police reforms to address such incidents.

Community leaders emphasized that the protests in Sambhal reflected deeper grievances among minority groups, who view custodial deaths as symbolic of institutional bias. Activists highlighted the disproportionately high number of such incidents in Uttar Pradesh, noting that these acts erode trust in law enforcement, especially in minority-dominated areas. The protests became a rallying cry for justice, drawing attention to broader issues of systemic inequities and police misconduct

Judicial commission’s investigation

In response to widespread public pressure and growing national scrutiny, the Uttar Pradesh government established a judicial commission to investigate the custodial death of Irfan and other recent incidents of violence in Sambhal. Headed by retired High Court judge Devendra Arora, the commission visited the region to conduct a thorough inquiry into the events. The investigation aimed to uncover procedural lapses and examine whether Irfan’s fundamental rights were violated during his detention.

The commission undertook multiple tasks, including recording statements from Irfan’s family, community members, and local law enforcement officers. It also reviewed medical evidence, including post-mortem reports, which suggested discrepancies in the police’s official narrative. Reports highlighted a lack of adherence to mandatory procedures, such as the requirement for medical evaluation upon arrest, which is stipulated under the NHRC guidelines and the CrPC (now BNSS).

In addition to investigating Irfan’s case, the commission also expanded its mandate to review broader issues of police conduct in Sambhal. This included an examination of the November 24, 2024, riots, which erupted during a controversial land survey near the Shahi Jama Masjid. Witnesses testified that police inaction and delayed intervention exacerbated communal tensions, leading to widespread violence and property damage. Many residents alleged that the authorities selectively targeted certain communities during the subsequent crackdown..

Systemic concerns and broader implications

The custodial violence in Sambhal is not an isolated incident but a reflection of systemic issues that plague law enforcement across the country. For instance, the case of Somnath Suryavanshi in Parbhani, Maharashtra, on December 15, 2024, mirrors similar patterns. Suryavanshi, a 35-year-old Dalit activist, was arrested following communal violence triggered by the desecration of a replica of the Constitution. While in judicial custody, he complained of chest pain and died shortly thereafter in a state-run hospital. His family alleged police brutality, claiming he was targeted for his Dalit identity and activism. This led to widespread protests, with political leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, asserting that Suryavanshi’s death was a “cent per cent custodial death.” The protests intensified demands for justice and highlighted recurring instances of misuse of power by law enforcement agencies, especially against marginalized communities. These incidents underline the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure accountability and prevent custodial violence from becoming a normalized aspect of governance

Legal framework governing custodial deaths and torture

The legal implications of custodial torture and deaths in India highlight critical gaps in both legislative enforcement and systemic accountability. Drawing from constitutional mandates, criminal law provisions, and NHRC guidelines, custodial violence remains a grave violation of human rights and judicial directives. Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines the right to life and personal liberty, encompassing protection against inhumane treatment. This is supplemented by Article 22, which provides procedural safeguards during arrest and detention. Yet, these constitutional guarantees are undermined by systemic abuse.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the CrPC, introduces critical procedural safeguards to address such violations. Section 196 mandates a magisterial inquiry in cases involving custodial deaths or rapes, emphasizing the role of judicial or metropolitan magistrates over executive magistrates to ensure impartiality. Section 194 empowers district magistrates to conduct inquests, highlighting the increasing responsibility of civil authorities in ensuring transparent investigations. These provisions align with prior guidelines under Section 176(1A) of the CrPC but aim to bridge enforcement gaps by centralizing accountability within the judicial framework.

NHRC guidelines further reinforce this by mandating independent autopsies, immediate reporting of deaths, and time-bound investigations. However, despite these safeguards, the enforcement remains lacklustre. Data reveals that over five custodial deaths occur daily, underscoring the persistent misuse of authority by law enforcement agencies.

Judicial precedents have consistently emphasized the importance of due process in custodial situations. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent custodial torture, mandating arrest memos, family notifications, and access to legal representation. Similarly, in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 SCC (3) 488, the apex court decried the use of third-degree methods and indiscriminate handcuffing, terming them violative of Articles 21 and 19.

The lack of adherence to these safeguards in cases like Sambhal and Parbhani not only underscores institutional bias but also highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms. It is imperative that police training incorporates a human rights perspective and that civil society acts as a watchdog to bridge enforcement gaps. Furthermore, India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention against Torture reflects a broader reluctance to institutionalize accountability mechanisms at the international level. This reluctance, coupled with the rising trend of custodial violence, demands immediate legislative and administrative intervention to safeguard the dignity and rights of individuals.

Related:

Rising Concerns as Incidents of Custodial Deaths of Dalits and Muslims Continue Unabated

Custodial deaths highest in Gujarat over 5 years; jails overcrowded

A Muslim man in Hyderabad detained on suspicion of theft reportedly subjected to custodial torture for 5 days

The post Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The entire tragedy at Parbhani, marked by violent police atrocities and custodial torture, was mitigated, in part, by the timely intervention of senior activists, their legal teams, and local journalists. As the combing operations began, Advocate Pavan Jhondhale and his colleagues swiftly made their way to the police station, where they encountered the terrified families of the victims, who were visibly cowering in fear. Advocate Jhondhale, speaking to SabrangIndia, recounted the chilling scene: “We could hear screams of pain coming from inside the locker room when we were at the police station after the combing operations.”

Advocate Jhondhale highlighted how the advocates were being stopped from meeting the victims. He stated“Following this, they visited the affected areas and made contact with the victims. On December 12, when the victims—seen as accused by the police—were brought to court, their injuries were unmistakable: bleeding, swollen limbs, and other visible signs of torture. The police’s behaviour at the Magistrates Court was hostile. They blocked the advocates from meeting the victims, erecting barricades to prevent communication. This occurred on December 12.”

Sharing how the victims of custodial torture, even after being presented to the court, could not express their pain and abuse that they were facing, Advocate Jhondhale said “Earlier, at the police station, the team had gathered details of the FIRs and the sections under which the victims had been booked. In FIR 590, 27 individuals had been arrested, while in FIR 591, 5 were detained. The advocates requested that the Magistrate ask the accused if they had any complaints about their treatment in police custody. However, out of sheer fear, the victims did not respond. The advocates urged the Magistrate to ask them again, as there were clear signs of injury.”

“When the Magistrate asked again, they still could not detail their treatment, out of intimidation,” Advocate Jhondhale explained. This led Advocate More, his colleague, to argue against extending the police remand due to the ill-treatment the victims had endured. Despite the compelling evidence, the court granted two more days of police custody.

Advocate Jhondhale  stressed on how the conditions of the victims worsened during the next two days that they spent in police custody, “On December 14, the advocates appeared in court again, and by this time, the condition of those who had been arrested had significantly worsened. It was then that the Magistrate ordered the victims to be transferred to Magistrate Custody (MCR). On December 15, a Sunday, all of the victims, including Somnath Suryawanshi, were transferred to MCR. Later that evening, the heartbreaking news came that Somnath Suryawanshi had died.”

While dealing with the fact that Somnath Suryawanshi died due to custodial torture, the team of advocates was also tasked with ensuring that the truth of how Somnath died gets documented and fair procedure is followed. Advocate Jhondhale said “Arguably, had the police custody remand (PCR) not been extended so routinely, a life might not have been lost. The advocates, in their efforts to seek justice, were also directed to the Sessions Court. On the very day of Somnath Suryawanshi’s death, December 15, Advocate Jhondhale provided that they had urgently requested an In Camera post-mortem and forensic examination to be conducted on Suryawanshi not in Parbhani, but in Shambhajinagat (Aurangabad). To ensure this, the advocates had to take the issue of the alleged death in police custody directly to the District Collector at her residential quarters on Sunday evening. They presented the guidelines and cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their demand. As a result of their persistent efforts, the transfer was finally ordered.”

Speaking to the SabrangIndia team, Advocate Pavan Jhondhale was categorical that it was this proactiveness that mitigated what could have turned out to be a far worse situation on the ground. His timely intervention, alongside the efforts of his colleagues and the local community, played a crucial role in addressing the police atrocities and ensuring that the victims’ suffering did not go unnoticed. Without this vigilance and persistence, the situation could have spiraled into something even more tragic.

Notably it was the combined legal and activist efforts of Pavan Jhondhale, Vijay Kale, Mahendra More, Imtiaz Khan, Vishwanath Anbhure, Vijay Sable that ensured some semblance of return to rule of law, in Parbhani post December 10, 2024.

Demands for a judicial inquiry have been made by the local affected population since December 17. In addition to the violent crackdown, several of those who reportedly are either residents of Parbhani or those who were peaceful protesting the desecration of the Constitution on December 10 were arrested on false charges. Among those arrested was Somnath Suryawanshi who succumbed to injuries allegedly inflicted in police custody after he had moved to judicial custody. Speaking to Sabrangindia on the status of the Ambedkarite protestors arrested on charges of rioting, advocate and activist, Rahul Pradhan Pradhan revealed that 26 individuals had been granted bail by the Sessions Court on December 18 and were expected to be released soon. However, five accused remain in jail, though none of them are women or minors.

न्यायासाठी आंदोलन थांबलेले नाही.
परभणी येथे आजपासून “न्याय आंदोलन” सुरू झाले असून परभणीतील सर्व आंबेडकरी समाज पक्षभेद, मतभेद सोडून साखळी आंदोलन करत आहे.

मी ही स्वतः आज या आंदोलनात सहभागी झालो. जो पर्यंत मुख्यमंत्री फडणवीस दोषी पोलिसांवर खुनाचे गुन्हे दाखल करणार नाहीत, तोपर्यंत… pic.twitter.com/oXhhYGt0vt

— Rahul Pradhan – राहूल प्रधान (@RahulPradhan84) December 19, 2024

Opposition protests, growing public discontent with the state government

The custodial death and the sarpanch’s murder became focal points for the opposition during the winter session of the Maharashtra legislature. Members of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), including the Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP, staged a walkout accusing the government of neglecting law and order. Congress leader Nitin Raut criticised the police and the administration, stating, “The interim medical report confirms police brutality. This is a gross failure of governance, and the government must act immediately to ensure justice.”

सोमनाथ सूर्यवंशीचा पोलीस कोठडीतील मृत्यू अमानुष मारहाणीमुळेच

कायद्याचा विद्यार्थी असलेल्या सोमनाथ सूर्यवंशीची कस्टडी डेथ पोलिसांनी केलेल्या अमाणूष मारहाणीमुळेच झाली. त्यामुळे सूर्यवंशीच्या मृत्यूला जबाबदार असणाऱ्या पोलिसांवर तातडीने गुन्हा दाखल करण्याची मागणी आज सभागृहात केली.… pic.twitter.com/a3wsZzZiD8

— Dr. Nitin Raut (@NitinRaut_INC) December 18, 2024

Speaking in the Assembly, Raut raised the issue of brutality against Dali women by male officers as well. He also took to social media and stated “After the desecration of the Constitution in Parbhani, the police administration took the precautions that should have been taken while this was happening. The police have lathi-charged Buddhists, Bhim Sainiks and those protecting the Constitution. The police have beaten up the mother of a one-and-a-half-month-old child in her house. All this is an outrage. The government demanded in the House to immediately register a case against the guilty police officers and take action.”

परभणीत संविधान विटंबना झाली यानंतर जो काय प्रकार घडला, हे प्रकार घडत असताना पोलीस प्रशासनाने जी दक्षता घ्यायला पाहिजे होती ती घेण्यात आली. बौद्ध लोकांना, भीमसैनिकांना आणि संविधानाचे रक्षण करणाऱ्यांवर पोलिसांनी लाठीचार्ज केला आहे. सव्वा महिन्याच्या मुलाच्या आईला घरात पोलिसांनी… pic.twitter.com/tVkzce2xwT

— Dr. Nitin Raut (@NitinRaut_INC) December 19, 2024

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Ambadas Danve expressed similar concerns, emphasising that the right to protest was being suppressed under the current regime. Congress MLA Nana Patole argued that the government’s mismanagement of the Parbhani violence and the Beed murder had heightened tensions across the state. Speaker Rahul Narwekar, however, rejected an adjournment motion to discuss these issues immediately, stating that the matter would be taken up later, leading to further outrage among opposition members.

The dual tragedies have led to mounting public anger, with activists, residents, and political leaders demanding accountability. In Parbhani, local residents staged protests alleging that the police crackdown disproportionately targeted Dalit communities. In Beed, Maratha leaders accused the administration of failing to address growing caste tensions.

Activists have raised contentions that the incidents highlight systemic flaws in governance, including police overreach, caste discrimination, and ineffective conflict resolution mechanisms. Opposition parties have called for judicial inquiries into both cases and immediate reforms to prevent such incidents in the future.

Protests and police brutality

The backdrop of these protests lies in the desecration of the Constitution on December 10, an incident that initially led to peaceful demonstrations by Ambedkarite groups. However, according to reports of eye-witnesses from the ground, these protests escalated into violence—an outcome many believe stemmed from law enforcement’s deliberate inaction. Advocate and  activist Rahul Pradhan, who has been on the ground in Parbhani since the incident, told SabrangIndia that the narrative pushed by the police does not reflect the truth. According to Pradhan, the Ambedkarite protests were entirely peaceful and concluded amicably after discussions between protest leaders—including activists Vijay Wakode, Sudhir Salve, and Ravi Kamble—and the police. He emphasised that the violence that later unfolded was not instigated by Ambedkarites but by unknown outsiders who engaged in arson, rioting, and stone pelting while the police stood by as passive onlookers.

Pradhan accused the police of enabling the violence, alleging that law enforcement allowed the hooligans to wreak havoc unchecked for hours. He noted that it wasn’t until the late evening of December 11 that the police began arresting individuals—but shockingly, their focus was on Ambedkarite activists who had peacefully protested rather than the actual perpetrators of the violence. “It seemed as if the police had an agenda, some instructions from above, and they were working according to it,” Pradhan stated.

The arrests of Ambedkarites were part of what Pradhan described as a targeted “combing operation” in Dalit and Buddhist-majority settlements. Such operations typically involve searching areas for individuals accused of cognisable offences, but in this case, the execution was brutal and indiscriminate. Pradhan and other activists recounted chilling accounts of police brutality during these raids, with men, women, and even children reportedly beaten savagely.

The horrors inflicted on these communities are deeply disturbing. Women were not spared, with male police officers allegedly assaulting them in particularly degrading and inhumane ways. Pradhan narrated the ordeal of a woman who had delivered a baby just a month prior—she was reportedly beaten without mercy. In another instance, police officers allegedly grabbed a woman by her hair, stood on her thighs, and struck her with sticks. Independent journalist Sharmistha Bhosale, who has been documenting the aftermath, shared harrowing images of the victims, corroborating these allegations of police excesses.

Rahul Pradhan’s accounts lay bare a grim reality: these raids were not about maintaining law and order but appeared to target Dalit and Buddhist communities in a manner that suggests systemic bias and state complicity. The violence unleashed by the police has left these communities traumatised, with many continuing to demand accountability and justice for the atrocities they endured. Suryawanshi’s death and the events that followed stand as a stark reminder of the deep-seated inequalities and institutional failures that plague the justice system in India. The outrage and protests sweeping Maharashtra are not just calls for justice for one man but a cry against the entrenched caste-based oppression and unchecked state violence that has gone on for far too long.

Sharmistha Bhosale, an independent journalist, also reporting from Parbhani, also shared her perspective with SabrangIndia, expressing deep anguish over the brutality inflicted upon the Dalit community, particularly women. “The way these people, especially the women, have been brutalised is beyond imagination. The targeted individuals are daily wage workers. Male police officers have, with impunity, used excessive force against Ambedkarites. Would male police inflict such gendered violence on women, even older women without the impunity born of political protection,” she asked. Sharmistha Bhosale shared exclusive photographs from Parbhani with Sabrangindia.

Advocate and activist Rahul Pradhan raised serious questions about the conduct of the police and their one-sided investigation into the Parbhani incident. According to Pradhan, the authorities are deliberately diverting attention away from the desecration of the Constitution, which initially triggered the protests. “Why have the police not checked the CCTV footage from the area where the desecration occurred? Did the perpetrator drop from heaven? Why is there no investigation against him?” he asked, pointing to glaring omissions in the police’s approach.

Pradhan also criticised the government for its inaction against the police officers involved. He argued that the absence of suspensions, transfers, or any punitive measures suggests tacit state support for the excessive use of force. “Even after the death of one Dalit man in custody and allegations of mass brutalisation, the government has taken no action against the police. If the state were not backing the excessive use of force against the marginalised, why would it stay quiet till now?” Pradhan remarked.

Pradhan, along with other activists, has demanded an independent judicial investigation into the entire series of events in Parbhani, beginning with the desecration of the Constitution and its underlying causes. He attributed the act of desecration to a climate of hate speeches prevalent in the area. Additionally, he called for the registration of an FIR against the erring police officers, including charges of custodial torture and murder in the case of Somnath Suryawanshi.

The demands for justice—ranging from a transparent investigation to accountability for the police—highlight the systemic flaws in how marginalised communities are treated by law enforcement and the state. The Parbhani incident is not merely a local tragedy but a reflection of a larger pattern of oppression and impunity that continues to plague India’s justice system.

“They took my son’s life” says deceased Somnath Suryawanshi’s mother

Under the scorching December sun in Parbhani, Vijaya Venkat Suryavanshi mourned the death of her eldest son, Somnath Suryavanshi, a 35-year-old law student from the marginalised Vadar community. Speaking to BBC Marathi, Vijaya recounted the heartbreak of losing her son while he was in judicial custody. “They deliberately took my son away. They beat him up and took his life. Then they called me to tell me he was gone,” she said, holding back tears. Somnath had travelled to Parbhani to take an exam but was arrested by the police in connection with the violence that erupted in the city on December 11. The police claim Somnath died of a heart attack, but the family strongly disputes this, pointing to the autopsy report that lists “shock following multiple injuries” as the cause of death.

The violence began after the desecration of a copy of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. Protests led by Ambedkarite groups culminated in a citywide bandh that escalated into stone-pelting and arson. Somnath, according to his family, had no involvement in the unrest but was arrested on December 11. He was held in police custody for two days before being transferred to judicial custody. By December 15, he was dead. The Suryavanshi family alleges that Somnath was subjected to severe custodial torture, with his brother Premnath detailing how the police “stripped him and beat him for days, trying to keep him alive with medical treatment until he succumbed.”

BBC Marathi’s on-ground reporting revealed accounts from Bhimnagar residents, who described widespread police brutality in the aftermath of the violence. Sudhakar Jadhav, a kidney patient recovering at home, claimed the police forcibly entered his house, dragged him and his son outside, and beat them ruthlessly. “They beat my son so much that his skin peeled off. The marks of their sticks are still visible on his back and thighs,” he said. Women in the area also alleged that they were assaulted, with one blind woman recounting how her son was beaten on his back and head. Activists from the Ambedkar movement accused the police of conducting targeted combing operations in Ambedkarite and Buddhist settlements, indiscriminately attacking residents, including women and children.

Rahul Pradhan asserted that the police “created terror” in these settlements under the guise of maintaining order. Vijay Wakode, another activist, accused the police of orchestrating Somnath’s death, alleging, “They beat him for two days in police custody and continued the assault in judicial custody.” Wakode himself passed away from a heart attack on December 16, adding another layer of tragedy to the unfolding events. Notably, Wakode had also been booked for rioting by the police.

Despite the mounting allegations, Special Inspector General Shahaji Umap dismissed claims of combing operations or misconduct. In a statement to BBC Marathi, Umap maintained that only individuals involved in the December 11 violence were detained and denied reports of police raids in residential areas. On Somnath’s death, Umap refrained from making further comments, suggesting that the medical report would provide definitive answers. There is however no response on the violence inflicted and injuries suffered by victims, evident from not just the post-morten but strong eye-witness accounts.

The Suryavanshi family and the residents of Bhimnagar continue to demand justice, accusing the police of unchecked brutality and systemic targeting of marginalised communities. This case has reignited concerns over custodial violence in India, with activists calling for accountability and reform to address the institutional impunity that enables such incidents. BBC Marathi’s detailed coverage sheds light on the devastating consequences of this alleged abuse of power, offering a grim reminder of the cost of silence and inaction.

Parbhani: Custodial death of a Dalit man

The unrest in Parbhani began on December 10 when a replica of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar was vandalised. The desecration led to widespread protests by Dalit organisations, culminating in violence and clashes with the police on December 11. Incidents of stone-pelting and arson were reported, prompting the police to arrest several individuals. Among those arrested was 35-year-old Dalit law student Somnath Suryawanshi, who had reportedly returned to Parbhani to appear for an exam.

Somnath was taken into police custody on December 12 and subsequently transferred to judicial custody after having spent two days in police custody. On December 15, he complaint of chest pain, and when taken to the hospital was declared dead, with an interim postmortem report stating that the cause of death was “shock following multiple injuries.” His family alleged that he was subjected to severe custodial torture, with his brother, Premnath Suryawanshi, stating, “Somnath had nothing to do with the protests. He was beaten for days until he succumbed to his injuries.” Activists have accused the police of targeting Dalit settlements in the aftermath of the protests against the desecration of the Constitution, claiming that innocent people, including women and children, were subjected to violence during combing operations.

Detailed report on the same may be read here.

Beed: Murder of a Maratha sarpanch raises caste tensions

In Massejeog village of Beed district, the kidnapping and murder of Maratha sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh on December 9 has also caused significant unrest. Deshmukh, known for his leadership in the Maratha community, was allegedly killed in a caste-related dispute. The prime accused, Vishnu Chate, belongs to the OBC-Vanjari community, which has historically been at odds with the Marathas over issues such as reservation and local dominance.

As per multiple reports, Deshmukh’s body was discovered on the highway, and initial reports suggested he was tortured before being killed. Opposition leaders criticised the delay in apprehending the main accused, with NCP MLA Sandeep Kshirsagar noting that despite an extortion case being filed, no murder charges had been officially registered. BJP MLA Namita Mundada from Kaij described Deshmukh as a respected community leader whose death had shocked the region.

Custodial Violence in Parbhani: Tragedy and allegations of police brutality

The custodial death of 35-year-old Dalit youth Somnath Suryawanshi in Parbhani and the kidnapping and murder of Maratha sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh in Beed have triggered widespread condemnation from various political parties, Dalit organisations, and social groups. Both incidents have exposed systemic governance failures and reignited debates on caste-based discrimination and police brutality in Maharashtra.

In Pune, the Matang Ekta Andolan and the Republican Party of India (RPI) organised protests in front of the district collector’s office. RPI leader Parshuram Wadekar called for an independent inquiry into the incidents and demanded stringent action against those found responsible. A Dalit organisation released a statement condemning police actions in Parbhani, claiming that the authorities conducted brutal search operations targeting Dalit youths and women after the protests. The statement read, “After Dalit youths agitated in Parbhani, the police conducted search operations and beat the youths and women. Action should be taken against those found guilty.”

Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) city president Prashant Jagtap announced agitations outside the Pune collector’s office, stating, “Both the Parbhani custodial death and Beed sarpanch murder reflect a breakdown of law and order. This government must be held accountable for failing to protect its citizens.”

Related:

No quality education without teaching equality, secularism, fraternity value: SC

Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character

Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC

The post State-sanctioned brutality? Dalit communities targeted in Parbhani “combing operations”, women, children abused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident Shebaz was accused of took place on Tuesday morning this week in the Katra area of the town when a group of thieves entered the home of Alok Gupta, a trader and assistant professor, according to the police. When the Gupta family resisted the suspects resorted to violence and began stabbing them with knives. Alok Gupta succumbed to his injuries while being treated in a neighbouring district, Bareilly. Other injured family members are still undergoing medical care.

After the murder of Gupta, the area was visibly agitated. Traders from the area mobilised in large numbers and gathered at the Gupta residence and demanded swift action from the police. The local traders’ union even threatened to shut down all shops in the vicinity. According to reports, the crowd has demanded for the houses of the accused to be demolished via bulldozer.

Here is a video from UP Tak showing the events.

पलट गई गाड़ी… हो गया एनकाउंटर!

शाहजहांपुर में प्रोफेसर आलोक गुप्ता की कथित तौर पर हत्या करने वाले शाहबाज का मुठभेड़ के दौरान यूपी पुलिस ने एनकाउंटर कर दिया है। जानिए क्या है पूरा मामला।#Shahjahanpur #UPPolice #Encounter pic.twitter.com/bTQSMF1CIn

— UP Tak (@UPTakOfficial) September 20, 2023

Inspector General of Police, Bareilly, Rakesh Singh arrived to address the crowd and reassured them of the strictest possible action against those responsible for the murder. Following this, the police arrested the suspect, Shahbaz, who was a resident of Mohalla Sarai in Katra. They also soon recovered the alleged murder weapon at his direction, according to Shahjahanpur Superintendent of Police Ashok Kumar Meena.

Shehbaz was being escorted to court following a medical examination on the evening of the incident when a stray animal blocked the path of the police jeep on a highway near Batlaiya village, causing the vehicle to lose balance. Inspector Meena recounted that police reinforcements were swiftly called in. During this, Shehbaz is said to have escaped the vehicle and tried to escape custody and also shot at the officers. Police have alleged that repeated warnings were issued to Shehbaz urging him to surrender. However, he allegedly opened fire on the police, prompting officers to return fire in self-defence. Local news reports also allege that a second suspect, Shehroz, was also injured in the firing. However, the police have denied this.

आज दिनाँक 19.09.23 को थाना कटरा क्षेत्र में हुई घटना के सम्बन्ध में श्री अशोक कुमार मीणा पुलिस अधीक्षक #shahjahanpurpol की बाईट । @Uppolice #UPPolice pic.twitter.com/Dd4YB4eib0

— SHAHJAHANPUR POLICE (@shahjahanpurpol) September 19, 2023

Therefore in this exchange of gunfire Shehbaz is said to have sustained injuries and was rushed to a community health centre where the doctors declared him brought dead. Shebaz was an e-rickshaw driver and is noted to have lived in a small sarai near the house of Alok Gupta.

An FIR has been filed at the Katra police station, invoking sections 307 (pertaining to attempted murder), 120B (related to criminal conspiracy), and 397 (involving robbery or dacoity with an intent to cause death or grievous harm) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

For the acts of the police, a reward of Rs 25,000 from the district police and an additional Rs 50,000 from the state government has been announced by the government.

The incident has left the public with questions arising about the circumstances surrounding Shehbaz’s death during police custody. Custodial violence and murders are not out of the ordinary. In fact, in India they are called colloquially as ‘encounters’. UP in particular has a particularly poor track record when it comes to extra judicial killings. According to a report by the Indian Express from last May 2023 an alarming number of killings have emerged in Uttar Pradesh since March 2017 when Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath assumed office. According to the newspaper, the state has witnessed a staggering 186 encounters during this period which has translated to more than one alleged fatal shooting by the police approximately every 15 days.

As per a Sabrang India report from July 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs has informed the Rajya Sabha about a troubling surge in custodial deaths nationwide. The data revealed a disturbing trend where custodial deaths have witnessed a staggering increase of over 60% in the past three years. Even more alarming is the fact that over the last two years, this increase has spiked to a concerning 75%. In Uttar Pradesh custodial deaths have in fact doubled in number.

The Centre also reported in 2021 the staggering figure of 1840 deaths in judicial custody and about a 100 in police custody nationwide, between 2020-21. What is further concerning is that the Muslims and Dalits, both falling at the lower rungs of society, are most vulnerable to violence. Inherent bias within the police has also been observed as about every second Indian cop thinks that Muslims are prone to crime. These disturbing figures have raised serious concerns about the law and order situation and the future of democratic rights in the country.

Related:

Death behind bars: Justice through the Indian Courts as cases spiral

Rising Concerns as Incidents of Custodial Deaths of Dalits and Muslims Continue

Hyderabad: Muslim man allegedly subjected to custodial torture on “suspicion of theft” for 5 days, dies in hospital

Young Muslim labourer allegedly dies 30 minutes after release from custody

The post Police shoot dead a Muslim man in custody appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 6, almost after 19 days after Vignesh’s custodial death, Central Bureau of Criminal Investigation Division (CB-CID) arrested two policemen – constable Ponraj and writer Munaf on charges of murder. The custodial torture and death case was converted into a murder case, based on the autopsy report of the 25-year-old deceased.

The custodial death case of Vignesh was transferred to the CB-CID by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, after allegations were raised against police officers about their attempts to cover up the alleged custodial death. Nine police officers were summoned by the CB-CID on May 6 to join the investigation into the alleged custodial death, out of whom two have been arrested so far.

Brief background of the case

On the night of April 18, Vignesh was taken into custody along with a friend named Suresh by a police patrol team in Chennai city during vehicle check. The police officer found a small quantity of ganja and liquor bottles in the autorickshaw they were travelling in. While Suresh was being questioned by the police officer, Vignesh tried to escape but eventually got caught. They were taken to the police station and allegedly beaten up, the day after which Vignesh died. Vignesh earned daily wages of Rs. 300-400 by working as a horse-rider at Marina beach.

As reported by Times of India, the Chief Minister had earlier stated that Vignesh had developed seizures and started vomiting after having breakfast (in police custody) on April 19. He was taken to a private hospital nearby and later to the Kilpauk government hospital. Doctors, however, pronounced him dead on arrival.

“The death has raised suspicion. It should be registered as a case of murder, transferred to CBI for fair probe and action against policemen concerned,” the former CM said as quoted by Times of India.

Autopsy results

The post-mortem report did not give a definitive cause of death but has confirmed the deceased has suffered from multiple injuries and fractures on his body.

According to an India Today report, the post-mortem report listed several contusions (up to 1 cm) or bruises all over Vignesh’s body, especially on his head. The report also said there was an abrasion or cut on his gluteal region, a fracture in his right leg and that the injuries were caused before his death. The autopsy also revealed deep muscle injury above the left eye, swelling and contusion on the left cheek filled with blood, and injuries on the back and lower part of the right forearm.

Actions taken previously

Chief Minister Stalin made a statement in the state Assembly as a reply to a special calling attention moved by Opposition leader Edappadi K Palaniswami that, “The report said there were 13 injuries on his body. On this basis, it has been registered as a murder case today. Officers who have been booked will be facing murder charges now. The crime branch of the CID is probing the case and appropriate action will be taken soon,” as reported by The Indian Express.

Three policemen of Secretariat Colony police station i.e., a police sub-inspector Perumal, a constable and a member of the Home Guards were suspended and the DGP had transferred the case to CB-CID on April 24. As reported by Times of India, Stalin told the Assembly, “I have informed (the House) already that the government is taking all legal action in connection with Vignesh’s death.”

According to the Indian Express, Opposition MLAs demanded a CBI probe instead of the CB-CID probe. Citing the external injuries mentioned on the victim’s post-mortem report, Palaniswami said the victim’s family would not get justice if the CB-CID of the state police probed it. “The state police cannot probe it. They should hand over the probe to the CBI to ensure justice in the case,” he said.

Custodial death: Official figures

According to National Herald, National Human Rights Commission data shows 151 custodial deaths in India in the year 2021. The union home ministry told Parliament that a total of 151 custodial deaths have been reported in India, this year with Maharashtra reporting the highest at 26.

As Varun Gandhi, member of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) sought a state-wise division of custodial deaths, Nityanand Rai, Minister of State for Home Affairs said that according to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 151 cases of death in police custody were reported till November 15.

The ministry mentioned that Maharashtra reported a maximum of 26 deaths in police custody followed by Gujarat with 21 deaths, Bihar with 18 deaths, and about 11 deaths each in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were reported in police custody. Meanwhile, at least 13 states did not register any custodial deaths.

Related:

Delhi court orders FIR against three cops for shooting suspect in the knee
Allahabad HC bats for tolerance, but refuses to strike down meat and liquor sale ban
Same-sex marriage: Delhi HC asks Central Government to respond to the plea for live-streaming of proceedings
Delhi HC asks for Centre’s opinion on declaring the Child Marriage ‘void ab initio’

The post Chennai: Murder charges filed in Custodial Death case against cops appeared first on SabrangIndia.