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.

A Single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court presided by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi recently ordered that compensation be paid in a matter related to a case of alleged illegal detention. However, the court did not order any inquiry into allegations of custodial abuse, despite the fact that no First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the victim.

In its judgment dated March 24, 2022, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only for illegal detention, not making any decision about custodial death while relying upon the inquiry report made by a three-member Committee.

The matter pertains to the alleged illegal detention and custodial torture of one Pradeep Kumar, and upon his death, his widow Jaswa Devi filed a Criminal WritPetitionseeking directions from the court to register an FIR relating to custodial death. She also prayed for compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs.

Facts of the case

On March 13, 2017 at around 1:00 P.M, Pradeep Chaudhary along with some villagers went to KalluChok to play Holi. Someone from the crowd put Abir (Gulal) on one of the constables of Satgawan Police Station, as a result of which the constable became furious and called other police personnel from the Satgawan Police Station.

As the villagers saw the Chowkidar getting furious, they all ran away, but unfortunately Pradeep Chaudhary got caught by the Police and was badly beaten up. He was then taken to the Police Station and was allegedly detained illegallyfor almost 16 hours. He was allegedly beaten brutally  and tortured by the police, as a result of which he died.However, no case was registered against Chaudhary nor was he a suspect in any case.

Petitioner, Jaswa Devi, widow of Pradeep Chaudhary, registered an FIR regarding the death of deceased in the Koderma Police Station on March 15, 2022, which was recorded by Inspector cum Officer in charge of Koderma Police Station. The FIR was registered in presence of family members and well-wishers of the Petitioner. Consequently, a Criminal Writ Petition was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand on July 17, 2017 which was taken up for its first hearing on January 19, 2018.

State’s submissions

As submitted by the Learned Counsel representing the State, the deceased, Pradeep Chaudhary died in hospital and not under Police Custody. He further brought the Court’s attention to the Order of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, which directed the Magistrate to hold an enquiry in the matter. He further referred to the joint enquiry report (three-member Committee report) filed after the Magistrate’s enquiry, in which it was proved that the deceased Pradeep Chaudhary was subjected to police torture, but shockingly it could not be proved, that he died because of police torture.

The Learned Counsel of the State also brought to the Court’s attention that a departmental enquiry has been initiated against one of the officers, as per which it was recommended that he be punished with a deduction of 5% from his pension for two years.

High Court Judgment

The Jharkhand High Court presided by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi on March 24, 2022 passed a Judgment in the Criminal Writ Petition Filed by JaswaDevi(Jaswa Devi V/s. State of Jharkhand &Ors.). The High Court observed that the deceased was wrongfully deprived of the right of personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, by the police officer for around 16 hours from March 13 to March 14, 2017 and also held that the death of the deceased was not proven in the committee report as custodial death.

The High Court in its Judgment dated March 24, 2022 awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner which has to be paid in 4 weeks by the State of Jharkhand. The Court also said that the Petitioner by this Judgment is not precluded from pursuing the civil as well as criminal remedy, available to her in law in respect of wrongful confinement of the deceased.

The High Court Order may be read here:

Recent Custodial deaths

Among cases of recent custodial deaths is the shocking case of 22-year-old Altaf, in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganjwho was found strangled in a police station toilet. Images of his dead body went viral and it was learnt that he had been detained in connection with the disappearance of a minor girl from a Hindu family. Following the incident, five policemen were suspended from the Kotwali Police Station in Kasganj. They had claimed that Altaf had hangedhimself with a drawstring from the hood of his jacket, using a water pipe in a toilet, however the pipe as was evident in the now viral images, was just a couple of feet from the ground.

In June last year, both P. Jeyaraj (58) and his son Bennix (38), were arrested for allegedly violating Covid-19 lockdown rules by keeping their store open past the allowed hours in Tamil Nadu. Two days later, they died due to alleged police brutality. The growing outrage across the country over their deaths put a massive spotlight on custodial deaths, reviving demands for police accountability.

In September, the Allahabad High Court transferred the probe of the custodial death of a 24-year-old man Krishna Yadav in Jaunpur to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A Special Operations Group team of the police and the Station House Officer (SHO) of Baksa had in February gone to Yadav’s house and allegedly taken him away to the police station for detention in relation to a loot case. While the family accused the police of murder, the police said that Yadav was apprehended while he was driving a motorcycle, and he fell and got injured. He was sent to hospital for treatment but was declared dead.

Shahbuddin, Ziyauddin’s brother, alleged that on March 24 the latter left home to go to a relative’s place but, on the way, members of a police team picked him up and tortured him, causing his death. Ziyauddin was “beaten to death,” alleged Shahbuddin in his police complaint, accusing the police team of murder. Police had said that during questioning, Ziyauddin complained of feeling unwell and was admitted to the district hospital where he died.

“In the last two decades, 1,888 custodial deaths have been reported across India, with 893 cases registered against police personnel a mere 358 police officers and justice officials were formally accused. Just 26 policemen were convicted in this period, official records show,” reported Deutsche Welleon November 11, 2021.

In August 2021, the Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, while expressing concerns about human rights violations in police stations which are leading to custodial deaths said, “Lack of effective legal representation at the police stations is a huge detriment to arrested or detained persons.” 

Custodial Death and Laws

Under Indian Penal Code there are indirect provisions for Custodial torture and wrongful detentions which are not sufficient to end the police brutality and the abuse of power attempted by them in numerous instances.

Constitution of India

Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Provision under Indian Penal Code

For custodial torture

Section 166: “Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.—Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

For wrongful detention

Section 340: “Wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.”

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

Provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 76: “Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay.—The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delay bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person: Provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court”

International Conventions

Even though Indian laws are not upto the mark with respect to custodial torture and wrongful detention, International UN Conventions are made to control these kinds of illegal activities by Public Servants who are meant to protect the public from any wrongful activities taking place.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance – adopted on December 18, 1992.

Article 1

1. No one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance.

Article 2

For the purposes of this Convention, “enforced disappearance” is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – adopted on March 23, 1976

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable tine or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – Adopted on December 10, 1984.

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Related:

Preventive Detention: Two judgements, two contrasting views, one judge
Why has India still not ratified UN Convention against torture?
Protecting and Promoting Minority Rights in India’s Criminal Justice System: Need for a Special Law

The post Jharkhand HC awards compensation for illegal detention, but not custodial death appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For the alleged custodial death of a teenager hailing from a Scheduled Tribe (ST), three policemen including an outpost office-in-charge, were suspended in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri district on January 23, 2022, reported The Quint. The suspension and murder complaint came after people from the boy’s village protested and alleged brutal torture by the police.

उत्तर प्रदेश के जिला लखीमपुर विधानसभा क्षेत्र पलिया गांव खजुरिया में एक दलित युवक को चोरी के सक में पुलिस ने बेरहमी से मार मार कर मौत के घाट उतार दिया अधिकारियों पर कार्यवाही नहीं हुई तो जल्द भीम आर्मी पहुंचेगी@lakhimpurpolice @Igrangelucknow @adgzonelucknow @Uppolice pic.twitter.com/eBbjXOaaUY

— SAURABH BHARTIYA CHIEF GENERAL SECRETARY PILIBHIT (@Saurabh89064415) January 23, 2022

17-year-old Rahul’s uncle accused the youth of stealing his son’s phone on January 17. He filed a complaint at the Sampoornanagar police station, following which the boy was called in for questioning two days later.

As per the official statement by Superintendent of Police (SP) Sanjeev Suman, “On January 19, both the uncle and the boy were called along with the family, his mother, the village chief and three to four other witnesses. The questioning happened in front of these people. After that the two parties came to an understanding. Later, his mother and five to six other people said that on January 20, the uncle and another person attacked the boy. The same night he was taken to the hospital. After he died, family accused the police of custodial death.”

Suman said that the police registered the complaint and are investigating the matter. He further said that guilty officers will face strict action.

थाना सम्पूर्णानगर क्षेत्रान्तर्गत 17 वर्षीय बालक की मृत्यु की घटना के संबंध में पुलिस अधीक्षक खीरी, श्री संजीव सुमन की बाइट pic.twitter.com/oVXsWsqkEZ

— KHERI POLICE (@kheripolice) January 23, 2022

While the police reported two conflicting accounts from the family, videos of protesters and aggrieved family members showed the people condemning the police. According to local newspaper Lok Jansandesh, the family laid the body at a village crossroad and video recorded the physical injuries on the body’s back.

Videos of the boy’s two sisters recalling how he was forcibly taken away from his house on January 19 are also circulating on social media. They alleged that the witnesses were called after the physical assault.

Reacting to the news, Samajwadi Party (SP) tweeted in Hindi and condemned the ruling regime for the growing police oppression in the state. “Hear the plea of the crying relatives and give them justice, CM. People will answer by vote,” said the tweet.

भाजपा सरकार में कस्टोडियल डेथ में नंबर वन यूपी में एक और पुलिस किलिंग!

“मेरे भाई को इतना मारा की उसकी जान चली गई”

लखीमपुर खीरी में पुलिस की पिटाई से 17 वर्षीय युवक की मृत्यु अत्यंत दु:खद!

रोते बिलखते परिजनों की फरियाद सुन उन्हें न्याय दें सीएम।

जनता वोट से देगी जवाब। pic.twitter.com/F2rK3CaD7g

— Samajwadi Party (@samajwadiparty) January 23, 2022

According to the Indian Express, Rahul was an agricultural labourer. To look into the matter of his alleged murder, a contingent of senior police officials met the protesters to placate their anger. However, the police also charged the boy’s uncle and his accomplice for death by negligence. The two men are yet to be arrested.

Related:

Uttar Pradesh: Dalit boy shot for not greeting ‘seniors’ in Agra
Hate Watch: Mapping Hate Crimes in India in 2021
Hate Hatao: CJP doubled its efforts to check hate crimes in 2021
Uttar Pradesh: Hindutva goons force Muslim man to shut shop named after Sai Baba

The post UP: ST boy’s family cry murder following custodial torture! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 28, four policemen were booked over the alleged custodial death of two tribal youths, who were found dead on Chikhli police station premises in Navsari, reported Indian Express. The police had earlier claimed that the boys had committed suicide in the police station.

The two deceased boys, Sunil Pawar and Ravi Jadav, aged 19, were detained on suspicion of vehicle theft on July 20 at Chikhli police station. The next day, their bodies were found hanging with an electric cable attached to a computer system in the computer room, states the news report. The policemen, namely, Ajit Sinh Zala (Police Inspector), M B Kokni (Police Sub-inspector), Shanti Sinh Zala (Head Constable), Ramji Yadav (Police Constable) were suspended earlier, and now they have been booked for murder and relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Navsari DSP Rushikesh Upadhyay told IE that the investigation is being carried out by Deputy Superintendent of Police of Navsari SC/ST cell R D Faldu.

The BJP MLA from Dangs, Vijay Patel, had made representations to the Navsari DSP seeking registration of a case against the four policemen. Congress MLAs Anand Chaudhary, Punaji Gamit and Anant Patel, along with party’s former MP Amarsinh Z Chaudhary Wednesday handed over a memorandum to Mamlatdar of Dharampur Priyanka Patel seeking to book the four police officers, reported IE.

Earlier, the police made claims that the boys had committed suicide. Dangs district observed bandh over the death on July 26 whereby all business establishments and tourist spots in Saputara, Subir, Shamgham, Vaghai Ahwa remained shut.

As per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2019 report ‘Crimes in India’, Gujarat has the highest number of police personnel arrested (14) for custodial deaths and second highest number of reported custodial deaths (10) in the country. The report pointed out that most people who died in custody in Gujarat were not on remand and the explanation given by Gujarat for this is that the deaths have been caused by suicide, illness or by road accident.

To put a stop to such incidents of custodial deaths, the Supreme Court had in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (SLP Crl. No. 3543 of 2020), directed installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations across the country and specified positions at which they have to be installed. The detailed judgement may be read here.

In January, Arjan Gadhvi was picked up in a case of alleged house break-in from Samaghogha village by three head constables on Mudhra police station, Kutch. He died under mysterious circumstances allegedly due to the torture inflicted by the policemen in custody. The three policemen Shaktisinh Gohil, Ashok Kannad and Jaydevsinh Jhala, have been on the run ever since and have been declared proclaimed offenders. Reportedly, another villager Harjog Gadhvi who was also beaten up and tortured by the accused, succumbed to his injuries days after Arjan’s death.

During the state’s Assembly session in March, the Gujarat government submitted that a total of 157 custodial deaths have been recorded in Gujarat during the last two years, out of which 70 were recorded in 2019 while 87 custodial deaths took place in 2020. This was a response to a question asked by Congress MLA Niranjan Patel during the Question Hour. The state government also stated that nine police officials, including one inspector, two sub inspectors, two assistant sub-inspectors and four constables, have been suspended in connection with these deaths. Also, cases under IPC 302 have been filed against one police inspector, one police sub-inspector, seven constables, reported IE.

Related:

 SC seeks affidavit from Tihar Jail authorities over police excesses
CCTV cameras in Police stations: SC discontent with Centre, States and UTs
End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations

The post Gujarat cops booked for custodial death of tribal teenagers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“There are two things about custodial torture that persist in spite of laws: invisibility and impunity. We must recognise that what happens within the darkness of a cell will require various strategies tailored to meet and prevent it and ensure consequences,” said Supreme Court senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan on June 19, 2021, one year after the custodial death of Jayaraj and Bennicks.

On Saturday, Tamil Nadu’s Joint Action Against Custodial Torture (JAACT) group released a ‘Santhakulam Declaration’ to condemn police torture and sexual assault, like that against the father-son duo who were taken into custody for allegedly violating the Covid-19 lockdown norms last year. During this event, Ramakrishnan praised the organisers People’s Watch and pledged her support for the movement against social evil.

#Thiagu ask @MKStalin @CMOTamilnadu today to urgently ensure that #Tamilnadu becomes and island in India where police atrocities are brought to an end. #JAACT will ensure that every police station in the state will be monitored by our activists to ensure there is no #Torture. pic.twitter.com/5Zo5ZiQuz6

— Henri Tiphagne (@Tiphagne) June 19, 2021

As the keynote speaker, Ramakrishnan talked about how strategies against custodial violence must pierce the veil of invisibility surrounding cells and the consequent impunity. Citing M. K. Gandhi, she pointed out, “No authority is more liable to be abused than that wielded by someone in a custodial cell where the rest of the world is barred to the prisoner.”

The senior lawyer demanded a ratification of the convention against torture and called for a passing of a dedicated law on custodial torture. She stressed the importance of such moves as indicative of Indian polity’s clear commitment to recognise custodial torture as a crime.

“All these years, India’s reluctance to ratify and pass a law is significant of its wanting somehow not to expose its law enforcement officers either in their own right or as representatives to do the political master’s bidding, somehow not to expose them to a process which they richly deserve,” she said. Further, India also ought to ratify the convention on Enforced Disappearances. She argued that torture is a crime that occurs in a dark place. So, a dedicated law is important to enable procedural and evidentiary conditions to deal with such extraordinary conditions.

Regarding judicial intervention, Ramakrishnan said that it is present but not uniform in all cases of custodial torture. The lack of uniformity shows that custodial torture happens not because of absence of laws but despite pre-existing legal protections. “Speaker after speaker has mentioned how the magistracy has looked the other way. Superior officers are not called to account. Victim’s family runs from pillar to post. So, to have legislation is an important step but a baby step,” she said.

Why is it a baby step?

As Ramakrishnan mentioned earlier while quoting Gandhi, real Swaraj is achieved when all people have the power to resist abusive authority. Yet, in independent India, every police station has a myriad of incidents of custodial torture, she said.

What is ironic about the Jayaraj and Bennicks incident of last year, is that the East India Company in 1855 (150 years before formal swaraj) established a Madras Torture Commission that recognised torture as a crime. Despite their imperial agenda, the colonisers recognised the cruelty. In 1860, the Indian Penal Code’s sections 348 and 337 recognised custodial violence. Further, the Lahore High Court in 1912, sentenced police officers to at least 10 years imprisonment if someone in their custody died, claiming culpable homicide. Yet in the twenty-first century, such cases are rampant with courts intervening with meagre compensations, or at times not intervening at all.

“For Jayaraj and Bennicks, there is no Swaraj,” said Ramakrishnan, who sourced the continuing prevalence of this crime to the societal thought that ‘torture is indispensable to crime prevention.’

She emphasised that custodial torture is not required for law enforcement. Yet, this mindset is found at various points of procedure which is why magistrates and doctors look the other way. To work against this thinking, she called for a public campaign.

Moreover, the campaign should also denounce holding the victim responsible to prove the crime. Instead, a self-generating system of justice must be devised beginning from the magistracy – the first, immediate and only point of interaction that poor and marginalised people have with the law.

“I tell all law schools not to send interns only to fancy law offices but to magistrates as well. Because magistrates need to know what their duties are. Oftentimes they do not know what their duties are,” said the senior advocate.

The magistrate needs to be sensitised and policed. For an effective justice system, real-time access of CCTVs must be given to some watchdog body, said Ramakrishnan. Medical officers and magistrate officers must be relentlessly documented in as many cases as possible. If someone has not performed duty then consequences but scrutiny is required. After police stations, magistracy is an important focus point to operationalise people’s rights against custodial torture.

While acknowledging that compensation in such cases is too little too late, Ramakrishnan said that monetary compensation means nothing. Reparation means non-recurrence – a package to ensure actions against errant officials and superiors. People in authority must realise their duty in keeping such things from happening.

“There is a need to build a campaign among people aside from legislation. We must work with magistrate write-ups and document as many cases and campaign for real time access. Anything that depends purely on litigation not a solution, particularly for those who face custodial torture,” she said.

She called upon all present at the event to fight at the administrative, political and parliamentary level where most people are unable to reach. Expressing admiration for the group’s work against such incidents, Ramakrishnan handed over the declaration to DMK MP Kanimozhi present at the event.

Related:

Torture of PDP leader Waheed Para by NIA accuse UN officials
George Floyd murder: One year on
Bihar man dies in police custody; family alleges torture
SC seeks affidavit from Tihar Jail authorities over police excesses

The post Ratify the convention against custodial torture: SC Adv Nitya Ramakrishnan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court awarded Rs. 5 lakh compensation to the family of an allegedly juvenile victim of custodial death who was arrested on suspicion of pickpocketing at Shirdi temple. The two-judge bench of Justices TV Nalawade and Shrikant D Kulkarni, while leaving the criminal trial to the trial court, concluded that the factual scenario determined that it was a case of custodial death and hence compensation was justified. The court also called out the erring police officials for not following the law and the guidelines laid down in the DK Basu case during or at the time of arrest.

Background of case

The petitioner sought ex gratia compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs as his son, Kiran Rokade died while in custody as also an FIR under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the police officers responsible for the same and departmental inquiry against SP, Ahmednagar.

The background, as asserted by the petitioner is that Kiran, his son was picked up by police officials of Shirdi Police station on suspicion of pickpocketing and when the family was made aware of this, they went to police station where Kiran was seated on the floor and was being interrogated. The petitioner and other family members were asked to go away. After a while the police carried something covered in a blanket to Saibaba Hospital, which the family of the deceased witnessed. When they reached the hospital, it was disclosed by doctors that Kiran was dead.

When the petitioner rushed to the police station to file FIR for custodial death, the same was denied, and hence the petitioner sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Crime Branch, Pune and also requested post mortem. Finally, after 4 days of the death, a post-mortem was conducted.

Kiran was 15 years old and the petitioner stated that the family was not informed of the arrest; there was no entry in the concerned register; no arrest panchnama was conducted, CCTV cameras were deliberately switched off and the dead body was taken to the hospital and thereafter, the concerned officer ran away. The petitioner held Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr Vivek Patil, P.I. Pramod Wagh, Police Naik Mane, Police Avhad and P.S.O. Ayyub Shaikh Rajjaq Shaikh responsible for custodial death of his deceased son. The post mortem stated that the death was probably caused due to abrasion over the neck.

The court left it up to the trial court to decide whether section 302 IPC charge should be invoked against the police officers as case was already registered under section 342 (wrongful confinement), 306 (abetment of suicide) and 34 (common intention) of IPC and charge sheet has been filed. The court held that whether the death was homicidal or suicidal would be decided by the trial court and this court was concerned with the ex gratia compensation prayed for by the petitioner.

After perusal of material records that Kiran was kept in custody on March 31, 2016, the court held that it was crystal clear that Kiran died in police lock up and hence his death qualifies as “custodial death”.

The respondents argued that it was a case of suicidal death and hence the State was not liable to pay compensation for it. The court observed that the police had violated all guidelines laid out under D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal and ors., (1997) 1 SCC 416 as no arrest punchnama was made and the family was not informed of the arrest. “No enquiry was conducted about the age of Kiran Rokade, whether he was juvenile and straightway put him in the lock up which unfortunately resulted in his custodial death,” the court observed.

Legal provisions highlighted by the court

The bench highlighted the many provisions of law which need to be strictly followed by police.

Section 41 of (CrPC) gives the procedure to arrest the person without warrant for the purpose of investigation of an offence provided the conditions mentioned in Section 41 are satisfied. Section 41-B of Cr.P.C. relates to the precautions, which need to be taken during the procedure of arrest. The provision shows that it is mandatory to prepare memorandum of arrest, which shall be attested atleast by one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made. The arrest memo needs to be countersigned by the person arrested. The provision also shows that if such memorandum is not attested by a member of family of accused then it needs to be informed to the accused that he has right to have a relative or a friend named by him to be informed of his arrest.

Section 54 of CrPC was also violated as no medical examination of the deceased was conducted after arrest. Further, Section 41 (D) of CrPC states that when a person is arrested and interrogated by the Police, the said person shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout; which was also not provided to the deceased.

The court also pointed towards the constitutional provisions, “Article 21 of the Constitution of India speaks that the procedure established by law needs to be followed strictly by Police effecting arrest and detaining a person. Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India give safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention and while making law, the limitations and conditions put by Article 22 need to be kept in mind.”

Determining compensation

Before determining compensation, the court quoted an extract from the DK Basu judgment about providing compensation to families of victims of custodial deaths, which inter alia states that “The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer.” The judgment deems compensation in such cases to be “relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them.”

The court relied upon the apex court’s judgement in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and ors., Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., (2009) SCC 121. The court used the formula used therein which was a case under Motor Vehicles Act which took into consideration age of the deceased and his notional income per year and calculated the sum to be Rs. 5 Lakhs.

The court directed the State to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs to the court within 45 days and if not deposited within that period then an interest of 8% pa would accrue. The court stated that once the amount is received it shall be handed over equally to the parents of the deceased.

The court further stated that the State was at liberty to recover the amount of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the erring police officials concerned as and when the liability for the crime in question is fastened.

The judgment may be read here.

Related:

Police can’t use non-functional CCTV camera as defense: Bombay HC
Custodial deaths: Relatives can take photos, videos of dead body before post mortem says Madras HC
End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations

The post Custodial death: Bom HC grants 5 lakhs compensation even before trial concludes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has issued specific directions relating to steps leading to a post mortem, especially in cases alleging custodial deaths while allowing relatives to take photos and videos of the dead body before post mortem.

The single judge bench of Justice GR Swaminathan in the judgment dated December 2, 2020 also re-emphasised the judgment passed by it in September this year, regarding installation of CCTVs in dissection halls and mortuaries.

Background

The petitioner and his family belong to Scheduled Caste and due to rift in the family caused due to petitioner’s older brother falling in love with a relative, the matter had reached the police. The elder brother and the relative were untraceable and the woman’s family alleged abduction hence, the police called upon the petitioner and his family for enquiry from time to time.

On September 16, the police came to the petitioner’s house and allegedly assaulted him and his younger brother and took away the latter in custody. The next day, Ramesh, the younger brother was found hanging on a tree and it is alleged that he was tortured by the police and to cover up the crime the police made it appear as though Ramesh committed suicide.

Proper post mortem

The petitioner lodged an FIR and he was assured that post mortem will be conducted but he alleged that a farce of an autopsy was conducted instead and the family was forced to accept the body and was put in a coffin and buried. Thus, this petition was filed seeking directions to exhume the body and conduct a proper post mortem. Accordingly, the second post mortem was directed by the high court on October 8 and it was duly carried out and was directed to be videographed with the petitioner’s counsel and an expert to be present. It was brought to the court’s notice that “Though it was originally claimed that the entire autopsy had been duly videographed and even a statement was made in writing to that effect in the status report, it turned out that what was recorded were only brief clippings. A proper videograph was not at all taken.” Hence, the petitioner’s counsel insisted that appropriate directions be issued for future observance and strict compliance in cases of custodial death or where it is alleged that the death is due to police torture.

The court relied on and re-emphasised the specific directions issued by the Madras High Court in Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD)No.78 of 2019 (decided on September 28, 2020) relating to post mortem. These directions include display of notice in hospitals informing that there will be videographing of post-mortem in case of request from relatives, installation of CCTV cameras in the mortuaries as well as in the dissection halls, appointment of scientific officers at government hospitals and so on.

Transfer of case in custodial death matters

The petitioner insisted that the matter be transferred to another agency for investigations since the allegations were made against the police and it would not be in the fitness of things to permit the investigation to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District. The court accepted this contention and held, “interest of justice certainly demands that the investigation is transferred to some other agency…It would suffice if investigation of the case…is entrusted to CBCID, Madurai District”.

The court directed that the CBCID conclude the investigation within a period of four months and submit the final report before the jurisdictional Court.

Custodial death

“Every time a custodial death occurs, the legitimacy of the State suffers a big dent. That can be set right only by ensuring transparent investigation. A dead person is equally entitled to justice. I would call it posthumous justice. Whenever someone suffers an unnatural death, the circumstances that led to it will have to be unearthed. Otherwise, there would be no closure,” said the court.

Directions

The court keeping in mind the allegations of custodial deaths and how post mortems hold important evidentiary value in these cases, issued following directions:

(i) The Judicial Magistrate conducting the enquiry under Section 176(1)(A) Cr.P.C. shall ensure that the family of the deceased or its representatives are given access to see the body both front and back and are also allowed to take video and photos.

(ii) No autopsy shall take place or commence without the next of kin having seen the body. Of course, if the family of the deceased refuses to see the body, even after so being permitted by the concerned Judicial Magistrate conducting the enquiry, the Judicial Magistrate can, in writing, permit the conducting of postmortem.

(iii) The autopsy shall be carried out by a team of two doctors who have a master’s degree in forensic medicine and are attached to a Medical College and Hospital in the State. In other words, what is called as forensic autopsy must be conducted.

(iv) The autopsy shall be done by adhering to the norms laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in V.Eswaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu, dated 16.04.2019 in W.P.No.10694 of 2019 and in W.P.(MD)No.78 of 2019, dated 28.09.2020.

(v) The whole body shall be x-rayed in order to find out if there are any fractures. The entire autopsy should be videographed from the start of the examination till its completion by adhering to the following six phases set out in Modi ‘a Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology’ 26th Edition edited by Justice K.Kannan.

The Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Edition edited by Justice K.Kannan) contains specific instructions regarding post mortem in custodial death cases on who should conduct a post mortem, how it should be video recorded phase by phase detailing how every part of the body is to be examined. It also states that the video should be comprehensive and detailed, the date and time should appear while recording and context should be established by shooting from different angles.

Further it makes important directions on custody of the recorded tape and states that the forensic medicine expert conducting the autopsy should ensure immediate sealing of the memory chip/video cassette and its immediate dispatch with all required particulars to the inquest authority, who in turn should send it to the National Human Rights Commission.

The court stated that if after receipt of the autopsy report, the legal heir/representatives of the deceased family give in writing that they intend to move the High Court, the body shall be preserved in the mortuary for at least 48 hours. If the body is disposed of either by cremation or otherwise in the meanwhile, the very purpose of holding a second postmortem will be rendered infructuous.

The court pointed out how hasty cremations such as in Hathras case led to controversy and, “It is in the interest of the police to take the family of the deceased into confidence and avoid rushing things through. They are stakeholders in the process and the police have to treat them accordingly.”

The high court order may be read here.

Related:

End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations
Dedicated courts set up to address Human Rights cases in Delhi 
MP High Court puts counselling as bail condition for accused for anti CAA WhatsApp status

The post Custodial deaths: Relatives can take photos, videos of dead body before post mortem says Madras HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Jaipur: Kavita Srivastava, the President of the People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) wrote a letter to the Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) New Delhi, demanding their immediate intervention in the matter of the custodial death of Mohd. Ramzan, an inmate of Baran Jail due to custodial violence by the police guards of the Prison Ward of Kota Medical College Hospital on April 26.
 
“Mohammaed Ramzan, son of Hafiz Alimuddin, resident of Mangrol, District Baran, Rajasthan was imprisoned in Baran Prison under the charges of Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to an illegal act. He was awarded two-year imprisonment by the sessions court of Baran. He was out on bail when the High Court of Rajasthan rejected his appeal, he was arrested again in 2018 and put in Baran Jail. Subsequently, a Special Leave Petition was also filed in Supreme Court for bail, but the SLP was rejected,” she wrote.
 
Ramzan complained of liver and other gastro problems, so he was referred to the Kota Medical College for treatment. In the Jail ward of the Kota Medical College, there is a constant rotation of 4 guards sent by the police. A video which surfaced before the demise of Ramzan, shows him telling that three of these guards only had beaten him up very badly. He says the guards were inebriated on alcohol and would beat him up when he would cry up in pain. Upon talking to the Rizwan, son of Ramzan, he informs us that these guards would ask for Rs 500/- for each meeting of the family with the patient, so the family had complained about this demand to higher authorities, which has worsened the relationship between Ramzan and the guards, she wrote in the letter to NHRC.
 
Ramzan was then referred to SMS Hospital Jaipur, the family was informed that a leg of Ramzan had been fractured and needed to be operated upon urgently so they rushed to Jaipur. The family met Ramzan once, this is the day the video was recorded in which Ramzan has given a statement against the guards. They were then denied access to the patient and were later informed that the patient has been transferred back to Kota. The guards on their own volition moved Ramzan back to Kota, denying him proper medical treatment, which went against the advice of the doctors present and treating Ramzan. When the family of Ramzan was rushing to Kota, they were informed by the prison officials that Ramzan has expired in their custody of the police in the ward for prisoners of the Kota Medical College. The death was recorded at 10:30 pm on April 26, 2019, PUCL said in the letter.
 
“The family refused to take the custody of the dead body of Ramzan, until and unless an FIR was filed against the 4 police guards of the jail ward of Kota Medical College as well as those who took him away from the SMS Medical College, Jaipur. After 14-15 hours, SP Kota City assured the family that an enquiry will be done of the custodial death by a judicial magistrate under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also informed the family that the four guards have been removed, the nature of removal is unclear, whether is a suspension or a change in duty. Post Mortem has been done by a Medical Board. Upon this reassurance, the family has now taken the custody of the body to go ahead with the burial of the departed man,” the letter stated.
 
PUCL’s demand:
 

1. Immediate lodging of the FIR against the police guards involved in the custodial violence leading up to the death of Ramzan, the police inquiry can run parallel to the judicial inquiry. The police authorities need to answer for the complete lack of due diligence in the above matter.
2. A detailed inquiry needs to be done by the Kota Medical College Hospital as to how could the prisoner’s ward allows such brazen violence against an ill man.
3. Compensation to the family of Ramzan.
4. Both the jails, Baran Jail and Kota Jail should submit a report each to NHRC, SHRC, home secretary and DG Prisons within 24 hours of the custodial death as required by the guidelines of the NHRC
5. The videography Post Mortem Report and the enquiry report by the Judicial Magistrate must be submitted to the NHRC at the earliest possible instance.

 
“We would be highly obliged if a free and fair inquiry can be done on Ramzan’s custodial death urgently. Communally targeted violence by the authorities raises a serious concern of human rights violations of minorities present inside the various correctional institutes across the nation. Ramzan’s family has suffered a great loss, and a speedy inquiry would give them some solace in these troubling times,” Srivastava wrote.
 

The post PUCL demands NHRC’s immediate intervention in Muslim man’s custodial death appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Thiruvananthapuram: In 2005, A 26-year-old Udayakumar was tortured by police officers in Kerala for a crime he did not commit. He was beaten in custody with a heavy iron log rolled over his thighs and his feet thrashed with sticks. He died the next day. The case had become popular by the name ‘urutti kola,’ (rolling death) in the state.
 
In a first, A special CBI court in Thiruvananthapuram awarded the death penalty to K Jithakumar and SV Sreekumar, two civil police officers of the Kerala Police, for the custodial torture and eventual death of Udayakumar. A fine of Rs. 2 lakh each has also been imposed on the two.
 
“The CBI Special Judge Nazar handed down the capital punishment to the accused. The judge said he found no mitigating circumstances to reduce the quantum of punishment. “Law enforcers are protectors of life and property and not death dealers. The accused had killed an innocent person in their custody,” he said. Justice Nazar ruled the crime fell in the rarest of the rare category that deserved death. Their illegal actions had severely eroded public trust in the law enforcement and caused social harm,” reported The Hindu.
 
“The court also awarded three years’ imprisonment to three others accused — retired superintendent of police TK Haridas, and deputy superintendents of police Ajith Kumar and EK Sabu — for trying to cover up the crime and destroying evidence. All three were granted bail by the court. On Tuesday, the five were found guilty by the court,” reported The Hindustan Times. They had also falsified police station records.
 
“The victim’s 67-year-old single-mother, Prabhavathi Amma, was in court, clad in white, to hear the verdict. The accused officers wept as they listened to the order,” reported The Hindu.
 
His mother has fought relentlessly for 13 years and was broke down in tears after the verdict. “I lived all these years to hear this verdict. I am satisfied now. No mother should undergo my plight. Hope this will act as a strong deterrent against police brutality,” she told the press.
 
“Parvathy Amma thanked the media for the outpouring of social support their coverage of the case had triggered. She said no other mother should suffer her fate. “They killed my son during an Onam 13 years ago. Now they will spend their Onam in prison. No court will pardon them. They killed an innocent man. God has heard a mother’s prayer”, she said.
 
“The case has come as a legal victory for the CBI. It had bolstered its case against the local police by flipping seven suspect officers, who were present at the station on the day of the crime, in favour of the prosecution. It also relied heavily on sworn statements of crime scene experts and forensic doctors,” The Hindu reported.
 
“Udayakumar, 27, and his friend Suresh were picked up by officers of the Fort Police station in Thiruvananthapuram on September 27, 2005, from the Sreekandeshwaram Park in the city on charges of theft. Cash amounting to Rs. 4500, found in the possession of Udayakumar, was seen as grounds for the duo to be taken into custody. Two constables then tortured Udayakumar to force a confession out of him, beating him mercilessly with cane sticks on his legs and later rolling down a heavy iron pipe down his thighs. This act of third-degree torture by the Kerala Police later came to be known as ‘urutti kola’ (rolling murder) in the local media,” reported The Indian Express. His friend Suresh was a history-sheeter who had a record of petty thefts.
 
“The post-mortem revealed that he received more than 40 injuries on his thighs and lower abdomen. The trial hit several snags in its course as several key witnesses turned hostile. The CBI took over the investigation in 2008 after the mother moved the high court with a plea to hand over the case to the central agency, alleging that the state police were dragging their feet in the probe,” HT reported.
 
“The case touched a raw nerve among people because of Parvathy Amma’s protracted and determined legal battle to bring to justice the killers of her only son. It had also prompted a public discussion on police brutality and led to widespread condemnation of third-degree methods,” The Hindu reported.
 

The post Two Kerala cops get death penalty for custodial murder appeared first on SabrangIndia.