research paper on custodial violence

National Campaign Against Torture

Custodial Death & Torture a Human Rights abuse: Indian and International perspective, Latest Laws

Latest Laws 24 July 2020

By By : Vidisha Singh

“Custodial torture is universally held as one of the cruelest forms of human rights abuse. The Constitution of India, the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the United Nations forbid it. But the police across the country defy these institutions. Therefore, there is a need to strike a balance between the individual human rights and societal interests in combating crime by using a realistic approach.” [1]

INTRODUCTION

The advent of Custodial death and torture has peaked in its crisis, as reported by the National Campaign Against Torture, which states that 1,731 persons died in custody in the year 2019 alone, estimating 5 deaths every day of the year. These constituted 1,606 deaths in judicial custody and 117 deaths in police custody in total. [2]

The problem of death and torture in custody, already in much prevalence in most states dated back several years has been recently grievously highlighted in the case of P.Jayaraj and J.Benix, both inhabitants of Santhankulam in Tuticorin, in the state of Tamil Nadu, the father – son duo were arrested and held in custody under the accusation of keeping their shop open during the imposed mandatory curfew hours. They were later both seen with marks indicating heinous   torture and sexual assault, and soon succumbed to their injuries in a local government hospital. The news of the manner of their subsequent death has shook the nation and left its citizens aghast and generally distrustful of the uniform made to serve and protect them.

The flagrant abuse of law and authority by the police is not a curious subject as police are normally expected to use violence to counter crimes, there is an egregious presumption of police officers bound to use counter violence to incapacitate criminals so to prevent them from further harming innocent citizens, this presumption has led to a festering decay of the code of conduct among officers leading many to commit terrible breaches of such authority to assert their dominance over the public.

This show of ‘quick justice’ as demonstrated by the police, a civil force of state vested with authority and responsibility to commit order in society by the people themselves, ruins the pillars made to support social order and justice in our society. This gives an undue impression of courts and lawyers as mere accessories and gives the power of penalizing and imparting justice to unauthorized vigilantes.

In the ongoing trend of custodial violence being used to extract information or confessions there have been several number of torture methods the police would use, freely on men, women, and children alike breaking several laws and non-observance of fundamental human rights. This paper intends to analyze the role of such methods used by police personnel notwithstanding the necessary police reforms already in place or needed.

An important articulation of the subject matter has been seen in a judgement in which the Supreme Court observed,

“Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law-enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society.”  [DK Basu v. State of Bengal (1991) 1 SCC 416]

• To examine the history of police brutality, death under custody;
• To inquire into which sections of society are vulnerable to illegal detention and abuse;
• To identify violation of human rights in police custody using relevant statistics;
• To explore foul play, legal loopholes and impunity enjoyed by the police in such cases.

Research methodology

The research for this paper has been conducted through secondary sources of information such as newspaper articles, books, reports etc.

Earlier reports of custodial death and torture in India

In pre–independence India, Under the Regulation of 1816 police officers were authorized under all revenue functionaries and routinely involved with revenue collectors for extortion of         revenue and delay in payment of taxes. The testimonies and evidence of torture were so many               and so serious that it was discussed in the British House of Commons as well, thus, establishing the Torture Commission of 1855. The commission found conclusively that “personal violence practiced by the native revenue and police officials generally prevails throughout the     Presidency, both in the collection of revenue and in police cases.” They also held that the law and order administration in the province was in a bad shape. The remedies they suggested included a “moral agency” (European) at appropriate levels, separation of the judiciary from the executive and, more importantly, that of the police from the revenue. The commission went on to suggest major reforms in the organisation of the police as an independent agency. [3]  These reforms were the first of its kind on the subject.

The Law Commission Report of 1985 cited the case of  State of U.P v. Ram Sagar Yadav [AIR 1985 S.C. 416]  wherein a farmer, falsely accused of cattle trespass by his neighbor over a dispute, was allegedly threatened for bribes by the concerned police officer, who then, at first, relented but then reported this incident to the police station which as a response appointed another officer to inquire into the farmers allegation against the officer. The police officer in charge of the enquiry arrested the farmer and tortured him severely, within 6 hours of the registering of the initial case the farmer then succumbed to his injuries and died. This matter was then taken up to the Apex court which then acknowledged the advent of custodial death and torture as well as the indemnity enjoyed by police officials, saying,

 “Police officers alone and none else can give evidence regarding the circumstances in which a person in their custody comes to receive injuries. Bound by the ties of brotherhood, they often prefer to remain silent in such situations and when they choose to speak, they put their own gloss upon facts and pervert the truth”.

According to a previous Amnesty Report of 1992, approximately 415 people died in the custody of police and security forces due to torture between 1 st  January 1985 to 1 st  November 1991. In all these 415 cases, the detainees including women and children, were beaten and tortured till they died. The report also states that laws pertaining to this phenomenon are commonly flouted, specifically section 176 of the Code of Criminal procedure which makes an investigation by a magistrate obligatory in all cases of deaths in police custody. Thus, in all 415 cases of custodial death between 1985 to 1991, only 42 magisterial enquiries and 20 judicial enquiries were conducted.  [4]

The Nation Crime Records Bureau has recorded 591 cases of death in police/judicial custody between 2010 and 2015, with the reasons of death commonly cited as suicide, death during hospitalization or natural death/illness. Between 2016 and 2018 reports by NCRB 265 deaths were recorded with 0 convictions by the state. [5]

The Law Commission Report of 1985 strictly citing the Apex Court’s verdict in the case of  State of Up v. Ram Sagar Yadav   [AIR 1985 S.C. 416] , suggested changes to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 pertaining to section 114 of the act. As said in the report on the dire need of reform,

“The general principles deductible from the sections of the evidence act, 1872, is that it is for the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence charged and if those essential elements are proved, it is for the accused to prove that the case falls within the general or special exceptions to the criminal liability recognized by the criminal law. In certain special situations, this position does undergo modifications. For e.g., where a particular fact is within the special knowledge of a person it is for him to prove it. As the law stands at present however, there is no special provision as to the burden of proof where the injuries were received by a person in police custody.” [6]

In the working paper provided by the commission in response to this social concern, a broad outline of a provision which has still yet not been inserted in the Evidence Act of 1872, as section 114B was put forth stating,

“Section 114B (1) In a prosecution (of a police officer) for an offence constituted by an act alleged to have caused bodily injury to a person, if there is evidence that the injury was caused during a period when that that person in the custody of the police, the court may presume that the injury was caused by the police officer having custody of that person during that period.”

The government itself had acknowledged in Rajya Sabha   that 46 persons had already died in police custody due to torture within 3 months, i.e., January – March 1993 in Delhi alone [7] . This situation gives a glaring effect on the situation in tribal and minority communities far from the capital.

Torture: Definition and Practices

Torture (from Latin tortus: to twist, to torment) is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim. [8]  The purpose of torture is not just severe trauma but a deliberate and systematic dismantling of a person’s identity and humanity through physical or psychological pain and suffering. [9]

Usage of torture by law enforcement personnel for aiding in solving cases are a routine practice which come under other titles such as “questioning”, “sustained interrogations”, “extra judicial executions” etc. however these practices by the police exhibit various tendencies of going overboard with such third-degree techniques. NCAT recorded that torture methods used by the police also included hammering iron nails in the body (victims: Gufran Alam and Taslim Ansari of Bihar), applying roller on legs and burning (victim: Rizwan Asad Pandit of Jammu & Kashmir), ‘falanga’ wherein the soles of the feet are beaten (victim: Rajkumar of Kerala), stretching legs apart in opposite side (victim: Rajkumar of Kerala), hitting in private parts (victims: Brijpal Maurya and Lina Narjinari of Haryana), stabbing with screwdriver (victim: Pradeep Tomar of Uttar Pradesh), electric shock (victims: Yadav Lal Prasad of Punjab; Monu of Uttar Pradesh), etc.

Causes assumed for using torture for law enforcement

This information was provided by police officers in an interview on the condition of anonymity and answers are limited to their perspective:

• Inadequate strength of police forces compared to increase in rate of crime. Their task is overwhelming which goes far beyond the duties of enforcing law and controlling crimes. They hardly find adequate time for proper investigation and detection of crime so the adoption of third-degree techniques become inevitable.
• Hardened and professional criminals understand the language of violence only. Third degree methods are the only way to acquire any information from them.
• There is no harm in using violence (apathy) against criminals like dacoits, terrorists and arsonists as they do the same to others in society.
• Apathy with respect to their rights due to the nature of their crimes and their backgrounds.
• The legal procedure is very complicated and always in favor of criminals. The police has to work under heavy legal odds. They have to establish the crime in the court beyond doubt. This leads to solving of the case “by any means”.
• Presence of virtually no facility for scientific investigation and detection of crimes in most police stations. Also leaving no choice but to use third degree methods.
• People want the police to prevent and control crime but are unwilling to cooperate. They seldom give witness against the criminals. So the police has to elicit information about the crime from the criminal concerned which is seldom voluntary.
• People expect the police to give corporal punishments to the criminals as an act of “teaching them a lesson”.  [10]

Apart from these, other influential causes are colonial era use of violence, the media in exaggerating crimes sparking public demand and political pressure of the mistreatment and encounters of criminals and apathy of the executive branches towards such cases.

Most vulnerable sections to custodial torture and death:

The most vulnerable groups in society are the poor and marginalized. Unfortunately, this applies to the majority of the cases of the death and torture in police custody as well.

The NCAT report states this as a fact, saying SC’s (Scheduled Castes) and ST’s (Scheduled Tribes) face caste/ethnic based violence by the police/security forces as well as by the upper caste/general category people, that majority of the victims of police torture belonged to the poor and marginalised sections of the society who are often the soft targets because of their socio-economic status. The NCRB has registered 42,793 cases of crimes against SCs in 2018 over 43,203 cases in 2017, however several cases against SC’s and ST’s go unreported as well.

NCAT documented 13 cases of death of Dalit and tribal people in police custody during 2019. These included eight tribals and five Dalits. Out of the deaths of 125 persons in 124 cases of deaths in police custody documented by NCAT in 2019, 75 persons or 60% belonged to the poor and marginalised communities. These included 13 victims from Dalit and tribal communities, 15 victims belonged to Muslim minority community, 37 victims were picked up for petty crimes which indicate their economic status, three were farmers, one was laborer, one was a refugee, two were security guards, one was a rag-picker and two worked as drivers.

These communities are usually provided no adequate aid either, owing to their weak financial status and illiteracy or ignorance of pursuing legal remedies. Thus, it’s safe to assume that though painted necessary for crimes in big cities, the resulting echo of these malpractices severely impact the safety and dignity of the vulnerable as well.

Women and children in custody:

The treatment of women and children in custody is no less concerning, women in police custody always have the threat of rape and sexual assault along with other forms of physical torture, not only from police officials but also male inmates, and even more so if they are of lower caste or economically disadvantaged. For example, from 3 rd  to 7 th  July 2019, a 35-year-old Dalit woman was allegedly illegally detained, subjected to torture and was raped in police custody by nine police personnel at Sardarshahar police station in Churu district, Rajasthan. Beside custodial rape, the victim was also allegedly subjected to torture including plucking of her nails.  [11]

In response to this the Criminal Law Act, 2013 of the IPC provides a ground for punishment in case of rape/molestation by a police officer wherein whoever,

• Being a police officer, commits rape-
• Within the limits of a police station to which the police officer is appointed; or
• In the premises of any station house; or
• On a woman in such police officer’s custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or
• Being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servants custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant;

m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall imprisonment of the persons natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. [12]

Even with such provisions in place, women in these vulnerable conditions are usually forced to live with the trauma and continue on with their lives as they see no hope or way in pursuing legal action against the men in uniform. These conditions further aggravate the despair of sexual violence against women in the country even more so when the perpetrators are those in uniform and under oath. Unfortunately, they are no such remedies for the cases which go unreported.

Children are also next in line to be victims of grave torture in custody especially due to the lack of implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. This usually results in several juveniles being illegally detained and tortured. The NCRB in its annual report of 2018 also reported 3,164 cases of simple and grievous hurt against children by the police on 3,467 minors. This is a shocking fact considering children who have not yet been developed to the capacity of adults still have had to experience such a traumatic and life changing thing by the very ones who should do the most to protect them in lieu of the future of our nation.

Lack of intervention by legislature and Impunity of the police:

There exist several regulations and code of conducts to demand accountability and proper use of authority by the police, however, that can only be called naïve considering a great long culture in the police authorities to use and ignore those laws which are convenient to them or their case with no one to question them.

Under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018,

• When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
• in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
• in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government. [13]

This means that no police officer or public servant can be arrested for any criminal activity he/she be accused of doing while they are assumed to be acting out their duty, without a sanction of the central or state government.

Similarly, in the NCRB report of 2018, while there were 70 deaths recorded in police custody across the country, none however were convicted.

This can also be attributed to the lack of judicial and magisterial enquiries against the deaths portrayed by the dismal statistics by the NCRB report while the total cases od death were 70 in 2018, only 27 judicial enquiries were conducted. While in 2019, only 5 out of 11 cases were magisterial inquiries conducted.

There are several cases of custodial death wherein the corpses of the victims are incinerated before families were allowed to see the corpse, and the police tamper or dispose of all remaining evidence before any substantial case or FIR can be filed against them or their subordinates. It is an evil that’s been rotting the system for several years and has only seem to have gotten worse.

Observations, suggestions and solutions:

• Ratification of the ‘UN convention against torture’. This convention was signed by India in 1997 but never ratified. No official law has been passed by the legislation on Anti – torture or police reforms concerning custodial deaths despite the frequency of such acts for so long as well as several suggestions and concerns shown by the NHRC and the Apex court. The sustained apathy of the legislature can be interpreted as a quite observance to such practices, thus making it harder for any likelihood of ratification happening in the future either.
• The various suggestions made by the Apex court in judgements like  DK Basu v. State of Bengal   [14] must be enforced and any default by reluctance or ignorance of any police station or public authority should be strictly penalized. Some mainly include:
• All police officers should wear their name tags clearly indicating their name and designation.
• Police must enter the complete details of police officers conducting investigation in a register.
• The arrested person has the right that his/her relative/friend is informed about the arrest.
• The police must contact and inform the relative/friend of the time and place of arrest, and the exact location where the arrested person is detained.
• Implementation of section 114B  [15] mentioned in the law commission report 1985 which raises the notion of holding the officers accountable or with criminal culpability if anyone is found tortured or dead in their custody.
• Though torture is completely normalized in custody for extracting confessions, legally, suspects have the right to withhold any self-incriminatory information or evidence that can be used against them. This is under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

In India, Article 20(3) dictates:

• No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental canon of criminal law jurisprudence. The characteristics of these provisions are,
• That the accused is presumed to be innocent,
• That it is for the prosecution to establish his guilt,
• That the accused need not make any statement against himself.

Nandini Satpathey v. P.L Dani   [16]  also holds that these rights extends to witness and accused alike, and that they must be formally accused in the present and not the future. This applies to every stage in which furnishing of such information and collection takes place. However, implementation of this law has been lackluster in the justice system, as it is subject to constant violations by police and law enforcement authorities. This is owed to the police’s impunity and apathy towards both the judicial system and moral obligations towards rights of the detainees or criminals, and necessary changes must be implemented.

• Public awareness of protections such as Article 39 – A of the constitution which providing free legal aid to the poor or disadvantaged sections of society so the provision of justice can be extended to all citizen despite economic or educational hindrances.

Proper implementation of the D.K Basu judgement as well as greater public awareness of certain rights and provision of citizens and detainees will compel the police to pursue other far more productive methods than third degree methods. Similarly, another recommendation can be the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation by the police with the interest of protecting the accused’s rights.

• Immediate amendment and reform of the “Police act of 1861” which contains several provisions that enable violation of rights by the hands of police officers. This act born in the era of pre independence was made only to hold the lives of our countrymen on a leash, it contains several loopholes wherein the police get away with lesser consequences compared to the gravity of the crimes they have enabled over and over.

The fact that this act exists to this day is a gross indignation of our people’s rights and must be amended promptly.

• Also, the recommendations in the 117 th  law commission report by the 16 th  law commission recommends appropriate amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure which makes police officers responsible of assuring the safety of the accused in custody and making them aware of their rights while they remain in custody [17] .
• The last suggestion is the need for the codification of the rights of the arrested persons as mentioned in The Malimath committee report. [18]

Conclusion:

Police are the safeguards in society which keep its morals and foundations intact and functioning as we go towards progress and development. They are an indisputable necessity to maintain order in society, but when such outfits of justice themselves cannot keep themselves away from violating the public’s fundamental rights, the authority given to promote such justice is annulled.

The very idea of custody is protection or guardianship even when applying it to arrests and incarcerations. The law is a continuous and omnipresent process and system which is permanent, yet always changes according to the needs and progress of society. As such, law enforcement authorities should be held accountable to their crimes and further training and sensitization must be provided on the basis of science and sound morals so to promote legal principles amongst our officers and the public.

[1]  [Joginder Kumar v. Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 26].

[2]  National Campaign Against Torture : Annual report on torture 2019

[3]  P. Jegatheesan, Law and Order in Madras Presidencey, 1850-1880 (1987)

[4]  https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/192000/asa200061992en.pdf

[5]  https://ncrb.gov.in/hi

[6]  113 th  report of The law commission of India on “Injuries in police custody – suggested section 114B, Evidence Act.” Dated 29 th  July, 1985

[7]  The Hindustan Times

[8]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#cite_note-1

[9]  https://healtorture.org/faqs/what-torture

[10]  Saini, R. (1994). CUSTODIAL TORTURE IN LAW AND PRACTICE WITH REFERENCE TO INDIA. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 36(2), 166-192. Retrieved July 20, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43951530

[11]  Rajasthan: Dalit Woman Gang Raped in Police Custody, The Wire, 16 July 2019, https://thewire.in/rights/rajasthan-dalitwoman- gang-rape-police-custody

[12]  S. 376 (2)

[13]  S. 197 (1)

[14]  (1997 (1) SCC 416)

[15]  Indian Evidence Act, 1872

[16]  AIR 1978 SC 1025

[17]  117 th  law commission report of India on “Law relating to arrest” dated December 14, 2001.

[18]  Malimath Committee Report, Volume I, Para 7.26.8-7.26.9

Related Articles

‘one-fourth jails in india report covid-19 cases, many ‘highly’ congested’: report, the hindustan times.

The Hindustan Times  16 September 2020 The National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) said 351 of 1,350 jails across 25 states and Union territories in the country have reported Covid-19 cases till August 31. A non-government organization (NGO) on Wednesday said that 26 percent of India’s 1,350 jails have reported Covid-19 infections since the outbreak of […]

‘George Floyds of India’: Outrage mounts over police custody deaths, Deutsche Welle

Deutsche Welle 30 June 2020 The deaths of a father and son from alleged police brutality have sparked outrage and a debate on custodial deaths in India, with many drawing parallels with the killing of George Floyd in the United States. J. Jayaraj, 58, and Benicks Immanuel, 31, were arrested by police on June 19 […]

Seventeen years since Khwaja Yunus died in Mumbai Police custody, Indian cops still unaccountable for custodial deaths, Firstpost

Firstpost 07 July 2020 In a depressing continuation of the widespread practice of custodial torture, P Jayaraj, 59, and J Fenix, 31, died gruesome deaths in Thoothukudi last month The outrage and debates around the chilling custodial deaths of a father-son duo in Tamil Nadu sound a bit too familiar to Sayyad Khwaja Hussain, 50. “It […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

India has seen severity in law enforcement from the early Vedic period . Even after almost 160 years of the enactment of the 1860 Indian Penal Code and the 1861 Indian Police Act, violence by the police continues. From the shocking Mathura Rape Case in police custody to the recent killing of Jayaraj and Bennix in Tamil Nadu by police officers, police brutality in India has existed in various forms since time immemorial. A number of pertinent instances have come to light this year, including the Uttar Pradesh Police’s violent actions against anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, and actions in furtherance of violation of lockdown restrictions against people as well as essential service providers. This highlights the extensive practice of police brutality in India.

This article will analyze the need for a presumption of custodial violence as a measure to confront the growing menace of police brutality. It will attempt to establish that, although police brutality does not operate in a complete legal vacuum, the aforesaid need crops up due to issues of implementation and enforcement.

Liability can be attributed to the police officials under public law, criminal law, and tort law. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution acts as a source of the public law liability of police officials, as laid down by the Supreme Court (SC) in the landmark judgments of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar , Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , and Nilabati Behara v. State of Orissa . However, to avoid misuse of such provisions, the SC has also laid down in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana that standard of proof for proving such police brutality is high, and only in cases of patent violation of fundamental rights can this remedy be availed.

Sections 197 and 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) protect public servants from vexatious litigation, as highlighted in the case of Jaysingh Wadhu Singh v. State of Maharashtra , provided that the accused police officer satisfactorily shows that the alleged crime had a direct nexus with the performance of an official duty. Since actions violative of the fundamental rights fall outside the course of official duties, the aforesaid provisions would not protect the official from actions against police brutality.

Finally, remedy for police misconduct is also available under tort law by filing a civil suit for compensation. However, sovereign immunity is often availed as a defense .

Although the aforesaid discussion highlights that police officials are not operating under a legal vacuum, there is no specific law catering to the prevention of custodial violence. Irrespective of the existence of laws governing police accountability, the issues concern the insufficient implementation of such provisions, coupled with a lack of sensitization. Reports suggest that police officers often misuse the legal framework by not permitting a complaint/FIR to be filed in the first instance. Moreover, police officials are not sufficiently trained to handle violent situations and challenges to their authority. With the Indian law granting extraordinary and discretionary powers of arrest to the police officials, sufficient sensitization about the extent and scope of such powers is also essential. Similarly, necessary and adequate sensitization of the Indian masses is essential to make them aware of their fundamental rights and the legal recourse available for them to take actions against authorities depriving them of such rights. The burden on the judiciary is also another disincentivizing factor for the masses, and a solution to the same also has to be worked out.

Irrespective of the availability of a legal framework, statistics highlight that from April 2017 to February 2018, 1,647 custodial deaths were recorded in India. This implies that five custodial deaths took place every day during this period. These staggering numbers highlight a blatant knot in the legal framework that needs to be untangled, thus, giving rise to the need for legislative reform.

In the landmark case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav, the SC recommended an amendment to the evidence law to place the burden of proof on police in cases of custodial violence. Consequentially, the Law Commission of India gave its report on similar lines. Further, the Indian Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2016 , passed by the Lok Sabha to introduce the “Presumption in prosecution of custodian death or injury” in the form of Section 114B of the Indian Evidence Act, has not yet been approved by the Rajya Sabha. The bill gave due regard to essential factors including the period of custody, any admissible statement by the victim on the cause of injury, evidence of the medical practitioner, and evidence of the magistrate, who might have a record of the victim’s statement.

An amendment in furtherance of the same would be a welcome move, owing to the rising custodial deaths and the approach of the police officials towards the present legal framework. There have been various instances, as aforementioned, when police officials attempt to bypass the safeguards and misuse the powers vested in them. While the SC directed the police stations to be under CCTV surveillance to ensure the minimization of such activities, police officials have also attempted to tamper with this evidence by switching off cameras . By having a presumption in place, an attempt to curb such incidents can be made because of the added pressure on the police.

It must not be forgotten that the ethos of the democratic Indian society is that the law enforcement agencies are for the benefit of the people and not vice versa. It is imperative to subside the growing tensions between the need for safeguards by the police and from the police. Both order and liberty are essential, and when this balance is displaced, a need for legislative intervention arises. To resolve this growing crisis and to bring the population to par with the police officials with respect to the power and knowledge that they wield, sufficient sensitization of both the police as well as the people, coupled with the need for a presumption of custodial violence, is crucial.

Winy Daigavane is a fourth-year B.A. LLB. (Hons.) Student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi India.

Suggested citation: Winy Daigavane, Presumption of Custodial Violence: A Need to Confront Police Brutality in India with Legislation, JURIST – Student Commentary, July 13, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/07/winy-daigavane-custodial-violence/.

This article was prepared for publication by Cassandra Maas , a JURIST staff editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at [email protected]

March from Selma begins

On March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King, Jr. began his third march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to protest racial discrimination in the Jim Crow South. By March 25, over 25,000 people lead by Dr. King reached Montgomery, Alabama. Specifically, the march called attention to suppression of African-American voting rights and a police assault on a civil rights demonstration three weeks prior. Five months later, in August 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act . Read a history of the march from Selma to Montgomery and a history of the Voting Rights Act.

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [UNESCO factsheet]. On March 21, 1804, the Code Civil des Francais , the reformed French civil law often referred to in French as the Code Napoleon, and in English as the Napoleonic Code, went into effect in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and French colonies.

Documenting custodial violence: Reflections and further research – 5

Watch The State analyzes judicial and administrative accountability in cases of custodial deaths in India from 2015 and 2016. The time period has been selected because enough time has passed to analyze whether any measures of accountability have been taken while being aware of the pace of the Indian criminal justice system.

The investigation finds that, despite existing legal frameworks, custodial deaths and torture often go unpunished; police brutality and torture are ubiquitous, along with abuse of authority and discrimination against caste and religious minorities.

In this final essay, we discuss the challenges and limitations of the project, including the scope for future research on accountability in custodial deaths cases in India. We also focus on the shift to scientific methods of interrogation, previously proposed recommendations and legislations and highlight some of our own findings and recommendations.

In the concluding essay we discuss the challenges we faced and the scope for future research on accountability in custodial deaths cases in India. We also reflect on working on a project that is sensitive and politically charged in the current political environment, where trying to hold the State accountable for its actions has become dangerous and difficult. While we make reference to previously recommended police reforms to reduce police torture and improve accountability, we pose larger questions on the nature of accountability and state violence.

While tracking the 15 cases we discussed in the previous essays in this series we faced a number of challenges. Court documents are not easily available on online government portals, they are either not uploaded or not accessible. The names of victims are often spelt differently across news reports in English, which makes it hard to track cases accurately. There is a sense of fear and objective risk of harassment when trying to file Right to Information (RTI) requests in cases of custodial deaths given the ongoing persecution of RTI and human rights activists in India. We learnt this while speaking to various grassroots organizations and lawyers working closely with the courts and with families of victims in cases of custodial deaths. Due to the lapse of time since the cases first occurred, it was difficult to find lawyers or human rights organizations who still have documents and other material regarding the cases. The limitations of this project also include the lack of resources in tracking closely a larger number of cases and the heavy reliance on news reports in English dating back six years.

Further research on custodial deaths in India can involve speaking to the lawyers and families of the victims, interviewing police personnel and legal scholars. Speaking to journalists covering these cases would also help in getting a sense of the information asymmetry in terms of what is reported, what is hidden and what are the lengths that people go to recover and corroborate information. Interviews with human rights organizations could help in getting an overall picture of custodial deaths in India.

We filed a total of 45 RTI applications for the 15 cases from four states.  For each of the cases, we filed an RTI with the police station where the victim was brought in or arrested or where the FIR was filed, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). We received two responses from the concerned police authority and the SHRC mentioning that they would send the required information to us, however, we have not received any information from these two bodies at the time of writing. In one case, we received the response “court ticket not part of application fee” from the police authority in charge of handling RTI requests.

This project focuses exclusively on custodial violence and deaths in police and judicial custody. The Indian state perpetrates violence in other forms such as sexual violence and rape in custody, extra-judicial killings, torture in juvenile homes and de-addiction centers as well as violence and torture by the Indian military apparatus, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states. The Indian military function with impunity in many areas under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which grants special powers to the Indian Armed Forces. While this project does not address or focus on these other instances of violence, it is essential to mention them in order to highlight the scope and extent of violence perpetrated by the Indian state.

The shift from physical markers of custodial violence to scientific methods of interrogation are an invisible form of violence and have an impact on the victim’s mental health. Jinee Lokaneeta’s groundbreaking ethnography, Truth Machines: Policing, Violence, and Scientific Interrogations in India, studies the relationship between state power and legal violence through a study of forensic techniques. Lokaneeta argues that the use of interrogation techniques that focus on the mind rather than the body – such as brain scanning, narco analysis and lie detection – seek to replace third-degree torture and violence. Lokaneeta notes that this shift is also prompted by the fact that the Police negotiate two roles – the pastoral and the repressive and aim to avoid custodial deaths or physical signs of torture. Despite doubts and concerns over their validity, the adoption of “truth machines” or scientific methods was not met with much pushback. The Ministry of Home Affairs, ignoring its own scientific review committee, made these techniques a priority for police reform. Many of the High Courts also approved the use of these methods in an effort to move away from custodial violence, but in 2010 the Supreme Court disallowed the use of these scientific methods as well as the evidence obtained from them. However, since the Supreme Court did not fully ban the use of these methods, the Police continue to use these techniques and other emerging ones which are deemed unreliable.

Lokaneeta exposes the “scaffold of rule of law,” that hides violence behind procedures and depends on the Police, doctors and magistrates to perform the interrogation. She proposes the theory of a “contingent state” which allows State actors, such as the Police, doctors, forensic psychologists and judges to routinely indulge in violence. Lokaneeta rightly notes that the voices of those targeted will reveal the violence and that understanding the rule of law requires attention to the experience of those affected. It is only by revealing the scaffolding of the rule of law that one can actively resist it. Over the years, various bodies, commissions, human rights organizations and international bodies have proposed reforms to improve police accountability.

Artha Global ’s 2022 report Prioritising Rule of Law and Police Reform in India suggests several reforms to improve police accountability including the need for a democratic internal organizational culture and improving institutional capacity along with improved training of police personnel for a community-oriented model of policing especially for vulnerable groups.

The 2016 HRW report Bound by Brotherhood: India’s Failure to End Killings in Police Custody has proposed detailed recommendations to concerned institutions. These recommendations include the Indian Parliament ratifying the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, incorporating its provisions into domestic law and amending Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006. This amendment would allow the NHRC to inquire into violations pending before other commissions or those that occurred more than one year before the complaint was filed to allow more victims to access the commission. The Union and State Home Ministries as well as the Police are also recommended to strictly enforce laws and guidelines on arrest and detention as set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s D.K. Basu’s decision .

To ensure accountability for police misconduct, HRW noted that Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) are set up in line with Supreme Court directives and are functional at both state and district levels. Another suggestion is to create an anonymous complaints line for victims and witnesses, including other police personnel to report misconduct. To bolster accountability mechanisms, under no circumstances should investigations ordered by external agencies such as the state human rights commissions be referred to police from the same police station implicated in the complaint. When police officers are identified in any First Information Report (FIR) regarding custodial abuse, they should be suspended until the incident is investigated and resolved, and there is a need to end the practice of transferring police alleged to have committed abuses.

The NHRC is recommended to end the practice of transferring cases filed with the NHRC to SHRCs unless given express consent to do so by complainants. This is based on the understanding that certain complaints may receive a fairer hearing by the NHRC. HRW also recommends ending the practice of filing multiple complaints for the same case. All complaints related to a case of custodial violence and death should be tied together so that they can easily be tracked for updates. The NHRC is also recommended to conduct more independent investigations into custodial deaths rather than relying heavily on magisterial and police inquiry reports. Despite these recommendations and the ones put forward in the 2009 HRW report , Broken System: Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police , it remains to be seen when and how many of these proposed recommendations will be implemented.

Based on our research, we reiterate the necessity of reforming section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) so that prosecutors do not need to obtain government approval before pursuing charges against police in cases alleging arbitrary detention, torture, extrajudicial killings and other criminal acts. In many of the cases that we focused on, the NHRC closed the investigation after ordering interim compensation for the victims, not waiting to see if the compensation would be paid, or whether that ensured justice to the families of victims. We noted the threats and intimidation that families of victims of custodial deaths have to endure: it is necessary to take measures to protect them from coercion, violence or the threat of violence. We also noted that there is an urgent need to provide support and resources for grassroots networks and civil society organizations that provide direct assistance to the families and victims of police abuse and are engaged in years-long fight for justice.

In a liberal democracy, the rights of a person are a core value protected by the law and implemented through state actors. The Police is one such state actor. The Indian Constitution ensures that every citizen is guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty. However, as Jinee Lokaneeta notes, in India the Police are the “most visible site of state power in their everyday operations.”

Documenting the global history of torture, political scientist Darius Rejali in his book Torture and Democracy (2007) notes that the Police and the military in main democratic states such as France, England and USA were leaders in adapting and innovating techniques of torture. Rejali offers an explanation for this link between democracies and torture: public monitoring by the press, politicians, international and national human rights organizations is a core value in democracies and hence coercive techniques of torture were developed and implemented to escape or limit accountability. Torture, which is a pervasive open secret is also not defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Prevention of Torture bill was first introduced in the Lok Sabha, India’s lower house of Parliament in 2010.  The Rajya Sabha referred the bill to a Select Committee which proposed amendments to make it more compliant with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which India is a signatory, and the committee presented its findings in December 2010. However, the bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.

In October 2017, the Law Commission of India published their report on “Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment through Legislation.” In 2017, The Prevention of Torture bill was introduced as a private member bill in the Rajya Sabha but was not enacted. The same bill was introduced on 9 February 2018 as a private member bill in the Lok Sabha, but the bill lapsed due to the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha. A modified bill called the Prevention of Torture and Atrocities (By Public Servants) bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2021 and is pending.

The Prevention of Torture bill offers the following definition of torture: “Whoever, being a public servant or being abetted by a public servant or with the consent or acquiescence of a public servant, intentionally does any act for the purposes to punish or to obtain information from any person, whether in police custody or otherwise, which causes,— (i) grievous hurt to any person; or (ii) danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of any person, is said to inflict torture.” Yet, the delay and failure to pass the law highlights the lack of incentive in holding public officials accountable. No legislation has been passed to define, condemn and take action against torture by public officials in India. This, yet again, brings up questions regarding the identity of the perpetrator, the ideological leanings of the State and the identity of the victim. Torture then becomes a tool to target certain groups and this discrimination is based on religion, caste, class or ideological associations.

Custodial violence is disproportionately borne by poor and socially vulnerable groups, including Dalits, Adivasis, migrants, LGBTQ communities and religious minorities. While it is a known, pervasive and routine phenomenon, it needs to be documented, highlighted, addressed and challenged, irrespective of how much time has passed since the incident of violence occurred. The Indian State does not have the right or power to enforce and perpetrate violence and needs to be held accountable for its actions. Allowing the State to function with impunity is tantamount to the undermining of the Constitution and its ideals. A democracy thrives only when every individual is able to enjoy their rights equally and live without the fear of a violent State.

This research is built on the extensive work done by lawyers, researchers, human rights activists, journalists, families of victims seeking justice, local organizations and networks. We would like to extend our gratitude to all those who have influenced our work. While our attempt is neither comprehensive nor conclusive, we hope that the questions and limitations of this project will open up further research and engagement with these issues.

For this series of essays on judicial and administrative accountability on custodial deaths in India, we would like to acknowledge and thank the following people: Venkatesh Nayak from Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) for initial conversations and guidance on the project; Jayshree Bajoria, senior researcher at the Human Rights Watch (HRW) for guidance on the project; V. Geetha, feminist activist and scholar for documents on cases of custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu ; Shailesh Poddar, a lawyer based in Jharkhand and Delhi for assistance on accessing case documents and assistance with RTI applications; Raja Bagga, lawyer and researcher at the Jindal Global Law School for assistance on the study and with RTI applications; Kirity Roy at MASUM, for documents on cases of custodial deaths in West Bengal; Lateef Mohammed Khan at Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee (CLMC) for documents on cases of custodial deaths in Telangana; Leslie Martin for help in contacts for the project; Jinee Lokaneeta for guidance on the project and Amala Dasarathi, lawyer and legal researcher for assistance on accessing case documents. We would also like to thank Jayshree Bajoria, Raja Bagga and Jinee Lokaneeta for reviewing the essays, and Francesca Recchia for editorial support.

We would also like to thank The Thakur Foundation for providing support and funding for this project.

Impunity and complicity: The role of the State and non-state institutions in cases of custodial deaths in India – 4

The obligation to deny: accountability (or the lack thereof) in cases of custodial deaths in india – 3.

The Polis Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Your tax-deductible contribution goes directly toward supporting our contributors, our staff of talented editors, researchers, writers, producers and artists, and our fellows.

All donations are tax deductible.

Our EIN: 82-4072305

Designed by Collectively Hyd. © 2021. THE POLIS PROJECT . All rights reserved.

• Login To RMS System
• About JETIR URP
• About All Approval and Licence
• Conference/Special Issue Proposal
• Book and Dissertation/Thesis Publication
• How start New Journal & Software
• Best Papers Award
• Mission and Vision
• Reviewer Board
• Join JETIR URP
• Call For Paper
• Research Areas
• Publication Guidelines
• Sample Paper Format
• Submit Paper Online
• Processing Charges
• Hard Copy and DOI Charges
• Check Your Paper Status
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Special Issues
• Conference Proposal
• Recent Conference
• Published Thesis

Contact Us Click Here

Whatsapp contact click here, published in:.

Volume 7 Issue 2 February-2020 eISSN: 2349-5162

UGC and ISSN approved 7.95 impact factor UGC Approved Journal no 63975

Unique identifier.

Published Paper ID: JETIR2002532

Registration ID: 527620

Page Number

Post-publication.

• Downlaod eCertificate, Confirmation Letter
• editor board member
• JETIR front page
• Journal Back Page
• UGC Approval 14 June W.e.f of CARE List UGC Approved Journal no 63975

Share This Article

Important links:.

• Call for Paper
• Submit Manuscript online

• Smt. Supriya M.Swami

Cite This Article

2349-5162 | Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar An International Scholarly Open Access Journal, Peer-Reviewed, Refereed Journal Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool, Multidisciplinary, Monthly, Multilanguage Journal Indexing in All Major Database & Metadata, Citation Generator

Publication Details

Download paper / preview article.

Download Paper

Preview this article, download pdf, print this page.

Impact Factor:

Impact factor calculation click here current call for paper, call for paper cilck here for more info important links:.

• Follow Us on

• Developed by JETIR

JOURNAL FOR LAW STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS

ISSN[0] : 2582-306X

ANALYSIS OF CUSTODIAL DEATHS IN INDIA: AN INFRINGEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS by Swetalika Das

Author : Swetalika Das, Student at Amity University, Kolkata

Custodial deaths are a raising concern in our society which is leading mistrusts in public. As because police officers were considered as safeguards and have the rights to protect public’s fundamental rights sometimes the same person violates those laws instead of protecting it. In this article, the author analysed various legal perspectives on custodial deaths and the causes of the same.

The main objective of this article is to spread an awareness of custodial deaths issue and how it is highly important to maintain equality and to protect dignity of person’s right to live . The issues which were raised in this article are :

• Does custodial violence is the only cause of deaths?
• If no, then what are the other causes?
• What does the law saying? ( by preferring some case laws)
• What are the solutions to custodial deaths?

After analysing all the issues, it was discovered that maximum people were died in custody just because of the torture and violence by police authorities and people were also dying because of unavailable healthcare, medical aids which is showing a sheer negligence of police authorities.Further, the article will eventually conclude with a final observation.

Keywords: Custodial deaths, fundamental rights, police officers , violence .

INTRODUCTION

The Custodial cruelty is one of the Heinous Crimes in India which often go unpunished. It’s a bitter truth but custodial torture is the worst thing which can happen to destroy someone’s fundamental rights. There were numerous cases of custodial deaths and according to the recent annual report of the year 2019 , 1606 people died in the judicial custody and 125 in police custody which in total of 1731 people died in custody which means that every five people die daily according to a report released by a human rights group.

The word “ custody” means the legal rights or duty to take care of someone even when the accused is arrested it doesn’t not give anyone the power to create terror or violence against the accused. According to the National Health Rights Commission (NHRC), it strictly mentioned in their lists that custody is to prevent any kind of torture or infringement of human rights. In country like India, where the constitution believes in the liberty towards fundamental rights, offences like custodial deaths aren’t acceptable and most of the custodial deaths cases goes unpunished resulting in more number of cases . Due to the increase in custodial death cases people have started to lose faith in the legal system of our country.

Police officers are supposed to protect the fundamental rights of common man and violation from the same person is disgraceful.

This article argues on the causes of custodial deaths, why custodial deaths goes unpunished and case laws associated with it. The main objective of this article is to bring awareness about the most concerned issue like custodial deaths and further, this article will deal with the problems and suggestions.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CUSTODIAL DEATHS

The constitution of India has given specific rights to the citizens of India and safety or protection against any violation towards them. There are seven such fundamental rights mentioned in the constitution of India among which the most common and important is Article 21 which is stating:

          “ [1] No person should be deprived of his life or personal liberty” except according to the procedures done by the law.

This constitution of law implies that Every person is equal and the Supreme Court also stated that “ [2] The protection of the article extends to all the persons not merely citizens which also [3] includes the person under imprisonment and it shouldn’t be violated by any public authority”.

The basic duty of any public officer is to protect those fundamental rights by offering adequate medical treatment in case of any injury or illness regardless of questioning whether he is innocent or guilty.

Unfortunately, the mentioned above laws were always ignored by the police officers . Firstly, they arrested the Accused ones and bought under custody and further, tortured very harshly which resulted in infringement of their rights. Even after the torture they weren’t provided with any medical aid or support which is eventually causing custodial deaths. The most concerned fact is the accused ones who were under trial or inquiry stage have to face all the ill treatments from the society as well. Generally, the accused ones were looked down by the society, but according to the law even an accused person under the trial or in prison shouldn’t be deprived of his rights.

The Supreme Court also stated that “ [4] Every convicts , prisoners and under trials have right under Article 21 and only such Restrictions can be imposed as permitted by law.”  

In most of the cases, many accused ones weren’t even proven guilty by the court but still assumed to be a criminal and consequently, they get an ill treatment from the police officers. The police officers try to infringe of person’s basic rights who can be held as an innocent in future.

CUSTODIAL DEATHS

Definition:

The custodial death is the death of a person in a police custody or judicial custody while custodial violence can have two forms of violence.

• In Section 330, Section 331 and Section 348 of Indian Penal Code, Section 76 of CrPC and Section 29 of the Police Act it implies that the police officers can torture to only extract confessions but only in necessary circumstances.
• In other part, there are police officers who were misusing their powers just to extract the confession of crimes from the accused. They were committing some heinous cognizable offences such Rape which is eventually leading to death of an accused.

In a recent study by a group of human rights, the majority of victims of custodial deaths are from the lower level of society who aren’t even aware of their basic fundamental rights. Due to this reason, they couldn’t raise their voice against the torture they are facing.

[5] According to a survey of the year 1991, when the police officers were asked about the reason behind such cruelty they answered that “ all the ways they are applying only to make the person confess his crimes which is mentioned in our Indian jurisdiction”, but just for the sake of confession they were using all the illegal ways which is beyond anyone’s imagination.

Some of the inhuman acts includes electric shock, rape , forcing to perform oral sex, putting chilli powder in eyes, beating with iron rods, inserting hard objects in the private parts and many more resulting into deaths in custody.

Causes of Custodial deaths:

• Violence and cruelty in the name of extracting confessions
• No safety or protection and medical aid provided
• Commitment of suicide out of fear from the legal proceedings
• Deaths due to natural causes

CASE LAWS RELATED TO CUSTODIAL DEATHS

• Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa

In the case, the apex court observed that [6] “every prisoners and arrestees are having their fundamental rights according to the article 21 of the Indian constitution. They have the equal rights to enjoy all the basics of fundamental rights and the police are bound to obey the law and to protect their fundamental rights by ensuring that the citizen in custody isn’t deprived from his right to life”. The Court further took a reference of Article 9(5) of the international convenant  on civil and political rights which implies the right to compensation should be taken into consideration and anyone who is the victim of unlawful arrest and tortured in the custody shall be awarded with compensation. In this case, the apex court awarded the deceased’s mother a compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs who was a victim of custodial violence and unfortunately died in the police custody.

• D.k. Basu vs. State of West Bengal

In the case, a non-social organisation, legal aid services and executive chairman has wrote a letter for the matter of increasing custodial deaths in the state of West Bengal. Later, the letter converted into a public interest litigation (PIL) which was passed by the Supreme Court and filed a petition regarding the rising concern of custodial death in February 1998 while in this period, the news of the death of Mahesh Bihari in Aligarh police custody spread rapidly and The court observed the case and came into a conclusion to form a set of rules and regulations regarding the arrest of a person and  put a strict 11 guidelines on the police department.The Court also included this observation in D.K.Basu’s case. The Observation of the court was:

“ [7] In almost every states there are cases and those cases are increasing day by day with a rising of frequent custodial deaths . At present, there’s no appearance of any such methods to deal with such cases. Since, this is a matter of whole nation and the state governments . Therefore, it is to issue notices to state government if they have any suggestions or say regarding the concerned matter.”

In this case, the supreme court said that the custodial deaths are need to be reduced as it will have a great impact on legal system and people will eventually start to lose faith in law. Further stated “ every high court should have an eye check on every actions of police officers and should have all the details of accuse in a report and the punishment imposed on them.”

• Yashwant and others vs. state of Maharashtra

In this case, 9 police officers of Maharashtra were found guilty under section 330 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). On September 4, the Supreme convicted all the 9 officers in the case of 1993 custodial death case which involved rigorous violence, extortion and hurt. Later, the court ordered  an  imprisonment of seven years to each of them. A bench of justices N R Ramana and MM Shantanagoudar said “enhancement in the imprisonment term of police cops is important so that incidents like custodial deaths get reduced and police officers should realise their duties before committing any offence”. The court also stated “ [8] the great power comes with great responsibilities” .

Solutions to the custodial deaths

• There should be CCTV cameras in every lockup room.
• Medical aids should be given at proper time in case of any injury or illness
• Negligence by any police officer there should be strict punishment for them without any kind of delay
• If there’s any kind of attempt of suicide by the accused then there should be a therapy session for the accused.

The idea of custody is only to give protection and safety to somebody even when the person is a culprit but this idea is being continuously ignored by some police officers. A police officer is a person whose duty is to maintain the law and order and we can’t expect the infringement of human rights from the same person who is obliged to protect it. Custodial Deaths are undoubtedly a serious concern for our society as its leading to put a question mark on our judicial system. A person whether he is guilty or not guilty shouldn’t be deprived from his fundamental rights , he still has his right to live and police officers are bound to protect that right.

People in a country wouldn’t follow the rules and regulations until and unless the law makers themselves follow all the rules. The police officers were regarded as the safeguards of our country and a common man follows their ideas and perspectives but this kind of offences giving an unpleasant example to the society.

As such, enforcement of law is permanent process and therefore, every public authority irrespective of their positions should follow and obey the provisions law. If possible, the same public officer should be convicted at the very moment after committing the offence so that there wouldn’t be any misuse of powers and common man wouldn’t have any kind of mistrust on the judicial system.

[1] Dr D.D Basu, shorter constitution of India, 12 th ed, 1999, p.168

[2] Anwar vs. state of Jammu and Kashmir (1970) 2 S.C.W.R 276 (279)

[3] State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhakar 1966 S.C. 426(426)

[4] Nilabati vs. state of Orissa A.I.R 1993 S.C. 1960

[5] B.Maria Kumar, Custodial deaths in India: a research study, paper presented in the svp national police academy, Hyderabad, 1994

[6] Smt. Nilabati vs. state of Orissa A.I.R 1993 S.C. 1960

[7] D.k. Basu vs State of West Bengal, (1997) (1) SCC 416

[8] Yashwant and others v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 4 MLJ (Crl) 10 (SC)

• VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

ISSN 2581-5369

HeinOnline, MANUPATRA, Google Scholar Indexed

Custodial Violence: Horrendous Crime in a Civilised Society

Shephalika srivastava.

• Show Author Details

LL.M Student at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Lucknow, India.

• img Download Full Paper
• img Export Citation

Export citation

Custodial violence, perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society is a matter of concern for many reasons. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a heavy blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that they should be limited by law. The law of arrest expects both individual rights and the state’s collective responsibility toward society. In most scenarios, it becomes a challenge to strike a perfect balance between both. Transparency of action and accountability are possible safeguards to prevent abuse of power to arrest a citizen. Custodial violence broadly includes custodial deaths, torture, and as per the new trend in the crime pattern, even custodial rapes. Custodial Violence in India is widespread, unaccounted for, and rarely prosecuted. It contributes to the state of anarchy and lawlessness in many parts of the country. Violence is used as a cheap and easy method of investigation and also as a tool for oppression. It is almost an unwritten understanding that when an officer asks his subordinates to ‘thoroughly interrogate a suspect’ it would simply mean ‘torture’. In the case of D. K Basu V State of West Bengal, the highest body of justice, the Supreme Court, had clearly stated, “Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity. The situation is aggravated when violence occurs within the four walls of a police station by those who are supposed to protect citizens”, also paying consideration to the tediousness of police task in yielding control over its civil population. Human Dignity is the highest form of fundamental right respected even by our most powerful and prestigious statute book, the Indian Constitution. When an individual is taken under custody, it means that he/ she becomes the legal property of the state, which also means the state and its missionaries become their legal guardians and all its institutions are at their disposal to reprimand them as well as guard them. But the idea of state custody has become so alarming that society fears cooperation and even the notion of police and police stations.

• Custodial violence
• Human Dignity
• Constitution
• Police and fake encounters.

Research Paper

Information

International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 5, Issue 5, Page 195 - 210

Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright © IJLMH 2021

Total number of HTML views: 342

Total number of pdf downloaded: 258, open access.

https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.113557

Recent content

1 pivotal moments across eras: significant historical events in the evolution of ipr.

By Utkarsh Sharma

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 528 - 536

2 Illuminating the Labyrinth: A Comprehensive Framework for Due Diligence in M&A Transactions

By Atul Chandra

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 515 - 527

3 Need for a Comprehensive Indian Law Regulating Personality Rights

By Madhushree N.

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 507 - 514

4 The Adoption: Unaddressed Moral Issues and Legal Problems in India

By U. Saranya

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 502 - 506

5 The Effect of Migration of Legal Texts to Americas between 1600- 1900

By Abhay Asagodu

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 493 - 501

International Journal of Law Management & Humanities

Typically replies within 24 hours.

Any questions related to the journal or your submission?

WhatsApp Us

🟢 We will respond within 24 hours, maybe less.

WhatsApp us.

When it comes to justifying their actions, this paper emphasises on the fact that those officers involved in the misbehaviour as individuals do not represent the police as an institution. This paper further stated that facts and statistics are rarely used to judge cases of misconduct, and that their actions are interpreted according to popular beliefs. Finally, the study looks at what has been done so far to combat the threat of custodial violence and what more needs to be done. It also believes that police changes in India are urgently needed, and that the Supreme Court of India's directives in Prakash Singh v. Union of India must be followed.

To deal with the custodial violence our Indian legal system contains a slew of regulations governing police behaviour in detention and dealing with instances of torture. Various laws and statutes, including Section 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 330, 331 & 348 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 29 of the Indian Police Act, Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the Constitution of India, explicitly outline legal remedies. In spite of these precautions, India was unsuccessful to put these legal measures into effect. India is a signatory to many conventions against torture, including the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)”. Torture and the use of brutal means and methods against humans are likewise prohibited under these accords. "Every state party should adopt effective legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to prohibit acts of torture in any area under its authority," according to UNCAT's Article 2(1). "No one should be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," says Article 5- “of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 7 of the ICCPR is also crucial in that it prohibits governments from torturing people for whatever reason”. As a signatory to international treaties, India has a responsibility to comply and not violate their requirements. [1] All of the above-mentioned statutes deal specifically with police conduct and the validity of confessions made while in police custody. In India, jail reforms resulted from the worst circumstances of treatment experienced by political prisoners in prison during their detention, rather than from a popular movement. They protested with the prison officials on several occasions, and they did everything they could to ensure that detainees were treated humanely and that the rigours of prison life were lessened. All of the above-mentioned statutes deal specifically with police conduct and the validity of confessions made while in police custody. In India, jail reforms resulted from the worst circumstances of treatment experienced by political prisoners in prison during their detention, rather than from a popular movement. They protested with the prison officials on several occasions, and they did everything they could to ensure that detainees were treated humanely and that the rigours of prison life were lessened. [2]  N.V. Ramana, India's Chief Justice, voiced alarm over the extent of human rights breaches at police stations around the country. "Despite constitutional declarations and protections, detained individuals suffer greatly from a lack of efficient legal counsel at police stations," he stated. Though a reality check reveals that the scenario isn't as terrible as it appears, and that attempts have been made to enhance the protection of human rights system in police stations. [3] Custodial Violence Custodial violence is the most visible of our criminal justice system's numerous systemic failings in securing justice and maintaining equal rights for everyone because of its pervasive and heinous character, which turns the very guardians of the law into criminals. The police, who are tasked with upholding the rule of law, are involved in some of the most heinous acts of cruelty. It is more shocking than the severity is the casualness with which this procedure is being carried out. In interviews, police officials have said publicly that torture is essential to get a confession from an accused person. Our reaction has implicitly legitimised the savagery, from the film industry's loud celebration of the concept of a violent police force to public spectacles featuring glorification of encounter killings. [4]  The inadequacy of judicial response, the lack of political will, and the collusion of state machinery, which has repeatedly failed to comprehend the importance of enacting far-reaching police reforms, are all testaments to the inadequacy of judicial response, the absence of political will, and the collusion of state machinery. [5] Judicial Response The statistics on guilty officers' conviction rates are not promising. In an landmark judgement, a special CBI court in Kerala sentenced two Kerala Police officers to death for the brutal prison torture and killing of a young man called Udayakumar in 2005. However, encouraging imprisonment torture and murder based on a few convictions is not the answer. The necessity of the hour is for a competent judicial reaction with a remedial approach. In the P Jayaraj and J Bennicks case, the court's parochial attitude can be contrasted with the judgement in the Udayakumar case. Lessons from The United States Floyd's name was given to a police reform bill just passed by the US House of Representatives. Within a year after the event, Chauvin was sentenced to 22.5 years in jail. In India, such haste in responding to a heinous crime is almost non-existent. And in another case, Jinee Lokaneeta, a scholar who has studied the relationship between state authority and legal violence extensively, emphasises the need of prompt action in providing justice for victims of state violence. The massive and communal outpouring of indignation against racially motivated police violence in America was equally noticeable in the aftermath of Floyd's murder. The tragedy provoked massive countrywide protests and encouraged movements for racial justice in other areas of the world. Floyd's murder was not perceived as an isolated occurrence, but as part of a long history of institutional oppression of African-Americans. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" is a collective statement of dissatisfaction with the state's unfair treatment of a specific community. India has yet to develop a comparably acute and collective awareness to atrocities against minorities. Following the murder of George Floyd, worldwide discussions regarding police abuses have erupted, notably in the United States. The Jeyaraj-Beniks case in India is the most recent instance of police violence to elicit discussion on the need for reform.  [6] Recent Cases in India Last year, a sanitation worker suspected of stealing Rs. 25 lakh from Agra's Jagdishpura police station allegedly died in police custody when his health worsen during questioning. Mayawati, the leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to change its police system after a Kanpur businessman died reportedly as a result of police thrashing. "After the sad murder of a businessman in a hotel by police in Gorakhpur, the current BJP administration is now in the dock again due to the death of a Dalit sweeper in police custody in Agra," she said. As a result, the government should make the necessary changes to its police force. [7]  In another case, Altaf, a 22-year-old Muslim male, is accused of hanging himself from a bathroom tap only using the drawstring of the jacket's hood, raise two feet or 61 cm above the ground. Altaf's family, on the other hand, thinks he was murdered, and the relatives have asked for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation investigate Altaf's death (CBI). [8] The use of “third-degree methods” against suspects at the time of illegal detention and police remand cast a stain on India's entire administrative system, where the rule of law is the “supreme command and the right to life and liberty is an existential force or derivative right for the majority of other fundamental rights”. Furthermore, it calls into question the judiciary's competence in allowing such police activities to go unpunished while sacred rights are jeopardised. [9] Torture in detention is now considered an unavoidable component of the inquiry process. The mistaken belief persists in investigations that if enough pressure is exerted, the accused would confess. The film 'Jai Bhim' has shown various facets of the society and institutions in which we live. It has made the injustice they suffer or may encounter in police detention more visible and clear to the wider public. This film portrays how inmates in jails are denied their rights and how force is used against them in dangerous ways, and it is for this reason that it is both tragic and amazing. The video illuminated many aspects of the rule of law, as well as abuses of power and authority. It shows prison life, including interactions with convicts and the use of a variety of gruesome tortures. The film examines “not just the police's illegal and brutal treatment of inmates, but also the difficulties in combating such a system”. The rule of law is only an abstraction that must submit to such ostensibly lawless authority. The result of policing authorities' unaccountable and unfettered authority is how a society transitions from a welfare state to a police state. [10]  In films like  Singham  and  Dabangg , the Hindi film industry has dealt with police violence and uncontrolled authority for a long time. However, Jai Bhim puts in motion a bleak image of incarceration brutality, police torture, and police abuse of the law. It shatters the narrative of police violence being idealised. [11] Jai Bhim The film Jai Bhim eloquently showed the terrible underbelly of our law enforcement colossus. Few films have succeeded in capturing the imagination of spectators in the way that this creative effort based on true events has. One can scarcely see the film without feeling powerless in the face of the State's blatant unfairness to Rajakannu at every stage of his life, especially towards the conclusion. [12]  In India, the police are frequently seen as harsh, dishonest, and a leading suspect in human rights crimes. Jai Bhim also portrays bogus accusations being brought against members of a defenceless minority population, police violence, and hope in the shape of a lawyer committed to battling injustice. Rajakannu, an Irular tribal member, is wrongly accused of stealing. He is apprehended with a few relatives and tortured by the local cops, which is all described in great detail. Some officers arrest and brutalise Rajakannu's wife Sengkani and his sister; one of them even removes the sister's clothing. As the theft victim is a local VIP occurs, the local police station head is under immense pressure from his superiors to solve the crime. In addition, he is clamouring for a raise. As a result, he and two other cops are keen to get Rajakannu to confess. And he was beaten to death. To hide their tracks, the cops pretend the group had gotten away. Sengkani, who is expecting her second child, is unhappy and seeks support from a variety of individuals in her hunt for Rajakannu. Finally, she is led to see lawyer K Chandru by a sympathetic activist who educates the Irular community to read and write, and the momentous court struggle starts. Chandru files a petition of habeas corpus and, facing virtually certain defeat, carefully pulls together the circumstances of the case to defend it in court. Throughout the story, it has been seen that how cunning and cooperative cops can be in order to save their own or their colleagues' lives. Sengkani's stubbornness and Chandru's talents, on the other hand, win the day. They are aided in this by the report of an honest senior police officer who, despite being directed by his boss to protect the police force's name, investigates the case on the court's orders and produces true evidence. In addition, the two judges' willingness to be flexible in their pursuit of the truth pays offs. The film is not hesitant to raise tough questions, and after seeing the courtroom sequences, one will notice that it's not just people who are on trial, but also the fundamental ideals of law enforcement, justice, and caste."Apart from a few cinematic liberties, the film has maintained close to the facts and the backbone is intact," retired judge Chandru quoted.  [13] The truth is that police brutality and deaths in custody occur all over the world. In reality, Jai Bhim demonstrates the critical role of attorneys and judges in defending the poor guy and maintaining justice. It emphasises the need of police officers, attorneys, and the judiciary cooperating in the pursuit of truth and justice. It implies that even one committed and determined individual can make a difference. It also gives reason to believe that justice will prevail. [14]  It stands to reason that police officers who are involved in misconduct as individuals do not represent the police as an institution when it comes to justifying such misbehaviour. The police force, on the other hand, is compelled to share the blame. In our country, facts and data are rarely used to determine cases of police misconduct. Rather, they are frequently extrapolated from popular beliefs. Such narratives aim to demonise the police as a whole. Individual police officers' wrongdoings are labelled as the entire force's implicit endorsement and support of similar crimes. [15] Inspite of the fact this movie is being told with the intent of delegitimizing their position and tarnishing their reputation as upholders of the law. According to what has been shown in the movie, the uniform and those who wear it are permanently tainted with the blood of the innocent. Custodial violence or the employment of extra-legal means that violate the rule of law in the name of ensuring actual or imagined 'justice' are not acceptable. At the same time, it's critical to acknowledge that custodial violence is deeply embedded in our criminal justice system's colonial origins. Under strong sub-cultural influences, it is frequently committed by officials based on their behavioural profile and personalities. Justice Chandru, who filed the habeas corpus petition featured in Jai Bhim, stated in an interview that our investigative tactics haven't progressed much since Independence. The issue of how the police are meant to carry out their investigation tasks efficiently and effectively begs to be questioned without the adoption of contemporary and scientific investigative procedures and proper training of police personnel in their application. In the face of 'investigation' and 'interrogation,' there appears to be little concern for human rights.