The Supreme Court emphasised the need for an impartial investigating agency in cases involving custodial deaths, citing the principle of ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ (‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’).

25-year old Deva Pardhi was taken into custody along with his uncle Gangaram Pardhi in connection with a theft investigation. Both were reportedly subjected to “intense third-degree treatment” and were brutally tortured to force a confession. Deva died in custody. A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI and denied bail to Gangaram.

Finding that the local police investigation was not “transparent,” the Supreme Court directed the transfer of the investigation to the CBI. It also ordered the arrest of the responsible police officers within a month and completion of the investigation within 90 days. The Court also expressed concern over the safety of Gangaram as the sole eyewitness of the alleged torture, granted him liberty to apply for bail directly in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and directed the State to provide him with witness protection.

Hansura Bai v State of Madhya Pradesh

15 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 711 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(3)[11]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Read the Judgement here.

Case comment

Facts as emerging from the record reveal that one Bhagwan Singh, resident of Village Bhidra, lodged an FIR No. 232 of 2024 at Myana Police Station against unknown persons for theft and house trespass by night punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 As per the complainant, substantial articles of silver and gold jewellery and cash were stolen from the safe of his house on 2nd June, 2024. The appellants are mother and aunt respectively of Deva Pardhi, whose marriage was scheduled to be solemnised on 14th July, 2024 with one Nikita Pardhi. It is the case of the appellants that while the Haldi ritual was going on, about 30-40 police personnel entered the wedding venue in 5-6 police cars and two motorcycles. The time was around 04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M., when 10 police officials entered into Deva Pardhi’s house and immediately overpowered and handcuffed him along with his uncle, Gangaram Pardhi, the husband of appellant No. 2, and started assaulting both of them. It is alleged that the police officials took Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi to the old Thana instead of the new Thana premises which has CCTV facilities. Both Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi were threatened and were subjected to intense third-degree treatment including beating by ropes, putting chilly powder, petrol, salt and hot water on their bodies. Deva Pardhi was strung up by ropes and was hung upside down from the roof. His face was covered with a black cloth which was tied to his ankle using a string. He was repeatedly doused with water in an attempt to suffocate him. By putting Deva Pardhi in fear of death, the police officials pressurized him to confess to the commission of theft as reported by Bhagwan Singh. Gangaram Pardhi tried to intervene saying that they did not have any idea about the so-called theft. Deva Pardhi was tortured in this manner for about three hours whereafter the rope was cut. Resultantly, Deva Pardhi fell from the roof onto the floor. Still, the police officials did not relent and continued to torture him. Hot water was thrown and salt was put on the wounds of Deva Pardhi who stopped responding to the torture stimuli upon which, the police officers pinched him. As no response was seen, the police officers took Deva Pardhi to another room. Later, an ambulance was called, and the police officials took Deva Pardhi to the hospital where he was declared dead.

We are constrained to observe that despite taking note of the large number of the injuries on the body of Deva Pardhi, the victim of custodial torture, the members of the Medical Board which conducted post-mortem on his body, failed to express any opinion regarding the cause of his death. This omission seems to be deliberate rather unintentional and appears to be a direct result of influence being exercised by the local police officials. The involvement of the police officials in the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is clearly borne out from the statement of the sole eye-witness Gangaram Pardhi and stands further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry.

These circumstances give rise to a clear inference that the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner.
Therefore, we deem it fit and essential to direct that the investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 shall forthwith be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

So far as the aspect of grant of bail to Gangaram Pardhi is concerned, we may observe that the underlying facts narrated supra clearly indicate that a deliberate attempt is being made to somehow or the other, implicate Gangaram Pardhi in multiple cases, one after the other, so as to keep him behind bars indefinitely, and break his spirit and the spirit of his family members thereby ensuring that the said person being the star witness of the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is not only demoralized but is also prevented from deposing against the errant police officials. In this background, we hereby give liberty to Gangaram Pardhi to directly move the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior for grant of bail in all the cases in which he has been implicated after the incident dated 13th/14th July, 2024. We, therefore, direct that the responsibility to provide safety and security to Gangaram Pardhi, either in prison or after being released on bail, shall be that of the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh.

 

Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/

#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #custodialdeath #transferofinvestigation #witnessprotection #policebrutlity #CBI #nemojudexincausasua

Key words/phrases: Custodial Death—transfer of investigation—witness protection—CBI—police brutality—nemo judex in causa sua

 

Leave a Reply

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

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.