Custodial Torture And Deaths Torture And Custodial Death Prevention Act
🧾 1. Introduction: Custodial Torture and Deaths
Custodial torture refers to any act of physical or mental pain or suffering inflicted by police, prison officials, or any public servant having custody over a person.
Custodial deaths occur when a person dies while in police or judicial custody — often due to torture, negligence, or unlawful treatment.
In India, such acts violate:
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination
Article 22: Protection during arrest and detention
Article 14: Equality before law
India has not yet enacted a specific “Prevention of Torture Act,” though the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 was introduced (based on India’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, 1984) but lapsed. However, various judicial pronouncements, NHRC guidelines, and statutory provisions (like IPC §§ 330, 331, 302, CrPC §§ 176, 197) address the issue indirectly.
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework / Proposed “Torture and Custodial Death Prevention Act”
Although not yet enacted, such an act would aim to:
Define torture clearly as a criminal offence.
Prescribe specific punishments for custodial violence.
Provide for independent investigation of custodial deaths.
Ensure compensation and rehabilitation to victims.
Protect whistle-blowers and witnesses.
Currently, the following mechanisms exist:
Section 176(1A) CrPC: Mandatory judicial inquiry into every custodial death.
NHRC Guidelines (1993, 2010): Require reporting of all custodial deaths within 24 hours.
Compensation under public law remedy (Article 32/226) — as held in various Supreme Court judgments.
🧑⚖️ 3. Landmark Case Laws on Custodial Torture and Deaths
(1) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
D.K. Basu, executive chairman of Legal Aid Services, wrote to the Supreme Court expressing concern over growing incidents of custodial deaths and torture. The Court treated it as a PIL.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down 11 guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention, including:
Police must have clear identification and name tags.
Arrest memo must be prepared and attested by a witness.
Family or friend must be informed about the arrest.
Medical examination every 48 hours.
Copies of documents to be sent to Magistrate.
Significance:
This judgment became the cornerstone for custodial safeguards under Article 21. Any violation would attract departmental and criminal liability.
(2) Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
The petitioner’s 22-year-old son, Suman Behera, was taken into police custody and later found dead on railway tracks with multiple injuries.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the State is liable to pay compensation for violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21.
It rejected the idea that victims must seek remedy only through civil suits — holding that constitutional courts can grant monetary compensation directly.
Significance:
Established the principle of vicarious liability of the State in cases of custodial deaths and introduced compensation as a public law remedy.
(3) State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262
Facts:
A suspect was beaten in police custody, resulting in death. The trial court and High Court had given mild punishments to police officers.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court criticized the leniency of lower courts and enhanced the punishment, noting that:
“Police excesses and the brutality of custodial violence are crimes against humanity.”
Significance:
Reiterated that no one is above the law, and custodial violence must attract severe punishment to deter future violations.
(4) Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. (2005) 9 SCC 631
Facts:
Accused persons were subjected to brutal torture leading to death in custody. Witnesses turned hostile due to fear.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court observed that custodial torture is one of the worst forms of violation of human rights and that courts must approach such cases with caution but not leniency.
Significance:
Highlighted the difficulty of obtaining evidence in custodial death cases due to police solidarity and intimidation, urging circumstantial evidence to be given due weight.
(5) Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) 6 SCC 189
Facts:
Policemen were accused of carrying out a fake encounter, killing alleged criminals.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that fake encounters amount to cold-blooded murders, and police officers cannot claim protection under Section 197 CrPC (requiring sanction for prosecution of public servants).
Significance:
Affirmed that sanction is not required for prosecuting police in fake encounter or custodial death cases, since such acts are not part of official duty.
🧩 4. Key Takeaways
| Principle | Established Through | Essence |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest & Detention Safeguards | D.K. Basu Case | Procedural safeguards for every arrest |
| State Liability & Compensation | Nilabati Behera Case | State must compensate for custodial deaths |
| Accountability of Police | Shyamsunder Trivedi Case | Harsh punishment for guilty officers |
| Human Rights Protection | Munshi Singh Gautam Case | Torture = gross human rights violation |
| No Immunity for Fake Encounters | Prakash Kadam Case | No sanction protection for custodial murder |
🏛️ 5. Conclusion
While India lacks a standalone Custodial Torture and Death Prevention Act, the Supreme Court’s proactive role, constitutional guarantees, and statutory safeguards together provide a robust framework. However, recurring incidents show that implementation remains weak.
A dedicated Act — with strict liability, independent investigation mechanisms, and victim protection — is urgently required to ensure “custody does not become cruelty.”
RELATED Blog
0 comments