Custodial Torture Offences
What is Custodial Torture?
Custodial torture refers to the physical or mental abuse inflicted on a person while in police custody or judicial custody, often to extract confessions, punish, intimidate, or humiliate. It is a grave violation of human rights and is prohibited under Indian law and international human rights instruments.
Legal Provisions Addressing Custodial Torture
Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection from torture.
Section 330 & 331 IPC: Punish causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property.
Section 342 IPC: Wrongful confinement.
Section 166 IPC: Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury.
Section 368 IPC: Wrongful confinement or assault in custody.
Section 176 CrPC: Non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant.
Section 197 CrPC: Prior sanction for prosecution of public servants.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Prohibits using confessions made under coercion as evidence.
International Instruments
India is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which condemns torture in any form.
Why Custodial Torture is a Serious Offence
It violates fundamental rights.
Leads to false confessions and miscarriage of justice.
Damages public confidence in law enforcement.
Has physical and psychological consequences on victims.
Important Case Laws on Custodial Torture Offences
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
The petitioner challenged rampant custodial torture and deaths in police custody.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down mandatory guidelines for arrest and detention, including:
Right to inform family and lawyer.
Medical examination at time of arrest.
Police diary recording.
Compensation for victims of torture or death.
Significance:
Landmark judgment aimed at preventing custodial torture.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550
Facts:
The accused complained of torture to extract confession.
Judgment:
The Court held confessions obtained through torture are inadmissible and emphasized protection against custodial abuse.
Significance:
Strengthened safeguard against coercive interrogation.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
The petition highlighted police torture in the encounter killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court observed custodial torture as a violation of constitutional rights and directed inquiry and action against offenders.
Significance:
Reaffirmed zero tolerance for custodial torture.
4. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
The case was about police reforms to curb abuses like custodial torture.
Judgment:
The Court issued directions to states for reforms including:
Accountability of police officers.
Proper training.
Prevention of custodial torture.
Significance:
Recognized custodial torture as systemic and prescribed reforms.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
The issue was about involuntary narco-analysis and other tests amounting to custodial torture.
Judgment:
The Court held that compulsory narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping violate Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
Significance:
Protected the right against self-incrimination and custodial torture.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Key Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | Custodial torture guidelines | Set procedural safeguards for arrest | Laid down mandatory guidelines |
| State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Jain | Confession obtained under torture | Confession under torture inadmissible | Strengthened protections |
| PUCL v. State of Maharashtra | Encounter killing and police torture | Zero tolerance for custodial torture | Directed inquiry and action |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India | Police reforms to prevent torture | Systemic reforms mandated | Ordered police reforms |
| Selvi v. State of Karnataka | Involuntary narco-analysis as torture | Violates constitutional rights | Banned involuntary tests |
Additional Notes:
Custodial torture remains a serious concern despite legal safeguards.
Courts have emphasized compensation and rehabilitation for victims.
Police accountability and independent oversight are crucial.
Custodial torture is linked to violation of Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 20(3) (Protection against self-incrimination).
RELATED Blog
0 comments