Custodial Death: Police Intended to 'Teach a Lesson,' Not Kill; Conviction Altered from S.302 to S.304 Part II IPC: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-07-22

Chhattisgarh HC Alters Murder Conviction of Cops in Custodial Death Case, Citing Lack of Intent to Kill

BILASPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has altered the murder conviction of four police personnel for a 2016 custodial death, holding that while they were responsible for the fatal assault, their intent was to "teach a lesson" rather than cause death. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari converted the conviction from Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC to Section 304 Part II (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder), reducing their sentence from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Court, however, upheld the trial court's finding that the victim, Satish Norge, died a homicidal death due to injuries sustained while in police custody. The bench dismissed a separate appeal filed by the victim's wife seeking conviction of the primary accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

---

Background of the Case: From Nuisance Call to Custodial Death

The case dates back to September 17, 2016, when Satish Norge was taken into custody by personnel from the Mulmula Police Station following a complaint that he was creating a nuisance at an electric sub-station while intoxicated.

The police team, including Sub-Inspector Jitendra Singh Rajput (A-1), Constables Sunil Dhruv (A-2) and Dilharan Miri (A-3), and Sainik Rajesh Kumar (A-4), took Norge for a medical examination. The initial medical report (MLC) by Dr. Rashmi Dahire (PW-11) noted that Norge was drunk but had no physical injuries.

Following the check-up, Norge was formally arrested. However, within hours, police records indicated his health deteriorated, and he began vomiting. He was taken back to the same community health centre, where he was declared "brought dead." A subsequent postmortem examination revealed a shocking 26 injuries, including multiple contusions and a ruptured liver, with the cause of death determined as cardio-respiratory arrest due to these injuries.

The trial court found all four personnel guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. It concluded that Norge died a homicidal death in police custody. However, it acquitted SI Rajput of charges under the SC/ST Act. This led to appeals by the convicted policemen and an acquittal appeal by Norge's widow, Usha Devi Norge.

---

Arguments Before the High Court

• Appellants (Police Personnel): The defense counsel argued that the cause of death was not conclusively proven as homicidal. They posited an alternative theory that a crowd of villagers had beaten Norge before the police arrived. As a final plea, they contended that even if the police were involved, there was no intention to kill, making it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), not murder.
• State of Chhattisgarh: The Additional Advocate General strongly opposed the appeals, arguing that the timeline and medical evidence proved Norge was unharmed when taken into custody and died due to a brutal assault by the appellants. He pointed to witness testimonies from the victim's family, who stated that Norge, in his final moments, had told them he was assaulted by the police.
• Usha Devi Norge (Victim's Wife): Her counsel argued that the trial court erred in acquitting SI Rajput under the SC/ST Act, as the officer knew the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

---

High Court's Analysis: Burden of Proof in Custodial Death

The High Court began its analysis by condemning custodial violence, referencing the landmark D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. judgment, stating, "Custodial death represents the gravest transgression of human dignity... When the protectors of the law become perpetrators of such cruelty, it signals a systematic breakdown of constitutional values."

The bench held that the defense's "beaten by crowd" theory was untenable, as the first medical report clearly showed no injuries on the victim. The 26 injuries found during the postmortem were inflicted after he was taken into police custody.

Invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act , the court underscored that the burden of explaining the circumstances of a death in custody lies with the police officials.

“It was within the specific knowledge of A-1 to A-4 as to how and in what circumstances he died and they ought to have explained in their statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, however, it could not be explained by A-1 to A-4 at all as to how and in what circumstances deceased Satish Norge sustained 26 injuries.”

The court affirmed the trial court's finding that this was a homicidal death that occurred in police custody, and the appellants were responsible.

---

The Crucial Distinction: Murder vs. Culpable Homicide

The pivotal part of the judgment was the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of the IPC. While the assault was brutal, the court examined the "intention" of the accused. Relying on precedents like Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana , which also involved police atrocities, the bench concluded that the act lacked the specific intention to cause death.

“In the present case, the accused persons... were aware that the beating given to the deceased could result in death, as the intention of the accused/appellants was to teach a lesson to the deceased who had dared to make nuisance..., though multiple injuries were caused on the body of the deceased person.”

The court determined that the accused had the "knowledge" that their act was likely to cause death, which falls under the third part of Section 299 IPC and is punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

---

Final Verdict

1. Conviction Altered: The Court allowed the criminal appeals in part, altering the conviction of Jitendra Singh Rajput, Sunil Dhruv, Dilharan Miri, and Rajesh Kumar from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC .
2. Sentence Reduced: The sentence of life imprisonment was set aside and replaced with ten years of rigorous imprisonment . The fine imposed by the trial court was kept intact.
3. Acquittal Under SC/ST Act Upheld: The acquittal appeal filed by Usha Devi Norge was dismissed. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the offence was committed "knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste," a necessary ingredient under the amended Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.