Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 916

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Lahra Bai Tamre & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Chattisgarh And Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(S). 728 of 2026
Decided On : 12-08-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ambuj Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, A.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Yashvardhan Shah, Adv.

State cannot avoid liability for custodial death by pleading ignorance of judicial inquiry report; paltry compensation is inadequate; courts must direct independent investigation and prosecution of responsible officials, while awarding interim compensation to the family.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 176; Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 226 - Custodial death - Inquiry and compensation - Where a person dies in custody, a judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC is mandatory. The State authorities are bound to act promptly on the inquiry report; plea of ignorance of the report is false and reprehensible. Failure to register an FIR and investigate on the basis of the judicial inquiry report amounts to a cover-up and cannot be countenanced. Grant of a paltry compensation of Rs.1 lakh without directing prosecution of officials responsible for custodial violence is inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of the loss. (Paras 14, 15 and 17)

(B) Compensation - Interim measure - Deceased was the sole breadwinner and died an unnatural death due to violence suffered during custody. As an interim measure, compensation of Rs.25,00,000 directed to be paid to the petitioners; final quantum to be determined later. (Paras 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:
The deceased was arrested in connection with an excise offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years. He died while in custody after being transferred to a hospital. Post-mortem revealed multiple antemortem injuries including a head injury caused by a hard blunt object. A judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC held that death was caused due to complications from head injury. The High Court awarded compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the legal heirs but did not direct registration of an FIR or investigation. Hence the present petition.

Findings of Court:
The State authorities took a totally intransigent stance and falsely claimed that the judicial inquiry report had not been received by the police. The explanation was a cover-up. The medical report prepared at the jail omitted mention of the head injury and other injuries noticed in the post-mortem. The facts clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR and thorough investigation. The investigation into the custodial death was directed to be conducted by an independent investigating agency. The conduct of the State officials in failing to take appropriate steps shall be examined as part of the investigation. As an interim measure, the State was directed to pay Rs.25,00,000 to the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in awarding only Rs.1 lakh as compensation without directing registration of an FIR and investigation into the custodial death; whether the State authorities could avoid responsibility by pleading ignorance of the judicial inquiry report.

Ratio Decidendi: Custodial death is a violation of fundamental rights; the State is liable to pay compensation commensurate with the loss. The judicial inquiry report under Section 176 CrPC must be acted upon promptly. Failure to investigate and prosecute officials responsible for custodial violence is a grave dereliction. Courts must award adequate compensation and ensure accountability through independent investigation.

Result: Special Leave Petition disposed of with directions: registration of a criminal case and investigation to be conducted by an independent agency; all officials found responsible to be prosecuted; complete records to be transmitted; interim compensation of Rs.25,00,000 to be paid to the petitioners within four weeks; matter to be listed for further orders.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek investigation and compensation for custodial death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. facts establishing custodial death, injuries, judicial inquiry, and high court's limited compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court criticizes state authorities' intransigence and cover-up, emphasizing need for investigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. supreme court orders cbi investigation into custodial death and grants interim compensation of rs. 25 lakhs. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

ORDER :

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners herein, being the legal heirs, i.e., wife and children respectively of Late Shri Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre,¹[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘deceased’.], approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur,²[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.] by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.76 of 2024, seeking the following reliefs: -

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent police authorities to file the prosecution before the competent court on the basis of marg intimation and other relevant, documents which have been submitted by the petitioners in the instant petition. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to also direct the respondent police authorities to grant compensation amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the petitioners for their rehabilitation against custodial death of the deceased Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre who died after arresting by the police of Police Station Seepat/respondent No.5.”

3. In sum and substance, the petitioners were aggrieved of the rank inaction shown by the respondents in investigating the custodial death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi, and also sought a direction to the State to grant appropriate compensation to the petitioners.

4. The High Court while deciding the writ petition vide judgment dated 3rd October, 2024, held that Shri Shravan Suryavanshi was subjected to custodial violence and died as a result thereof. Inspite thereof, it granted meagre compensation quantified at Rs.1 lakh to the petitioners and completely overlooked the prayer made for directing action against the officers who were responsible for the custodial death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before us by way of this instant special leave petition.

Brief facts: -

5. The deceased was apprehended in connection with FIR No.47 dated 18th January, 2024, lodged at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. As per the FIR, the deceased was found in possession of three bottles, each having a capacity of 2 litres, containing raw Mahua liquor, i.e., a total quantity of 6 litres, valued at Rs.1,200/-. The deceased was arrested by Head Constable No.195, Uma Shankar Rathore, of Police Station Seepat and was taken to the police station along with the seized articles. Pursuant to his arrest and remand, the deceased was lodged at Central Jail, Bilaspur, from where he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, on 21st January, 2024, owing to deterioration in his health. He passed away on 22nd January, 2024 at about 6:00 a.m. while undergoing treatment. The dead body of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi was thereafter sent for post-mortem examination. The following injuries were noticed by the medical board constituted to conduct post-mortem upon the dead body: -

2. Laceration on the occipital scalp, measuring 4 × 2 × 0.5 cm, without stitches, accompanied by swelling and bleeding.

3. Swelling with redness just above the right wrist.

4. Swelling on both legs.

5. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the outer side of the right thigh, measuring 4 × 2 cm.

6. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 916

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAVIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.Lahra Bai Tamre & Ors. - PetitionersVersusState of Chattisgarh And Ors. - RespondentsSpecial Leave Petition (Crl.) No(S). 728 of 2026Decided On : 12-08-2026

State cannot avoid liability for custodial death by pleading ignorance of judicial inquiry report; paltry compensation is inadequate; courts must direct independent investigation and prosecution of responsible officials, while awarding interim compensation to the family.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Lahra Bai Tamre & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Chattisgarh And Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(S). 728 of 2026
Decided On : 12-08-2026