SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 99

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Vaidyanathan, J
Kasthuri – Appellant
Versus
Police – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 351 of 2010



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Sathia Chandran
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Shanmugha Velayudham, Mr. I. Subramanian, Mr. A. Raghunathan, Dr. A.E. Chelliah, Mr. N.R. Elango, Mr. Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju

Judicial inquiries under Section 176(1A) of the CrPC must be independent of police investigations, addressing wider issues associated with custodial deaths and ensuring proper accountability for police actions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 176(1A) - Custodial death - Inquiry into cause of death conducted by Judicial Magistrate - Allegations of police excesses leading to death - Court mandated an independent investigation by CB CID when the inquiry report was not comprehensive - The earlier government decision to drop action found illegal. (Paras 38 and 41)

(B) Judicial inquiry vs. police investigation - The inquiry under S.176(1A) allows a wider scope beyond mere cause of death, while traditional inquests under S.176(1) have a more limited focus - Judiciary must not merge with Executive, ensuring independence. (Paras 18 and 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged police torture resulting in the death of her husband, taken into custody on 16.08.2010. The police claimed the decedent died due to a natural cause after attempting to escape. Testimonies indicated discrepancies in police accounts and pointed to possible police misconduct. (Paras 1, 4 and 39)

Findings of Court:
The Court highlighted the ineffectiveness of the inquiry conducted by the police and the subsequent inquest. No thorough investigation was executed by the police despite custodial death allegations. Therefore, the case was directed for investigation by CB CID. (Paras 10, 38 and 41)

Issues: Whether the police actions led to the death and if a thorough investigation was warranted following the findings of the Judicial Magistrate’s inquiry under S.176(1A). (Paras 10 and 38)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for independent investigations in custodial deaths, asserting that inquiries must remain separate from police procedural actions, reaffirming the principle of judicial independence. (Paras 30, 39 and 41)

Result: Petition allowed and further investigation ordered. (Para 41)

1. This is a case of custodial death. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased - Ravi. They belong to a Scheduled Caste. On 16.08.2010, at about 01.00 a.m., when her husband was with her at her house at Parinthal Village, few police constables barged into their house and took her husband in a vehicle. When the petitioner questioned them, they told her that they were taking him for the purpose of an enquiry in connection with a case. It is further alleged that they snatched away a gold chain from the petitioner and also removed certain other properties from her house. On 17.08.2010, she told her sister - in - law - Mrs. Chitra about the occurrence. She came to know that her sister - in - law's husband had also been taken to the police station. On 18.08.2010, according to her, seven police constables came to her house and forced her to sign in a blank paper. Then, to her shock, they informed her that her husband was no more and his body was kept in the mortuary of the Government Hospital at Cuddalore. They wanted her to appear for enquiry to be held by the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer. She further alleges that on 19.08.2010 at 05.00 a.m. she informed one Mr. Raju about the occurrence and also had discussion with the other leaders of her community in respect of the next action to be taken. After autopsy, the body of the deceased was handed over to her at 06.00 p.m. In this regard, she made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and others alleging that her husband had fallen a victim of police torture.

2. The respondent - Police, have a different story. According to the respondent police, one Mr. Thiruvengadam, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Pudupet Police Station was deputed for nabbing the accused involved in the theft case in Crime No. 95 of 2010 on the file of Nellikuppam Police Station. When the police party headed by Mr. Thiruvengadam was searching for him, at about 03.00 p.m. on 18.08.2010, the deceased was found moving on the road leading to Sathipattu Village. He was surrounded and taken into custody by the Sub Inspector of Police Mr. Thiruvengadam. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, confessing to his involvement in many occurrences involving theft. When personal search was made, it was found that he had tied to his hip eight sovereigns of gold jewels. It is further stated by the respondent police that the Sub Inspector of Police was taking him towards Nellikuppam. When they were nearing the village border of Sathipattu Village, the deceased - Ravi complained to the Sub Inspector of Police that he had developed chest pain and he wanted to urinate. Therefore, he was allowed to get down from the vehicle. On getting down from the vehicle, according to the police, he started running with a view to escape. So, the Sub Inspector of Police along with the other policemen, who were with him chased the deceased. While running fast, it is alleged that accidentally, he fell into a deep pit. On reaching the pit, the Sub Inspector of Police and other police constables found the deceased unconscious. He had sustained injuries on his right ankle and fingers. As a first aid, the police gave him water. But, he did not open his eyes. Therefore, the police rushed him to the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Cuddalore at 05.20 p.m. But, the Doctor who examined the deceased - Ravi declared him already dead. The body was sent to the mortuary.

3. On returning to the police station, the Sub Inspector of Police submitted a special report to the Inspector of Police narrating the above occurrence. On such report, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 135 of 2010 under S.176(1A) of The Code of Criminal Procedure [herein after referred to as 'the Code']. Since it was a custodial death, the Inspector of Police forwarded the FIR to the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore. Simultaneously, as per the existing general instructions of the Director General of






































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top