CUSTODIAL DEATH IN INDIA: AHUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS

Introduction

Custodial death remains one of the gravest human rights violations in India, representing the ultimate failure of the state’s duty to protect the life and liberty of individuals in its custody. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, declared that custodial torture is a “calculated assault on human dignity” and that the right against inhuman treatment by police is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Despite robust constitutional safeguards and landmark judicial interventions spanning three decades, the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data reveals approximately 90 deaths in police custody annually, with a total of 2,253 recorded between 1999 and 2023. Most alarmingly, only 3 convictions of police officers in custodial death cases occurred in 25 years — all in 2017 — with zero convictions from 2018 to 2023.

This article examines the constitutional and statutory framework with a comparative analysis of the old criminal law regime (IPC/CrPC) and the new codes (BNS/BNSS/BSA) effective from July 1, 2024, analyses landmark judicial precedents, evaluates the historic Sathankulam custodial murder verdict (2026), and proposes systemic reforms to bridge the gap between legal safeguards and ground-level accountability.

Constitutional Framework

The constitutional protection against custodial death is anchored in the following fundamental rights:

1. Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Supreme Court has consistently held that this encompasses the right to live with dignity, the right against torture, and the right to humane treatment in custody. In D.K. Basu, the Court held that state action must remain “right, just and fair.”
2. Article 22 — Protection Against Arrest and Detention: Mandates that every arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest, must not be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner, and must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
3. Article 14 — Right to Equality: The CCTV mandate in police stations (Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2020) was grounded partly in Article 14, ensuring equal protection of all persons in custody.
4. Article 20(3) — Protection Against Self-Incrimination: Custodial torture to extract a confession directly violates this constitutional guarantee.

Statutory Framework: Old Law vs. New Law — A Comparative Analysis

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 — all effective from July 1, 2024 — the criminal law framework governing custodial deaths has undergone a significant transition. Since the Sathankulam incident occurred in June 2020, it was tried under the old IPC/CrPC regime. However, all future custodial death cases will be governed by the new codes.

Substantive Offences: IPC vs. BNS

Key Observation: While the BNS largely mirrors the IPC in terms of punishment, Section 120 BNS represents a significant improvement over IPC Sections 330 and 331. The new provision explicitly broadens the definition of custodial torture to cover any person in authority, not just police, and provides a clearer statutory framework for prosecuting custodial violence. This addresses a long-standing gap identified by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu.

Procedural Safeguards: CrPC vs. BNSS

Critical Compliance Gap: Despite Section 176(1A) CrPC being in force since 2005, data indicate that only approximately 20% of custodial deaths were subjected to the mandatory judicial inquiry between 2005 and 2017. The Jharkhand High Court (February 2026) specifically examined 437 custodial death cases from 2018–2025 and reiterated that using Executive Magistrates instead of Judicial Magistrates for such inquiries is unlawful. The BNSS’s explicit requirement of JMFC inquiry aims to close this loophole.

Evidence Law: Indian Evidence Act vs. BSA

Key Gap: The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu recommended inserting Section 114B in the Evidence Act, creating a rebuttable presumption that injuries sustained in custody were inflicted by police. Despite the transition to the BSA, this recommendation remains unimplemented — a significant legislative gap that continues to burden victims’ families with proving police culpability.

Landmark Judicial Precedents

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

The Supreme Court issued 11 mandatory guidelines for arrest and detention, including: arrest memo attested by a witness, immediate family notification, visible identification of arresting officers, right to counsel, medical examination every 48 hours, and production before court within 24 hours. In its 2015 expansion, the Court directed CCTV installation in all police stations and operationalised Human Rights Courts under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

These guidelines have now been substantially codified in BNSS Sections 37 and 38 (arrest memo and right to inform). However, the CCTV mandate remains a judicial direction rather than a statutory requirement under the BNSS — a gap that needs legislative attention.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746

The Court held the State strictly liable for custodial death, establishing that sovereign immunity is not available as a defence. Compensation was awarded under Articles 32/226, creating the framework for constitutional tort liability.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684

Established the “rarest of rare” doctrine — the death penalty should only be imposed where the alternative of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.” The Court must weigh both the gravity of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal. Under the BNS, Section 103 retains the death penalty as the maximum punishment for murder, identical to IPC Section 302. The “rarest of rare” doctrine, being a judicial principle, applies equally under both regimes.

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2020) SCC OnLine SC

Mandated functional CCTV systems in all police stations with night vision, audio recording, and 18-month footage retention. Courts may draw adverse inferences against police when footage is missing. Compliance Status (2025–2026): In Uttar Pradesh, the DGP issued a June 2025 circular limiting CCTV storage to 2–2.5 months, which the High Court noted “prima facie runs in contempt” of the Supreme Court order. In November 2025, the Supreme Court reprimanded the government for widespread non-compliance.

Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631

Held that a realistic evidentiary approach must be adopted in custodial death cases — the burden effectively shifts to the police to explain the circumstances of death, since direct evidence is rarely available within police stations. Under the BSA, Section 63 (replacing Section 65B of the Evidence Act) strengthens the framework for electronic evidence, making CCTV footage more readily admissible. However, this is only useful if the footage exists — hence the critical importance of the Paramvir Singh Saini mandate.

State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262

The Supreme Court held that there is “no room for leniency” for police officers acting under the “shield of uniform” who commit custodial violence.

Hansura Bai v. State of M.P., (2025) SCC OnLine SC

The Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement reaffirmed the Munshi Singh Gautam principle, holding that the standard of proof in custodial deaths must be applied realistically, recognising the inherent difficulty in obtaining direct evidence from within police stations.

The Sathankulam Custodial Murder Case (2020–2026)

Facts

On June 19, 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, P. Jayaraj (58) and his son J. Bennix (31), a mobile shop owner in Sathankulam, Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu, were arrested for allegedly keeping their shop open past curfew hours. At the Sathankulam Police Station, Inspector S. Sridhar and other officers brutally tortured the father and son for over six and a half hours through the night.

Head Constable S. Revathy — the sole female officer and a key prosecution witness — testified to seeing “blood splattering on the walls” as the victims cried out. The victims were stripped, sexually humiliated, beaten with wooden lathis and metal pipes, and forced to clean the station floor with their blood-soaked clothes. No medical aid was provided; instead, coconut oil was applied on wounds to mask injuries.

Bennix was produced before the magistrate on June 20 with 18 visible injuries and a bloodstained blanket. Despite this, both were remanded to custody. Bennix died on June 22, 2020, and Jayaraj on June 23, 2020, from haemorrhagic shock and multiple blunt injuries.

Investigation and Chargesheet

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) took suo motu cognizance on June 24, 2020, and the investigation was transferred to the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) on July 7, 2020. The CBI chargesheet (September 25, 2020) charged nine surviving officers under IPC Sections 302, 323/325, 201/211, 166/167, and 120B.

Applicable Law Note: Since the offence occurred between June 19 and June 23, 2020 — well before the BNS came into force on July 1, 2024 — the trial was conducted entirely under the IPC and CrPC. Under the BNS, the equivalent charges would be Section 103 (murder), Sections 115/117 (hurt/grievous hurt), Section 238 (destroying evidence), Section 234 (false charge), Section 237 (incorrect record), and Section 61 (criminal conspiracy).

Conviction (March 23, 2026)

Judge G. Muthukumaran (First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai) convicted all nine officers of murder under IPC Section 302, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the defence’s claim that the deaths were from natural causes.

Death Sentences (April 6, 2026)

Applying the “rarest of rare” standard from Bachan Singh, the Court sentenced all nine to death, observing:

“Those entrusted with protecting the public… committed a crime that shook the collective conscience of society.”

“If ordinary citizens had done this crime, ordinary punishment would suffice… but police themselves have committed the crime.”

Why This Case Qualifies as “Rarest of Rare”

1. Breach of Public Trust: Police officers occupy a constitutional position of trust under Article 21, and when protectors become perpetrators, the breach is qualitatively different from ordinary murder.
2. Helplessness of Victims: Persons in custody are entirely at the mercy of custodial authorities, making this akin to killing defenceless persons.
3. Systematic Brutality: The torture was sustained over seven hours, involved multiple officers acting in conspiracy, and was followed by deliberate evidence destruction.
4. Triviality of Alleged Offence: The victims were arrested for a minor lockdown violation warranting at most a small penalty — the disproportionality was extreme.
5. Cover-Up: Officers fabricated remand notes, destroyed blood evidence, erased CCTV footage, and applied cosmetic measures to mask injuries.

Procedural Status and Appellate Trajectory

This is a Sessions Court judgment subject to: mandatory confirmation by the Madras High Court under CrPC Section 366; potential appeal to the Supreme Court under Articles 132/136; and mercy petition to the Governor (Article 161) or President (Article 72). No Supreme Court precedent exists for death sentences in custodial torture cases. The appellate proceedings will determine whether custodial killings by police can constitute the “rarest of rare” category as binding precedent.

Compensation and Remedies

Policy Recommendations

1. Enact a Standalone Prevention of Torture Act: Ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and incorporate its definition into domestic law with mandatory minimum sentences.
2. Codify the Presumption of State Culpability: Enact the proposed Section 114B (to be incorporated in the BSA), creating a rebuttable presumption that injuries in custody were caused by custodial authorities.
3. Mandatory CCTV Compliance: Convert the judicial mandate from Paramvir Singh Saini into a statutory requirement under the BNSS, with centralised cloud storage and automatic alerts for camera malfunctions.
4. Independent Investigation Agency: Establish a dedicated statutory body for investigating all custodial deaths, removing the self-investigation paradox identified in Hansura Bai v. State of M.P.
5. Operationalise Human Rights Courts: As directed in the 2015 D.K. Basu judgment, activate courts under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in every district.
6. Fast-Track Prosecution: Institute mandatory timelines for custodial death trials to prevent prolonged proceedings.

Conclusion

The Sathankulam verdict is historic — nine police officers sentenced to death for custodial murder, the first such outcome in India’s legal history. By classifying the crime as “rarest of rare,” the Madurai Sessions Court sent an unambiguous message that those entrusted with upholding the law will face the harshest consequences when they betray that trust.

The transition from the IPC/CrPC regime to the BNS/BNSS/BSA framework brings meaningful improvements: BNS Section 120 broadens the definition of custodial torture, BNSS Section 196 strengthens the mandatory JMFC inquiry requirement, and BSA Section 63 improves electronic evidence admissibility. However, critical gaps remain — the absence of a standalone anti-torture law, the failure to codify the presumption of state culpability (proposed Section 114B), and the continued non-compliance with CCTV mandates.

The path from D.K. Basu’s preventive guidelines (1997) to the Sathankulam death sentence (2026) represents nearly three decades of evolving jurisprudence — from prevention to punishment, from guidelines to gallows. Yet, as the data shows — 2,253 custodial deaths and only 3 convictions in 25 years — the crisis is not one of legal architecture but of implementation and accountability. True justice requires not just landmark verdicts but systematic transformation: independent investigation, functional oversight, legislative reform, and an unwavering judicial commitment to ensuring that the constitutional promise of Article 21 becomes a lived reality for every person who enters state custody.

Bibliography

Cases

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 (India).
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 (India).
• Hansura Bai v. State of M.P., (2025) S.C.C. OnLine S.C. (India).
• Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 S.C.C. 631 (India).
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746 (India).
• Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2020) S.C.C. OnLine S.C. (India).
• State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 S.C.C. 262 (India).

Statutes

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
• Constitution of India, 1950.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (India).

Reports and International Materials

• Law Comm’n of India, Rep. No. 273, Implementation of the UN Convention Against Torture (2017).
• Nat’l Crime Recs. Bureau, Crime in India (1999–2023).
• Nat’l Hum. Rts. Comm’n, Annual Reports.
• United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984.