Custodial Deaths and the Legal Battle for Accountability

Introduction

Law enforcement in India has historically served as the primary agency for maintaining order within the State. During the early and medieval eras, governance was typically in the hands of individual rulers or familial groups. The laws enacted were often those that the rulers deemed appropriate at any given time. The enforcement of these laws by the police essentially required strict adherence to the whims and wishes of the ruler. The foundational principle of governance in ancient India revolved around the concepts of Dharma and Danda, with designated officials responsible for upholding the ‘Danda.’ The term ‘violence’ refers to the state or quality of being violent, characterized by excessive, unrestrained, or unjustified force, often resulting in injury. In its most basic form, violence is defined as the application of force by one individual against another, leading to physical, mental, or other forms of harm. It encompasses behaviors intended to inflict injury on individuals or damage property. Custodial violence specifically refers to acts of violence perpetrated by police authorities against individuals in their custody. This form of violence can be described as an inhumane tendency driven by a distorted desire to inflict suffering when the victim is unable to retaliate, representing a senseless display of dominance and physical power over the vulnerable. The Law Commission of India recognizes that any crime committed by a public servant against a person who is arrested or detained constitutes custodial violence. While factors such as overcrowding, malnutrition, poor hygiene, and lack of medical attention contribute to deaths in police and judicial custody, custodial violence is the leading cause of fatalities in prisons and detention centers. This broad term refers to all forms of abuse, including torture, excessive force, harassment, and unlawful brutality. Instances of custodial violence can include illegal detentions, wrongful arrests based on inadequate grounds, coercive interrogation methods, humiliation, the use of offensive language, sleep deprivation, extortion of confessions, fabrication of evidence, and the abuse of power to restrict access to legal representation or family visits, as well as the denial of food and other basic rights.

Custodial Violence

Custodial violence is a term that remains undefined in legal frameworks. It combines the notions of “custody” and “violence.” The term “custody” signifies guardianship and protective care, and even in the context of arrest or detention, it does not inherently imply any wrongdoing during the custody period. Legal dictionaries define “custody” as the responsibility for a person, particularly in terms of judicial or penal confinement. The Chamber Dictionary indicates that custody refers to the situation of being held by law enforcement, whether through arrest or imprisonment. The Legal Glossary Dictionary describes custody as the detention of an individual under lawful authority. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure addresses two types of custody: police custody and judicial custody. According to Section 167(1), a magistrate may authorize the continued detention of an accused person, regardless of whether they have jurisdiction over the case.

The individual in question may be held in custody as deemed appropriate. However, the magistrate has the authority to permit the detention of the accused outside of police custody for a period exceeding 15 days if there are sufficient grounds to justify such an action. According to Section 167(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, police custody is limited to a maximum of fifteen days, primarily intended for interrogation purposes. Legally, a police officer has two opportunities to detain an individual: first, from the moment of arrest until the individual is presented in court, which is typically within the first 24 hours; and second, when the police obtain a remand from the court after the individual has been presented, which can last up to fifteen days. Following this period, the individual is transferred to judicial custody, commonly understood as jail or prison, where they remain until bail is granted or, if convicted, until the completion of their sentence. Legally, a person’s custody commences upon their arrest by the police.

Historical Aspect

Custodial violence, encompassing acts such as torture, death, and other abuses within police custody or prisons, is a longstanding issue that has persisted throughout history. Law enforcement agencies have historically engaged in such practices against prisoners, criminals, and those deemed wrongdoers. For instance, in ancient Indian history, rulers like Mahapadma Nanda from the Mauryan era imprisoned the entire family of Chandragupta Maurya, providing them with just enough food to sustain one person. Kautilya, in his work Arthashastra, describes various forms of torture, including limb burning, being torn apart by wild animals, and execution by elephants and bulls. During the Gupta period trial by ordeal was prevalent, and in the subsequent period, torture became a standard method of punishment for prisoners. An essential aspect to consider is that those who perpetrated heinous acts and immoral behavior were agents of the foreign government. Their judicial, law enforcement, and penal systems were crafted to benefit their own interests. In contemporary independent India, we still adhere to a similar framework and the same penal code, with few modifications. The police system in place is a continuation of the British model, established in 1861 to provide a low-cost force for the administration to suppress opposition. As a result, the police became synonymous with colonial oppression and were rightfully resented by the general public. Furthermore, the “Prison Act” enacted in 1894 remains largely intact, endowing prison officials with significant power to punish inmates for infractions. It seems that the attitudes of the populace, along with those of the police and government officials—both political and bureaucratic—have not changed significantly; the authority has merely transitioned from foreign rulers to our own leaders.

Causes of Custodial Violence

• Greed for money

The alarming rise in custodial torture is fueled by a particularly malicious motivation. At the police station level, many officers engage in violent tactics to extort money from both suspects and innocent individuals. The existing legal framework and the nature of evidence grant the Station House Officer (SHO) considerable power, creating an environment where his actions are perceived as final. This situation inadvertently allows him to demand bribes while avoiding scrutiny. The courts place significant weight on the First Information Report (FIR), but the content of the FIR is often dictated by the officer on duty. In cases of robbery investigations, an officer can easily threaten to implicate an innocent person, resort to physical abuse, or detain them at the station until they agree to pay. Oversight typically occurs only after incidents have transpired, and while there may be efforts to hold the officer accountable, it seldom rectifies the damage done or recovers any lost evidence. The relentless pursuit of money is a priority for many, reflecting a mindset that exists across various societal levels. As a result, the police system has become a chain of financial transactions linking ministers to officers. today, the police machinery often.

• Punitive violence

A small number of sincere yet misguided law enforcement officials believe in the necessity of ensuring that criminals do not escape justice. They are convinced that, apart from physical punishment, there is no viable method to manage criminal behavior. According to the U.P. Police Commission’s findings from 1970-71, there exists a considerable portion of the community that endorses the exclusive use of third-degree techniques for addressing criminal activity, particularly among hardened offenders. This perspective suggests that prison sentences fail to deter crime, as many offenders find prison life preferable to their circumstances outside, with their only real fear being police violence. It is not unusual to encounter public opposition to third-degree methods, calling for the implementation of ‘police methods’ in cases of particular concern.

• Work  pressure

In India, the police are tasked with navigating a complex and precarious environment marked by escalating law and order issues, including riots, political unrest, student agitation, terrorist activities, and a surge in bribery, corruption, tax evasion, fiscal law violations, smuggling, and money laundering. Organized criminal groups are solidifying their influence in society, utilizing cutting-edge weaponry and explosives to carry out crimes often without leaving evidence. Addressing the challenges posed by insurgent and terrorist organizations is markedly different from dealing with conventional criminals, as these groups are typically well-trained and armed with advanced weapons. A typical police officer, equipped only with a standard firearm, is often ill-equipped to confront such threats. As a result, skilled criminals can frequently evade capture. The Indian police force is currently limited not by its numbers but by inadequate infrastructure, including modern weaponry, transportation, communication networks, and, most importantly, specialized training that is crucial for improving their effectiveness in law enforcement. The law permits the detention of an suspect by police for a maximum of 24 hours. This period is critical for extracting vital information from the suspect, especially in property-related offenses, where the prosecution’s success is closely tied to the recovery of stolen goods. In many instances, investigating officers may choose to document the arrest only after several days of unrecorded and possibly illegal detention. As a result, the necessity to gather extensive information quickly can lead the investigating officer to adopt shortcut techniques.

Lack of proper training

The absence of adequate training for police personnel often results in the use of excessive force. The insufficient instruction provided to constables, along with a lack of emphasis on the importance of maintaining composure, civility, and respect for the public, are significant contributors to violent behavior. The Gore Committee on Police Training in 1972 asserted that one of the primary aims of training should be to instill a proper attitude towards the public, emphasizing that civil servants are meant to serve the community, not dominate it. Unfortunately, to this day, no sufficient training has been offered to achieve this goal. It is crucial for police officers to receive comprehensive training that includes a specific curriculum on human rights, reinforcing their duty to protect these rights rather than infringe upon them.

Conclusion

The right to life and personal liberty is an inherent right; nevertheless, the alarming frequency of custodial violence and fatalities contradicts this principle. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar, ruled that the state must compensate victims when fundamental rights are infringed. The right to compensation for custodial deaths was further reinforced in Nibati Mehera vs. State of Orissa, which is also recognized on an international level through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This leads to a critical inquiry: Can such violations truly be compensated? The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) prioritizes the prevention of torture in detention and the enforcement of regulations concerning custodial deaths. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives is often called into question. It is essential to reform the conditions of those in judicial custody and to take proactive measures to raise awareness among citizens regarding their fundamental rights. The installation and upkeep of CCTV systems to oversee police activities is vital. Moreover, the judiciary should impose strict penalties in these cases to strengthen the criminal justice system in India.