What is custodial death?
Custodial death can be defined as the occurrence of death of an accused during pre-trial stage or after conviction while being held in police custody by either direct or indirect acts of the police while the accused is held up in their custody.
Custodial deaths, or deaths that occur while an individual is in the custody of the police or other law enforcement officials, are a serious violation of human rights and are considered a grave concern in India. The Indian Supreme Court has issued several guidelines and legal remedies to prevent such deaths and to hold those responsible accountable.
What are the statutory mechanisms that can be applied in case of custodial deaths?
In India, custodial deaths are considered a serious violation of human rights and are punishable under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The IPC provides for punishment for murder, while the CrPC lays down procedures for the investigation and prosecution of custodial deaths. In addition, the Supreme Court of India has issued guidelines in the landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, which lays down strict procedures to be followed in cases of arrest and detention, in order to prevent custodial deaths. These include the requirement to inform the family of the arrested person, medical examination of the arrested person, and the need for an independent investigation in case of custodial death.
Legislative safeguards against custodial deaths
The Indian Evidence Act
Section 24 and 25 of the Act states that confession from a police officer cannot be treated as evidence. Thus, making the confession obtained inadmissible before the court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure Code
Section 46 of the Act prohibits the police officials from causing death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life as a matter of right.
Section 49 prohibits the use of unnecessary restraint, that is “the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”
Section 54 directs “examination of the arrested person by medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person” which will establish the commission by any other person of any offence against his body.
Section 176 of the CrPC provides for the holding of an inquiry by a Magistrate in case of death in police custody. The Magistrate is required to hold an inquiry into the cause of death, and to submit a report of the same to the state government.
The Indian Penal Code
Custodial death is punishable under Section 304 of the IPC, which provides for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 330 makes it an offence to voluntarily cause hurt to extort confession.
Similarly, Section 331 makes it an offence to voluntarily cause grievous hurt to extort confession.
Section 348 makes it an offence to wrongfully confine any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined.
What are the legal Remedies available to the aggrieved persons?
Victims or their families can file a complaint with the police or the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in cases of custodial death. The NHRC has the power to investigate such cases, and can also recommend compensation to the victims' families.
In India, victims or their family also have a right to file a civil suit for compensation in a court of law. The court can award compensation for the loss suffered by the victim and his family, as well as for the mental agony and trauma suffered by them.
Custodial death is also a criminal offense, and the police officer or other officials responsible for the death can be charged and prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code, if they are found guilty.
Mechanism put in action after the occurrence of custodial death
In light of increasing custodial deaths in the country and the challenge of prosecuting the culprit police officials, the legislature introduced Section 176(1A) to the Code of Criminal Procedure through its 2005 amendment. The aforementioned Section comes into play when while in police custody either a person dies or disappears or an allegation of rape is alleged by a woman. The Section in addition to the investigation held by the police provides for a mandatory inquiry to be conducted by the judicial magistrate or the metropolitan magistrate. It is pertinent to note that all cases of disappearance, death and rape are to be mandatorily inquired by the judicial magistrate.
Is the family of the victim entitled to compensation?
One example of an Indian case law where the court held that victims or the families of custodial death victims can file a civil suit for compensation is the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the state is liable to pay compensation to the family of a person who dies in police custody. The court observed that the state has a constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of its citizens and that a violation of this obligation gives rise to a claim for compensation. The court further held that a civil suit for compensation could be filed under the Indian Constitution, specifically under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 32, which provides for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
It is important to note that this case law is a landmark case in India and set a legal precedent that families of custodial death victims can file civil suit for compensation.
NHRC guidelines on custodial death.
NHRC has issued guidelines to the District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police of every district that they should report to the Secretary General of the Commission about incidents of custodial deaths within 24 hours of occurrence or of these officers having come to know about such incidents. Failure to report the incident promptly raises the presumption of an attempt to suppress the incident.
Not only deaths in police custody but also deaths in judicial custody must be reported to the Commission
The Commission directs that all postmortem examinations performed in respect of custodial deaths and deaths in jails should be videographed and cassettes must be sent to the Commission along with the post-mortem report.
In order to filter out loopholes in filing autopsy form which often paved way to safeguard the interests of the accused police officials, the Commission has issued guidelines to adopt Model Autopsy in order to uniformise the postmortem report across all States and to make the report more comprehensive to prevent scope for doubt or manipulation.
The Commission also directed to bring some changes in respect to the conduct of inquests. Pertinently for the proper assessment of “Time since death” the Commission noted that “determination of temperature changes and development of Rigor Mortis at the time of first examination at the scene is essential.”
Supreme Court guidelines
Indian Supreme Court's stance on custodial death and the measures it has taken to prevent it.
1. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the arrest and detention of persons in custody, including the requirement that the arrest must be made in a reasonable and just manner, and that the arrested person must be informed of their rights.
2. In Prakash Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court directed the states and union territories to set up police complaints authorities to investigate complaints of police misconduct, including custodial death.
3. In the case of Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh the apex court held that the custodial death is a serious crime and it violates the human rights of an individual.
The Indian Supreme Court has laid down several guidelines to prevent custodial deaths and ensure that the rights of individuals in custody are protected.
1. One of the most significant cases in this regard is D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, in which the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the arrest and detention of persons in custody. These guidelines include the requirement that the arrest must be made in a reasonable and just manner, that the arrested person must be informed of their rights, and that they must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Additionally, the court ordered that an entry must be made in a register at the time of arrest, and that the arrested person must be examined by a doctor.
2. In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court directed the states and union territories to set up police complaints authorities to investigate complaints of police misconduct, including custodial death. This was a significant step in ensuring accountability for police officers involved in such misconduct.
What are the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal?
The Indian Supreme Court has issued guidelines in the landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, which lays down strict procedures to be followed in cases of arrest and detention, in order to prevent custodial deaths. The guidelines are as follows:
The police officer making the arrest must wear a clearly visible name tag, with his name and designation on it.
The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and of their rights under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, which includes the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a lawyer.
The arrested person must be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
The family of the arrested person must be informed of the arrest and the place of detention.
The arrested person must be medically examined every 48 hours while in police custody, by a qualified doctor.
The arrested person must be allowed to meet their lawyer while in police custody.
The police must maintain a detailed register of all persons arrested, which must be open for inspection by an independent authority.
The arrested person must be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
In case of death in police custody, a Magisterial inquiry must be held, in addition to the normal investigation.
The police personnel involved in the arrest and custody of the deceased person shall be suspended pending inquiry.
A copy of the post-mortem examination report must be given to the family of the deceased person.
Conclusion
Overall, the Indian Supreme Court has laid down several guidelines and legal remedies to prevent custodial deaths and to hold those responsible accountable. These guidelines include strict procedures to be followed during arrest and detention, the right to file a complaint and a civil suit for compensation, and the power to investigate and prosecute those responsible. It is essential for law enforcement agencies and officials to adhere to these guidelines and for citizens to be aware of their rights and the legal remedies available to them in case of custodial deaths.