On January 20, a division bench of the Bombay High Court presided over by Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase, ruled that in order for a death to be deemed a "custodial death," it is not necessary for the injuries to have taken place inside a police station or at a field office; rather, they must have happened while the deceased was in some capacity in the custody of the police.

The mother of a 23-year-old man who passed away in 2018 after being assaulted by two police officers received Rs. 15,29,600 in damages from the court. It further stated that the State could seek payment from the accountable officers.

The division bench said:

“ For custodial death it need not be the injuries which are inflicted in a Police Station or an Out Post. In custodial death the injuries should have been inflicted when the person was in any way in the custody of the police officer and, therefore, we take the inquiry report given by learned Magistrate as the strong piece of evidence to support the contention of the petitioner that death of Pradip was a custodial death, which is one of the heinous crimes.”

The court underlined the statement made by the Apex Court that death in custody is one of the worst crimes in a civilised society by citing D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

The court added, “though police have powers to control the actions of the people and the crime; yet, it is not unfettered under the guise of exercise of the said power they cannot torture or deal with a citizen in inhuman manner. The State is the protector of the life of its citizens if it’s employee undertakes torturous act under the guise of power, then it has to compensate such citizen or legal representative of such citizen.”

The petitioner claims that she was riding a tractor hauling sugarcane with her son, the victim, his wife, and his cousin. Police allegedly stopped the tractor because "he was playing a song in a tape recorder through a speaker" and the sound was loud. The accused then attacked the victim, who later passed away on the scene. As a result, the petitioner went to the top court.

Head trauma, neck compression, and injuries to both lungs were the cause of death. The two police officers were charged with an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (a punishment for murder).

According to witness accounts, a police chief constable struck the dead with a stick that was between three and four feet long while he was still sitting at the tractor's driving wheel. He was physically assaulted by a different police officer. He was then taken into the outpost police station by the group. After a while, he was brought to the hospital, where his death was pronounced.

The petitioner, the dead, and the other passengers in the tractor did not know the cops, the court ruled, therefore there is no need to accuse them. According to the witnesses, the assault was committed using fist, kicks, and a stick, the report said.

The medical professionals' claims that the deceased had no exterior injuries and no signs of assault were relied upon by the accused cops. The court did point out that there was no issue of subsequent injury infliction because others were with the family when the dead was transported to the hospital. Furthermore, it was observed that the post-mortem examination indicated 43 external injuries prior to death.

“Therefore, that evidence is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that those injuries were inflicted by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Those injuries were inflicted when Pradip was sitting on tractor, then he was taken inside the Out Post and, therefore, it amounts to custodial death,” said the court.

The accused cops had no justification to stop the tractor, according to the court. “When there was no reason for interception and then no reason for police atrocities, there is violation of fundamental rights of the deceased. Therefore, grant of compensation in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.”

The procedure for deciding compensation in situations involving auto accidents was used by the court to make its decision. In addition to providing Rs. 13,29,600 for reliance and lost income, it also provided Rs. 2,000 for police brutality and the violation of fundamental rights.

Case Title-Sunita w/o Kalyan Kute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation– Criminal Writ Petition No. 1647 of 2019