Author: Manoj Kumar Yadav , Narayan Uccha Shiksha Sansthan Law College , Jhalwa , Prayagraj.
TO THE POINT
Custodial death is one of the most egregious instances of state excess, directly violating the core principles of human dignity, the rule of law, and constitutional governance. The phenomenon is the death of an individual while under the supervision, control, or custody of law enforcement or correctional personnel, such as in jails, police lock-ups, court custody, or while being transported following an arrest. Such homicides strike at the heart of a democratic society because of the victim’s extraordinary vulnerability and the State’s elevated duty of care and protection.
In a constitutional democracy where the concept of limited state authority is upheld, custodial death is both a criminal wrong and a constitutional tort. This suggests that when people are robbed of their freedom, the State is directly accountable for failing to preserve their life and liberty. The coercive powers of the police and jail administration are not intended to encourage extrajudicial retaliation, brutality, or torture; rather, they are intended to facilitate investigations and maintain public order. Any abuse of this authority undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement agencies.
A person’s right to life and personal freedom does not expire when they are detained or arrested, according to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, once someone is placed under arrest, the State’s obligation to protect life becomes strict and inevitable. Judicial interpretation has always upheld custodial violence and death as egregious violations of Articles 21, 14, and 20(3), with consequences under both private and public law. The Indian Supreme Court has often declared that killings and torture in detention are immoral and inconsistent with civilized law.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Regional (India)
Unless there is a strong justification, custodial deaths are presumptively violations of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): guidelines for arrest, remand, and medical examination; court supervision required.
Judicial precedents and guidelines: The Supreme Court has created legally enforceable safeguards (procedural and investigative) where legislative procedures are insufficient; these are considered examples for State compliance.
International
UNCAT (Convention Against Torture) mandates that state parties criminalize torture, investigate allegations, and compensate victims.
An authoritative manual for the effective investigation and documentation of torture is the Istanbul Protocol, which outlines forensic, medico-legal, and procedural requirements to prove torture and abuse in detention.
THE PROOF
(A) Immediate, non-negotiable measures (preservation & chain of custody)
1. Preserve the scene and body—don’t tamper, take pictures, and protect police station and CCTV records (arrest memos, seizure memos, journal).
2. A medical examination of the accused, both while they are incarcerated and on a regular basis (D.K. Basu requirement). A pre-detention baseline is useful if at all possible.
3. Post-mortem autopsy: timely autopsy by one or more independent pathologists; thorough external and internal examination; radiography, histology, and toxicology as required. The autopsy report must specify the cause of death as well as the connection between injuries and probable causes. The Istanbul Protocol provides guidelines for documentation and interpretation.
(B) Documentary and institutional evidence
1. Remand orders, arrest documents, and detention diary entries—to establish a schedule for incarceration.
2. Verify entries in the notebook and charge sheet at the police station against other records.
3. Medical records of prior issues, prior notes, and hospital admissions.
4. Forensic reports that include, if relevant, toxicological, fracture dates, blood samples, and fingerprints. An appropriate chain of custody is crucial for samples.
(C) Witness and circumstantial evidence
statements from other prisoners, impartial witnesses, jail staff, and relatives who were informed of the arrest.
Movements and custody can be verified using CCTV footage, transport records, mobile phone location data, and jail logbooks.
(D) Professional judgment and forensic analysis
Connect injury patterns (such as antemortem fractures, patterned bruises, defensive wounds, and ligature marks) to attack processes rather than accidental causes. Expert witnesses must explain the estimated time of injury and whether the injuries match the alleged explanations.
ABSTRACT
Custodial death is a chronic danger to the rule of law and one of the worst violations of human rights. This article provides a brief overview of the local and international legal framework pertaining to custodial fatalities. It also examines important Indian jurisprudence that affects police accountability, explains institutional remedies and their limitations, defines the forensic and evidential evidence required to prove torture or death in custody, and concludes with practical recommendations and a succinct FAQ. The treatment is brief and legally textured, with an emphasis on policy makers, practitioners, and law students.
CASE LAWS
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
The most authoritative decision on police accountability and violence in jail is this one. The Supreme Court recognized that both death and torture in detention are flagrant violations of Article 21 and declared that torture in detention is an assault on human dignity.
2.Behera v. State of Orissa
In this case, the victim was taken into police custody before being found dead on a railroad track. The State denied any participation and asserted that the death occurred after discharge.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court pointed out that arrests are not a common practice when considering the issue of arbitrary arrests. The Court emphasized that unnecessary arrests lead to custodial violence.
4. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy
The issue was death while incarcerated. The state claimed sovereign immunity.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India
Although it was not a case of custodial death, this landmark decision addressed basic police reforms to improve accountability.
CONCLUSION
Custodial deaths are not merely criminal events; they are systemic failures and abuses of constitutional dignity. The legal framework—domestic rulings like D.K. Basu, Joginder Kumar, Nilabati Behera, and institutional directives in Prakash Singh—offers strong tools, but their efficacy depends on how they are implemented: prompt independent forensics, robust civilian oversight, and a prosecutorial will to discipline misbehaving officers. The technical standards offered by international agreements like the Istanbul Protocol and UNCAT should frequently be used by courts and investigators. Effective accountability requires prosecutorial independence, firm adherence to medico-legal protocol, and structural police reform based on civilian supervision.
FAQS
Q1: What immediate legal action should a family take after a death in prison?
Seek an independent inquiry (CBI/SIT); request an independent post-mortem or second autopsy; file a FIR (if denied, submit a writ or petition); ask the court to preserve the body and records; obtain temporary orders to maintain CCTV and police station logs.
Q2: Can the State avoid responsibility by arguing that the death was due to natural causes?
To bolster the natural-cause argument, the State must offer contemporaneous medical documents and a continuous chain of custody. When police explanations and postmortem results differ, courts often reject State arguments. Even in situations when criminal prosecution is still pending, courts may provide compensation because they acknowledge it as distinct constitutional remedies.
Q3: Do the D.K. Basu rules have legal force behind them?
Despite being developed as judicial instructions rather than statutory text, the D.K. Basu guidelines are binding in reality because courts have regularly maintained them and regarded their violation as proof of custodial abuse.
Q4: What is the purpose of the Istanbul Protocol?
The Istanbul Protocol provides forensic-medical legal guidelines for the investigation and documentation of torture. It is not a legally binding contract, despite the fact that forensic experts, human rights organizations, and courts depend on it as the accepted technical norm.
Q5: Who investigates accusations made against police officers?
To avoid conflicts of interest, the CBI, judicially overseen investigations, and special police investigative teams should preferably be separate entities. Courts have the power to mandate such transfers when the impartiality of local police is called into doubt.
