Kerala High Court slams police brutality, stating “custodial torture is the worst crime in a civilised society” and making it clear that lack of official sanction can’t be used to shield delinquent police officers from prosecution.
The Kerala High Court ruled that the absence of government sanction cannot excuse police officers from accountability for custodial torture of accused individuals.
The Court emphasized that police should not evade responsibility for custodial torture simply due to a lack of government approval to prosecute those officers involved.
According to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prior government sanction is typically required to prosecute police officers for actions taken in the course of their official duties.
Also Read: “Not Every Arrest Equals Custodial Torture,” Allahabad High Court Declares
However, Justice Kauser Edappagath firmly stated that this provision should not serve as a shield for custodial torture, as such acts can never be considered part of a police officer’s official responsibilities.
The Court’s judgment stated,
“The act of custodial torture inflicted by a police officer without justification on an arrestee cannot be shielded under the protective mantle of Section 197 of CrPC. It can never be said that a police officer acts or purports to act in discharge of his official duty when he inflicts custodial torture on an arrestee,”
The Court noted that custodial torture is among the gravest offenses in a civilized society governed by the rule of law, posing a significant threat to social order. Justice Edappagath urged the courts to adopt strong measures against such police misconduct, warning that failure to do so could undermine the entire justice system.
The judgment stated,
“The courts must not lose sight of the fact that custodial torture is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnish the image of any civilised nation and encourage the men in ‘Khaki’ to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve; otherwise, the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself,”
These observations were made while reviewing a revision petition filed by a woman named Sudha, who had been employed as a housemaid. She was accused by her employers of stealing gold sovereigns and was subsequently taken to the police station, where she endured over three hours of beatings and torture until her employers revealed that the gold had been found in their home.
Sudha was permitted to leave the police station only after being threatened with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident.
Despite this, Sudha filed a private complaint before a Magistrate Court, which found sufficient grounds to proceed against both her employers and the police officers under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, given that Sudha belonged to a scheduled caste while her employers were from an upper caste.
However, a sessions court later discharged all defendants, citing a lack of prima facie evidence against the employers and the absence of prior sanction to prosecute the police officers. Sudha then appealed to the High Court, challenging the sessions court’s decision.
The High Court noted severe injuries on Sudha’s body as documented in medical records after her release from the police station. The Court asserted that the actions of the police officers could not be justified as part of their official duties.
The judgment stated,
“There may be circumstances which may justify the use of force by the police while discharging their official duty. But that is not the case here. The custodial assault as alleged by the petitioner in detail in her complaint and sworn statement, can never be justified under the shelter of performance of official duty,”
Also Read: “Custodial Torture Should Be Avoided”|| Delhi High Court
Consequently, the High Court set-aside the sessions court’s ruling regarding the discharge of the police officers and directed it to frame charges and proceed with the trial against them.
Sudha was represented by advocates V Sajith Kumar, Josie Mathew, Neena J Kalyan, and Ammu M, while the police officers were represented by advocate AS Shammy Raj. Senior Public Prosecutor EC Bineesh appeared for the State.
Case Title: Sudha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Read Attachment